Gravitymaster 0 #51 February 8, 2006 QuoteQuoteThe Muslims are not afraid to die for their religion... the extremists of Islam woiuld like to kill every non member of islam.... If you get nukes in their hands even if they know it will be the end of the world, they may view that as what Allah wants them to do Those Muslims are a very small minority of the billion or so Muslims. And they would not be the one's with their finger on the big red button, nor would they be likely to let extremists anywhere near their nukes. Mikes point is that even the most volatile and extreme nations mellow noticably when they get nukes. There is nothing to suggest that Iran would behave any differently. Apparently you are very out of touch with some of the recent statements by Iranian President Ahmadinejad and his desire to ressurect the Islamic Caliphate. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
miked10270 0 #52 February 8, 2006 Quote"We will either be at war with IRAN in the not Too distant future tyring to stop them from obtaining nukes, or, we will be at war with Iran for other reasons farther in the future when they do have Nukes. This is the decision the world faces.... It is not a question of whether we want to fight Iran, but when" Hmmm... Who said that? The reason I ask is twofold: 1: If you stepped back in time, wouldn't you have heard similar statements about The Soviet Union? China? The reason there wasn't a war was that they were nuclear powers. Both sides suddenly found that going to war meant that both sides had too much to lose! The result was Detente, and Communism collapsed because the western mix of Capitalism with a soupcon of Socialism was shown to be superior to Autocracy. NOT BY DRIVING ARMOURED DIVISIONS TO MOSCOW! 2: Imagine you're an Iranian listening to that statement! You face a technically & numerically superior force who has stated it's intention to invade & subjurgate you in the near future! You KNOW you'll lose a conventional war, so how can you defend your nation. Your choices are either "Guerilla-War" (terrorist attacks?) or "Nuclear-Deterrent". Incidentally, speaking as the potential invader, would you prefer being unable to conquer Iran because they had nukes, or conquering Iran and their fighting back using Guerilla/Terrorist tactics? Remember that throughout history, countries with "comfortable" populations haven't gone to war. Countries in EXTREME situations have resorted to extreme measures! Because of all the historical precedents, I'd prefer Iran to feel secure & comfortable, and I understand their beliefs that they need nuclear weapons to feel that. Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #53 February 8, 2006 What if you are wrong? Then what? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
miked10270 0 #54 February 8, 2006 QuoteWhat if you are wrong? Then what? I'm not wrong. That's that! Sorry for attacking your question, but since Stalin wouldn't start a nuclear war when he had nuclear parity with America (despite having a degree of personal power in Russia which simply couldn't be duplicated today), Mao wouldn't start a nuclear war, Kruschev was deposed by his own politburo for being too "adventurous" & risking a nuclear war, Pakistan & India STOPPED fighting wars once they had nukes.... WHAT makes you think that Iran will act any differently? Psychosis? Hatred of America? The ability to? (Stalin had that in droves.) Religious war? (Pakistan was fighting one against Indian unbelievers). Like I said before, obtaining Nukes changes a countrys foreign policy. Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
juanesky 0 #55 February 8, 2006 You must have the latest crystal ball model available in GB, don't you?"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #56 February 8, 2006 I think you are discounting the effects of fanaticism too much. Do you believe Hitler would have used a nuclear weapon if he's had one? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
miked10270 0 #57 February 8, 2006 QuoteYou must have the latest crystal ball model available in GB, don't you? Ah!... "GB" as in Great Britain. For a minute i was thinking "George Bush"! No. I'm basing my views on historical precedent. On what EVERY national leader (see previous caveat regarding truman), even the US-Hating-Psychopaths, have done once they gained nuclear weapons. Would Hitler have used one? Yes, if he were first to have one then I think he'd have acted as Truman did. Otherwise, only if he'd already been pushed into a position where he had nothing to lose. You see, what nuclear weapons DO is prohibit any aggressor from completely defeating you. They make Clausewitz's hypothesy of a completely total & therefore pointless war a real possibility. "Everything is destroyed and so nothing is gained". Because the war is pointless, there's no point is starting it! We've already discussed Stalin's view on nuclear war. Let's look at some more... On ascending to The Presidency in 1953, Eisenhower actively sought a way to bring atomic weapons onto the battlefield: "In any combat when the things can be used on strictly military targets and for strictly military purposes, I can see no reason why they shouldn't be used just exactly as you would use a bullet or anything else." By 1956, Eisenhower was saying: "War implies a contest.... (but what kind of contest is it when) ... the outlook comes close to destruction for the enemy and suicide for ourselves." By 1959, Eisenhower was saying: "You might as well go out and shoot everyone you see and then shoot yourself." The result of 8 years of study of nuclear war options by the greatest military strategist of the 20th Century (Eisenhower) resulted in a single plan for nuclear weapons which consisted basically of: "1; If war starts, use them all. 2; So DON'T let a war start!" Churchill (who counselled America to provoke a military confrontation with The Soviet union when America had an atomic monopoly) & Malenkov came to the same conclusion at almost the same time: "The implications of "Equality in Annihilation" are clear. because a war fought with nuclear weapons would destroy what it was intended to defend, such a war must never be fought". In EVERY case, a common sense of nuclear danger has transcended differences in cutlure, nationality, ideology, morality, and even character. If you look at the people who HAVE had their fingers on the Nuclear-Button since 1945 (or should that be 1949), then Ahmadinejad actually fits in at the safer end of the spectrum. Far worse than him have quailed at the prospect of nuclear war and changed their attitude. The only reasonable result of Iran obtaining atomic weapons is that an American/European coalition invasion would be precluded. The "Non-Invasion" scenario works for the Iranians, why doesn't it work for The Coalition? Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
juanesky 0 #58 February 8, 2006 Yes, an airtight theory that rightly excludes the possibility of aiding shadowy networks, because of the current proven Iran' record in government of never allying itself with an obscure group that hates US-Western civilization. We can rest assure that the world will be a great one from this point on!!! Can we all hold hands now?"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #59 February 9, 2006 QuoteQuoteWhat if you are wrong? Then what? I'm not wrong. That's that! Sorry for attacking your question, but since Stalin wouldn't start a nuclear war when he had nuclear parity with America... Stalin was not a fundamentalist lunatic religious nut who believes that his religion preaches the destruction of all infidels. Whether that IS or IS NOT "true islam" is irrelevant. Whether 99.999% of the "billion or so" muslims believe that way or not is also irrelevant. Just imagine if it's true that the tiny handful or radical islamists are really just that, a tiny handful. And they're creating THIS much trouble on the world stage... --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #60 February 9, 2006 QuoteLike I said before, obtaining Nukes changes a countrys foreign policy. Mike. Um, we have had the opportunity to watch this change occur in how many countries in the history of mankind? There are hundreds of countries, and only a handful with "the Bomb." Would you call our observation of the changes it makes in a country's policies statistically significant at this point? What if we attempted a study of breast cancer causing chemicals and included, say, 5 women, and found that cigarette smoke had failed to cause cancer in all five, could you conclude that cigarette smoke will never cause breast cancer? --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
