Is a nuclear Iran bad for the world?

C

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
nitro harley said:
Irans people are more than likely scared to death of what there leaders will do with nukes...They had a front row seat when we marched into Bagdad in less than a week, so they should really be scared if they want to take on the world by bombing Israel..The young Iranians, they are smart enough to know that there leaders could be risking everything, and it will not end well for them..If there citizens were armed like we are there voices might be heard a little bit more...
Click to expand...
Iran never had any intention of bombing Israel

There whole program was to develop a nuke as part of a MAD strategy.
 
Red1966

Red1966

Well-Known Member
ChesusRice said:
Iran never had any intention of bombing Israel There whole program was to develop a nuke as part of a MAD strategy.
Click to expand...
Yet they have publicly and frequently announced their intent to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth. Perhaps by "mutually assured destruction", they really mean "mutually assured destruction". Liar
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Canna Sylvan said:
Rob, did you forget to read that Spooner essay where he says the community comes together to put a rowdy drunk causing mischief to stay in jail over night until he sobers up, even by force? Quite the communist.
Click to expand...


I grew up in a post world war II cold war era and remember my dad being "away" during the cuban missle crisis. He was in the military and there was a high alert status for a time. I have no great love of nuclear weapons in the hands of any gang. It's a dangerous situation for all people, no doubt. I would point out the only gang to use nukes against innocent people is the gang that occupies the North American continent.

I don't know what the solution is given the present status of who can and cannot have nuclear weapons. I'm just pointing out that it is hypocritical for one gang to say it is okay for themselves to have nukes, but not others.

As far as the rowdy drunk, it seems to me the "drunks" are the people regardless of where they are that seek domination over others. I don't make a divide of "good or evil" over "nationality". Therefore the community exists in the commonality of the idea, not the limitation of a physical area defined as a country or "turf". You do extra points for reading Spooner.
 
Red1966

Red1966

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
I grew up in a post world war II cold war era and remember my dad being "away" during the cuban missle crisis. He was in the military and there was a high alert status for a time. I have no great love of nuclear weapons in the hands of any gang. It's a dangerous situation for all people, no doubt. I would point out the only gang to use nukes against innocent people is the gang that occupies the North American continent. I don't know what the solution is given the present status of who can and cannot have nuclear weapons. I'm just pointing out that it is hypocritical for one gang to say it is okay for themselves to have nukes, but not others. As far as the rowdy drunk, it seems to me the "drunks" are the people regardless of where they are that seek domination over others. I don't make a divide of "good or evil" over "nationality". Therefore the community exists in the commonality of the idea, not the limitation of a physical area defined as a country or "turf". You do extra points for reading Spooner.
Click to expand...
The Japanese were not "innocent people". More people were killed in Dresden alone by conventional weapons than both nuclear bombs. Sorry, but I disagree that we should allow those who have proclaimed their intent to destroy us even if it means their own destruction to have the means to do so.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Red1966 said:
The Japanese were not "innocent people". More people were killed in Dresden alone by conventional weapons than both nuclear bombs. Sorry, but I disagree that we should allow those who have proclaimed their intent to destroy us even if it means their own destruction to have the means to do so.
Click to expand...
Of course many of the Japanese were innocent of harming anybody. Viewing people as automatically "guilty" because they live in area that is controlled by a rival gang to the gang that controls the area you live in is sort of a collectivist approach. Japanese babies were fried alive. The nation state (organized gangs on a large scale) is what ALLOWS war in the first place. The fried Japanese women, children and old men were murdered. If not, please define murder.
 
Winter Woman

Winter Woman

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
Of course many of the Japanese were innocent of harming anybody. Viewing people as automatically "guilty" because they live in area that is controlled by a rival gang to the gang that controls the area you live in is sort of a collectivist approach. Japanese babies were fried alive. The nation state (organized gangs on a large scale) is what ALLOWS war in the first place. The fried Japanese women, children and old men were murdered. If not, please define murder.
Click to expand...
By other Japanese, not Americans
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Red1966 said:
To the OP's original question: A nuclear Iran is bad for the world. Very bad.
Click to expand...
A nuclear USA was very bad for babies in Japan also. See how things go when people continue to enable gangs and keep believing in the fantasy that "their gang" is somehow blessed with moral superiority? The USA gang fried babies, deal with it.

If the Iranian gang gets nukes, it's possible they'll fry innocent babies too. As long as people everywhere continue to support gangs this will forever be a possibility.
 
Red1966

Red1966

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
Of course many of the Japanese were innocent of harming anybody. Viewing people as automatically "guilty" because they live in area that is controlled by a rival gang to the gang that controls the area you live in is sort of a collectivist approach. Japanese babies were fried alive. The nation state (organized gangs on a large scale) is what ALLOWS war in the first place. The fried Japanese women, children and old men were murdered. If not, please define murder.
Click to expand...
Yeah, war is bad. The workforce that builds the weapons are, sadly, legitimate targets. The Japanese population, wholeheartedly supported the mass slaughter of millions of Chinese. War was in existence long before nation states evolved. Are you advocating we go back to prehistory when collective endeavor was unknown, or to a one-world government?
 
nitro harley

nitro harley

Well-Known Member
ChesusRice said:
Iran never had any intention of bombing Israel

There whole program was to develop a nuke as part of a MAD strategy.
Click to expand...
You should mention that, that is your opinion..Because it makes you look like a liar when you talk about there intentions for them..
 
Red1966

Red1966

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
A nuclear USA was very bad for babies in Japan also. See how things go when people continue to enable gangs and keep believing in the fantasy that "their gang" is somehow blessed with moral superiority? The USA gang fried babies, deal with it. If the Iranian gang gets nukes, it's possible they'll fry innocent babies too. As long as people everywhere continue to support gangs this will forever be a possibility.
Click to expand...
So you advocate the probable, no, certainty, of another half-million deaths on each side. You have allowed the "gang" metaphor to define the situation, not reality. I'm not the one having a problem "dealing" with it, you are. Possible? They have stated numerous times their intention to do exactly so. I don't understand how you can criticize the USA for using nuclear weapons and advocate allowing Iran to do the same. Are you Iranian? Radical Islamic?
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Red1966 said:
Yeah, war is bad. The workforce that builds the weapons are, sadly, legitimate targets. The Japanese population, wholeheartedly supported the mass slaughter of millions of Chinese. War was in existence long before nation states evolved. Are you advocating we go back to prehistory when collective endeavor was unknown, or to a one-world government?
Click to expand...
I'm suggesting that the nation state is what allows war on a large scale. You may be right that lots of Japanese were as brainwashed as lots of Americans, THAT is the common tactic applied by all gangs / nation states to herd "their" live stock.

Nation states are not necessary, nor is a one world government. I favor the existence of NO, NONE, NADA, coercive governments. I favor the creation of a multitude of any number of noncoercive governments, if that is what happens. I for one want to govern no others, or be governed absent my consent. When enough people realize this is what will bring world peace it will happen, until then they will be herded. The identity of the shepherd may change from time to time, but that's not really relevant to the status of the livestock.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top