Worldly Talk

Civil discussion and debate on real world events and issues.


United States Third Presidential Debate

 
Good points, although to deter you actually have to have a credible nuclear capability and IMHO, Iran has nothing it actually needs to deter against (a US invasion is logistically a non-starter and politically impossible to do).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Silent Hunter UK View Post
Iran has nothing it actually needs to deter against
A hostile nuclear power on their doorstep?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Savayan View Post
Except an attack by a foreign power is the best way to shore up support for an incumbent regime, especially if it's from a nation that's widely regarded as oppressive, hypocritical warmongers.
Not if your name is Idi Amin, Slobodan Milošević, Muammar Gaddafi, Manuel Noriega or Saddam Hussein, all of whom lost their regimes to foreign attack or shortly after it.

It more ties into it's ambitions of being a regional player. The nuke is mostly to deter Isreal and allow it to flex its' muscles more in Lebanon and the Occupied Territories and allow them to act to stabilize the cluster**** that will be post withdrawl Afghanistan. I almost think it would be beneficial to help prevent Israel from it's unfortunate slide towards facism, as well as to bring a measure of justice to the Palestinians

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tedronai View Post
A hostile nuclear power on their doorstep?
Pakistan? More concerned with India. Israel? They're prone to some reckless acts, but they have some morals. Russia? Not exactly hostile. India? More concerned with Pakistan.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Savayan View Post
I almost think it would be beneficial to help prevent Israel from it's unfortunate slide towards facism, as well as to bring a measure of justice to the Palestinians
Not if Iran collapses and a nuke ends up in the hands of Hezbollah or Saudi Arabia decides it wants nukes of its own.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Silent Hunter UK View Post
Not if your name is Idi Amin, Slobodan Milošević, Muammar Gaddafi, Manuel Noriega or Saddam Hussein, all of whom lost their regimes to foreign attack or shortly after it.
With the exception of Noriega and Hussein, all of those involved internal uprisings as well, not just a straight projection of force or a bombing campaign. And the latter of those required two invasions, decimation of the nation's infrastructure, and a decade long occupation just to transfer over from Hussein to a different strongman. Iran hasn't really been that henious in supressing internal dissent. An attack, especially one lead by the US and/or Israel, would turn the hostility outward rather than inward. And the Iranian army isn't as disorganized and desperate as the Iraqi one was in GWII or the Taliban were at any point during the Afghan war.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Silent Hunter UK View Post
Not if Iran collapses and a nuke ends up in the hands of Hezbollah or Saudi Arabia decides it wants nukes of its own.
And how likely is Iran to collapse? Even with the sanctions it's still a functioning nation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Silent Hunter UK View Post
Israel? They're prone to some reckless acts, but they have some morals.
I'd suggest avoiding the topic of the morality of the Israeli government/military. It's a touchy issue for some.
However, I don't think you can provide a serious argument against either Israel being hostile to Iran, or to Israel being a nuclear power.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Savayan View Post
And how likely is Iran to collapse? Even with the sanctions it's still a functioning nation.
They said that about the Soviet Union in 1988.





Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Myth-Weavers Status