Thread: Al Jazeera English: BLOG: To nuke, or not to nuke, Iran?

I found this blog on AJE pretty good.

When do we nuke somebody??
Is it better if 'we' nuke somebody first before 'they' nuke us??

Those are some pensive questions.

.......for most people, the use of nuclear weapons is not even a matter for debate. Indeed, since the last actively deployed nuclear weapon showed its true colours 64 years ago, even the most belligerent of world leaders have yielded to a saner instinct and kept their fingers off the button, to few complaints.

I think that even the North Korean leader may have had some doubts too...I hope he has.

So we’re at a very unhappy point — a very unhappy point — where unless Israel is prepared to use nuclear weapons against Iran’s program, Iran will have nuclear weapons in the very near future."

You think on this. What consequences are there for us if something big is gonna happen over there??


I don't think that we'd be immune to anything happening there.
That's for sure.
Never mind world leaders getting thier fingers ready for 'trigger happiness'.

Radiation does move with the winds, you know..

Remember Chernobyl??

Here's the link:

To nuke, or not to nuke, Iran? | Al Jazeera Blogs

It's a short blog to read too.

Maybe that 'madman' is a pretense to other things....maybe an invasion of sorts. I think that's kind of what I'm reading in your words, slik.

Take the point of Iran. That country's leader is using nukes as an excuse to get more money perhaps?

Why do you feel that Iran is building nukes to make a potential future attack on Iraq ( I see you wrote Iran, but I think you meant Iraq, yes??).

Anyways...as for the issue of one country being holier than thou, I am of the opinion that it's a small club of nuclear capable country's that hold this holier than thou attitude and they don't want others, or at least too many, to join this exclusive club of nuclear capable countries.

There's many countries that have nuclear capability, though not all of them make nuke weapons. Just used for power production.

but back to the main point, dropping a nuke on some country is / would be considered genocide. Though who's to make the prosecution when; for example, Isreal does the dropping of nukes??

Probably no-one. Isreal will remain protected and secure with the aid of foreign governments.

Who will cry 'wolf'. Most likely the Arab nations.
But in my view, can you blame them??

Who's the oppressor, then??

Ahh, ok. Now I see what your talking about re: a potential invasion of Iran. Yes. I do recall hearing that on the news quite a lot immediatly after the invasion of Iraq.

If memory serves me correct, I believe that even Syria was on that same list.
With Jordan being on the list for possible troops as a jumping ground.

Have there ever been any satellite photos of Iran building nukes??

I don't believe that I've ever seen any on TV let alone hearing of actual evidence either supporting or contradicting that accusation re: nuclear weapons.

Also, I strongly feel that the fewer countries have actual nuclear capability, the better we are as a whole.

Who want's to be threatened at every turn??
(That's just said on the possibility that Iran does have nuclear weapons. Yes, your right. There actually isn't any evidence that I've come across that demonstrates that Iran has nukes. Only just accusations from other countries)

Too much doom and gloom already as there is.
most likely some of these nuclear threats are a pretext for other things. Maybe just a 'feint' of sorts. To achieve other goals as you suggest.

To invade Iran as a pretext for territorial control and influence towards a greater neighbor (read Russia), is most likely a possibility.
I think that some people called it 'containment', yes??