The Inside Assyria Discussion Forum #5

=> Re: Tehran Threatens to use Nuclear weapons on itself...

Re: Tehran Threatens to use Nuclear weapons on itself...
Posted by Arrow (Guest) - Wednesday, November 16 2011, 16:52:19 (UTC)
from - Jordan - Windows XP - Safari
Website title:

>...let's look at reality: the countries which have them don;t fight each other.

- And so does many countries that don't have them so we can't give all the credit to nuclear bombs. But maybe they do act as deterrents in the short term, but will they in distant future?

Consider two scenarios: A world in which only 2 out of 20 countries have nukes and another in which each of the 20 have them. Which one is more likely to have a nuclear warfare sometime in the future (100, 200... years)?

>> if Saddam had nuclear weapons they never would have attacked...never.
>>Why not? The US can strike down a plane as soon as it takes off! And what would prevent it from turning Baghdad into another Hiroshima?
>...because the bomb used against Hiroshima was a nothing dud compared to what they have now...

- What I meant to say is that if Saddam had a bomb, then using it would have been to the detriment of only the Iraqi people. The Americans would have taken extreme preemptive measures to ensure that he doesn't use it, and if he tried to used it, they would have certainly retaliated by obliterating most of Iraq. So instead of being a deterrent, those weapons would have invited extremely harsh assaults.

>...yes. The only way you can make peace when faced with a warmongering US on the have to have something to make America think twice, like North Korea has.

- The US is intimidated by North Korea because it has a bomb? Can they bomb DC if they wanted?

>> And no one makes a "limited" bomb
>>Why not? They customize one according to the target.
> one has them...and there's no such thing as a small nuclear weapon....

- I don't get. If they wanted to build a small one they can't? How come? Is it unfeasible to do so with modern technology? Hiroshima is a small city and if we assume that the entire city was affected then such a bomb would destroy only 4% of Israel.

Sure modern bombs are much more more potent nowadays but I don't think they have that Armageddon impact you are suggesting. No matter how strong the nuke is, and even if we assume that the Middle East is a flat land, its effect won't reach Tehran... it won't even reach Iraq.

> no one wants to die unless they see no future.

- What if the mullahs and imams in Iran decided one day that the only meaningful future there is is to fulfill the will of Allah by liberating Palestine, fighting the Zionists, or whatever... even if most would die in the process?

>>I don't think North Korea is a high priority for the west, neither would the west behave any differently towards it if it didn't have nuclear weapons... I don't know.
>...of course it would. We're never going to attack North Korea, especially now...

- Why attack North Korea? Surely there are people who profit from wars but wars are not made solely for this purpose. Iraq has oil, it is thorn to Israel and it is a strategic interest to the US. What does North Korea have?

> but we want them there so we can scare the American Christian wants to kill the Devil....we need Devils in order to be "moral".

- Maybe. If the US cared about North Korea, then it wouldn't have allowed it to develop nuclear weapons in the first place. So this means that nuclear weapons are not actually deterring the US because it doesn't care in the first place.

>> No...the only ones insane enough to use those things against women and children were Muslim nation would dream of such a thing.
>>So those “Christians” you are referring to have the intelligence to invent sophisticated weaponry
while it is the Muslims who have the required wisdom to handle them safely?
> handle them safely, yes....I worry about spent fuel rods and leaks from concrete bunkers and leaks into oceans and leaks because nuclear plants need tons of water...but worry that someone is going drop one or set it off

- You mean the Muslims are better at solving the problem of leaks?

And does the following sentence make sense: “Although the west has the brains to invent complex weapons and technology, those weapons and technology would be safer in the hands of Muslims"?


The full topic:

Connection: close
Content-length: 4901
Cache-control: max-age=0
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1) AppleWebKit/535.2 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/15.0.874.120 Safari/535.2
Content-type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded
Accept: text/html,application/xhtml+xml,application/xml;q=0.9,*/*;q=0.8
Accept-encoding: gzip,deflate,sdch
Accept-language: en-US,en;q=0.8
Accept-charset: ISO-8859-1,utf-8;q=0.7,*;q=0.3
Cookie: *hidded*

Powered by RedKernel V.S. Forum 1.2.b9