Total Posts:31|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

How Dangerous Is A Nuclear Iran?

jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2011 3:28:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I was arguing with my libertarian leaning but hawkish father about the danger of a nuclear Iran. He says that they hate Israel so much that they wouldn't hesitate to kill as many Israelis as they can. (Note: we're Jewish, and he cares about Israel much more than I do.) He also said that in general they're crazy and you never know what sh!t they might pull, etc. I told him that a) we stood up to the Soviets who had 40,000 nuclear weapons and now we're fretting day and night about third world countries with no real armies. b) Iran hasn't invaded or attacked another country in over 100 (possibly hundreds but not sure) years. c) If they committed even the slightest act of aggression against America or Israel, they would be totally wiped off the face of the earth almost instantaneously, and they are clearly aware of this.

I'm just looking to educate myself more on the issue because I don't know much else aside from those 3 points I brought up. So just how dangerous is a nuclear Iran? What, if anything, should be done about it? Why? And is the "danger of a nuclear Iran" just being used as lies and war propaganda, not unlike that of the Bush administration, to justify yet another military conflict?
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2011 4:03:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/7/2011 3:39:21 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
http://www.cracked.com...

Go to #6 (the first one).

Wow, very informative. Thanks. Ridiculous (but expected) how badly the American media spin foreign "threats" out of proportion...
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2011 5:24:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Let's put it this way; Their President gave a speech in the UN where he accused Europe of stealing Iran's rain.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Veridas
Posts: 733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2011 5:36:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/7/2011 4:03:53 PM, jat93 wrote:
At 11/7/2011 3:39:21 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
http://www.cracked.com...

Go to #6 (the first one).

Wow, very informative. Thanks. Ridiculous (but expected) how badly the American media spin foreign "threats" out of proportion...

The Cracked Article raises a lot of good points, but it does not answer for the key point at hand.

Ahmadinejad has had his power and pissing priviliges severely downgraded since the last *snerk* election, yes. However just because he isn't in charge doesn't mean that everything he says isn't the attitude of the country. Iran is a massive supporter of Palestine, for instance. Iran's official attitude towards Palestine isn't that it's involved in an ongoing territorial dispute with Israel, which is probably how most military officers would put it if they were trying to be polite. In addition, Khamanei, the guy who actually is in charge, outright rejects a two state solution and endorses the notion that Israel isn't merely another country trying to sneakily take over, but is actually occupying Palestine.

Now, I don't particularly give a f*ck what D*ckhead with a gun #1 wants to do to D*ckhd with a gun #2 (who shall henceforth be called DWAG 1 and 2) provided they do it as far away from me as possible, and showing some true courtesy, these two DWAG's have taken it half the world away. Mad props chaps.

However, last I checked, while Israel is taking liberties with borders and territories, it isn't occupying Palestine in it's entirity.

It's the spread of subtle lies like this that make Iran's motives difficult to guess. See, everyone knew they were trying to build a bomb years ago, but Iran made a lot of effort and spent a lot of time saying "no we aren't" which really only made things worse for them.

The fact that they tried to deny it initially, to keep it secret, raises serious questions about their motives given that to them a two-state solution is beyond consideration.

I hope you've figured out by now that if a two-state solution is out then one of those states is going to have to go. Since Iran kinda like Palestine...well...you can see where this is going.

Does Khamanei have the sack-chel charges to order a nuclear strike against Israel? No idea, but you do have to question the man's mentality for letting a retarded monkey with a stupid name like Ahmadinejad run around spouting all kinds of cuntish things and thinking he's some kind of international troll.

Oh, and in addition to all that. Iran don't just support Palestine, but they support the everloving hell out of Hamas. You know, that politico-militant group that's quite open about the whole "destroy Israel" thing?

It's possible that Iran just wants a comfy seat at the UN like all the other nuke club members, or maybe it's finally gotten p*ssed off at only being able to make empty threats. The point is that so long as the bomb is there, they need to be considered with much greater care and deliberation. If we assume they would use it in self defence then it rules out any kind of land invasion and possibly invasion by sea. If it doesn't then every day that Israel keeps up it's current attitude (which it is sure to do) is a day Iran will be tempted to help it's Palestinian buddies out by reducing their holy land to a smouldering wasteland, so they can reoccupy it freely. And radioactively, but mostly freely.

It would also cause a major shift in the balance of power in the middle east. The west has mostly been supportive of this Arab Spring thing, but tell me this. Do you really want some random goat farmer to have even temporary access to a weapon that can kill 20,000 people instantly if detonated in an urban area?

I work customer service. I don't trust a single one of you f*ckers with anything more dangerous than a bottle of shampoo.

Besides, even if all that is completely inaccurate, there's another angle here.

Ahmadinejad is, as I said, a retarded monkey with a stupid name.

Him prancing about bragging about how big his arsenal is will only fuel tensions in the region, particularly to Israel given Ahmadinejad's at best dismissive stance on subjects like the holocaust.

Wars have started over less than a "your mum" joke and Ahmadinejad has said way worse than that. Bringing nukes into the equation just makes sht depressing.
What fresh dickery is the internet up to today?
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2011 5:54:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I ain't scared of em.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2011 5:55:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I don' think they'd be stupid enough to try anything either.

The minute they use nukes, everyone in the world is going to gang rape the sh!t out of them.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2011 5:55:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/7/2011 4:03:53 PM, jat93 wrote:
At 11/7/2011 3:39:21 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
http://www.cracked.com...

Go to #6 (the first one).

Wow, very informative. Thanks. Ridiculous (but expected) how badly the American media spin foreign "threats" out of proportion...

It's funny how many people cite comedians for sources.

North Korea spends $114,000,000,000 on their military, so they are wrong with their estimations.

If Iran develops nuclear Weapons, War i indefinite, as they would be violating international law. Further more, it would signify their intent to use them. Most likely they would be using them against Israel.

The Supreme Leader of Iran hates the Western World, and hates Israel.

Iran has 3,833,000 troops, while he US has 3,049,790 troops, North Korea has 9,495,000 troops.

The most dangerous issue is not the nuclear weapons. The most dangerous issue is the war. Iran is very influential in the Middle East, and North Korea has influential allies, such as China.

North Korea and Iran both have the ability to start world war 3.If world war 3 breaks out, it would be the most devastating war the earth has ever seen.

Further more, you don't need a missile to detonate a nuclear weapon. Watch the movie Jericho, and you would get an Idea of how nuclear weapons can be devastating on a low budget.

A nuclear torn world under martial law, while fighting world war 3. That is a bleak image.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2011 6:05:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/7/2011 5:55:38 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
I don' think they'd be stupid enough to try anything either.

The minute they use nukes, everyone in the world is going to gang rape the sh!t out of them.

In a perfect world.

Iran and North Korea both have good relations each other as well as good relations with China and Russia.

Iran is also part of CENTO
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2011 6:13:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/7/2011 5:54:37 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
I ain't scared of em.

NATO is preparing for potential War with Iran, due to their nuclear ambitions. This would mean WWIII.

CENTRO vs NATO with Russia, China, and North Korea siding with CENTRO
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2011 6:16:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/7/2011 5:36:09 PM, Veridas wrote:
At 11/7/2011 4:03:53 PM, jat93 wrote:
At 11/7/2011 3:39:21 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
http://www.cracked.com...

Go to #6 (the first one).

Wow, very informative. Thanks. Ridiculous (but expected) how badly the American media spin foreign "threats" out of proportion...

The Cracked Article raises a lot of good points, but it does not answer for the key point at hand.

Ahmadinejad has had his power and pissing priviliges severely downgraded since the last *snerk* election, yes. However just because he isn't in charge doesn't mean that everything he says isn't the attitude of the country. Iran is a massive supporter of Palestine, for instance. Iran's official attitude towards Palestine isn't that it's involved in an ongoing territorial dispute with Israel, which is probably how most military officers would put it if they were trying to be polite. In addition, Khamanei, the guy who actually is in charge, outright rejects a two state solution and endorses the notion that Israel isn't merely another country trying to sneakily take over, but is actually occupying Palestine.

Now, I don't particularly give a f*ck what D*ckhead with a gun #1 wants to do to D*ckhd with a gun #2 (who shall henceforth be called DWAG 1 and 2) provided they do it as far away from me as possible, and showing some true courtesy, these two DWAG's have taken it half the world away. Mad props chaps.

However, last I checked, while Israel is taking liberties with borders and territories, it isn't occupying Palestine in it's entirity.

It's the spread of subtle lies like this that make Iran's motives difficult to guess. See, everyone knew they were trying to build a bomb years ago, but Iran made a lot of effort and spent a lot of time saying "no we aren't" which really only made things worse for them.

The fact that they tried to deny it initially, to keep it secret, raises serious questions about their motives given that to them a two-state solution is beyond consideration.

I hope you've figured out by now that if a two-state solution is out then one of those states is going to have to go. Since Iran kinda like Palestine...well...you can see where this is going.

Does Khamanei have the sack-chel charges to order a nuclear strike against Israel? No idea, but you do have to question the man's mentality for letting a retarded monkey with a stupid name like Ahmadinejad run around spouting all kinds of cuntish things and thinking he's some kind of international troll.

Oh, and in addition to all that. Iran don't just support Palestine, but they support the everloving hell out of Hamas. You know, that politico-militant group that's quite open about the whole "destroy Israel" thing?

It's possible that Iran just wants a comfy seat at the UN like all the other nuke club members, or maybe it's finally gotten p*ssed off at only being able to make empty threats. The point is that so long as the bomb is there, they need to be considered with much greater care and deliberation. If we assume they would use it in self defence then it rules out any kind of land invasion and possibly invasion by sea. If it doesn't then every day that Israel keeps up it's current attitude (which it is sure to do) is a day Iran will be tempted to help it's Palestinian buddies out by reducing their holy land to a smouldering wasteland, so they can reoccupy it freely. And radioactively, but mostly freely.

It would also cause a major shift in the balance of power in the middle east. The west has mostly been supportive of this Arab Spring thing, but tell me this. Do you really want some random goat farmer to have even temporary access to a weapon that can kill 20,000 people instantly if detonated in an urban area?

I work customer service. I don't trust a single one of you f*ckers with anything more dangerous than a bottle of shampoo.

The TSA is on your side.


Besides, even if all that is completely inaccurate, there's another angle here.

Ahmadinejad is, as I said, a retarded monkey with a stupid name.

Him prancing about bragging about how big his arsenal is will only fuel tensions in the region, particularly to Israel given Ahmadinejad's at best dismissive stance on subjects like the holocaust.

Wars have started over less than a "your mum" joke and Ahmadinejad has said way worse than that. Bringing nukes into the equation just makes sht depressing.

Yeah, but it will be fun to watch from a distance, right? I mean, is there really any place further away from us that could engage in a nuclear war? I really wouldn't mind losing the title of "only nation dickish enough to use nuclear weapons." We kinda thought that it would be the knew big thing, but it didn't catch on and we just looked like jackasses after it. This is finally the time we can shed that title, so we shouldn't do anything that might keep that title on us.

FYI, everyone should also read up on Poe's Law.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2011 6:39:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
DanT...

..Where are you getting this CENTO stuff from? I've never heard of it, and from what I've managed to look up, not only has it not existed for 30 years, but Russia and China were not a part of it.

I don't think nuclear war will happen. It isn't good from a real-estate point of view. If we do have a WW3, I don't think it would be nuclear. Though, you never know, people can get crazy.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2011 7:40:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/7/2011 6:39:04 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
DanT...

..Where are you getting this CENTO stuff from? I've never heard of it, and from what I've managed to look up, not only has it not existed for 30 years, but Russia and China were not a part of it.


I don't think nuclear war will happen. It isn't good from a real-estate point of view. If we do have a WW3, I don't think it would be nuclear. Though, you never know, people can get crazy.

Iran still maintains good relations with Ex members of CENTRO even though it dissolved in 1979. I'm imply a reestablished CENTRO, since it' easier than listing the individual states.

Iran, Pakistan, China and North Korea participate in defense deals with each other.

Iran, Russia, China, and North Korea also participate in economic, and defense deals.

Syria & Turkey has also both backed Iran's nuclear development, and Turkey helps Iran with Defense.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2011 7:47:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/7/2011 5:55:50 PM, DanT wrote:
At 11/7/2011 4:03:53 PM, jat93 wrote:
At 11/7/2011 3:39:21 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
http://www.cracked.com...

Go to #6 (the first one).

Wow, very informative. Thanks. Ridiculous (but expected) how badly the American media spin foreign "threats" out of proportion...

It's funny how many people cite comedians for sources.

I understood the rest of the post, but I just wanted to point out that the fact that CRACKED is a comedy site doesn't in any way detract the informativeness of their articles, which are factually written.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2011 7:47:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/7/2011 6:39:04 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
DanT...

..Where are you getting this CENTO stuff from? I've never heard of it, and from what I've managed to look up, not only has it not existed for 30 years, but Russia and China were not a part of it.


I don't think nuclear war will happen. It isn't good from a real-estate point of view. If we do have a WW3, I don't think it would be nuclear. Though, you never know, people can get crazy.

There are some sick people out there. The President of Iran is certifiably insane. All he needs to do is sneak a bunch of warheads into the US, and detonate them. With Pakistan, Russia, North Korea and China backing Iran it's they could easily become a dominating power. If nukes were set off in the US, I'm sure nukes would be launched in retaliation. Only Iran would have more warning, since they would be the ones starting the nuclear war.

North Korea would nuke Japan, and South Korea, while China and Russia would nuke France and the UK.

Missile defense is useless against smuggled warheads detonated on the ground.

further more, a nuke does not have to hit a target to cause problems. EMPs would be just as effective. Simply shooting a nuke over the desired target would be catastrophic, and would cause a wider range of damage.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2011 7:49:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/7/2011 7:47:39 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 11/7/2011 5:55:50 PM, DanT wrote:
At 11/7/2011 4:03:53 PM, jat93 wrote:
At 11/7/2011 3:39:21 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
http://www.cracked.com...

Go to #6 (the first one).

Wow, very informative. Thanks. Ridiculous (but expected) how badly the American media spin foreign "threats" out of proportion...

It's funny how many people cite comedians for sources.

I understood the rest of the post, but I just wanted to point out that the fact that CRACKED is a comedy site doesn't in any way detract the informativeness of their articles, which are factually written.

besides the BS about North Korea's military budget, right???.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2011 7:51:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/7/2011 7:49:09 PM, DanT wrote:
At 11/7/2011 7:47:39 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 11/7/2011 5:55:50 PM, DanT wrote:
At 11/7/2011 4:03:53 PM, jat93 wrote:
At 11/7/2011 3:39:21 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
http://www.cracked.com...

Go to #6 (the first one).

Wow, very informative. Thanks. Ridiculous (but expected) how badly the American media spin foreign "threats" out of proportion...

It's funny how many people cite comedians for sources.

I understood the rest of the post, but I just wanted to point out that the fact that CRACKED is a comedy site doesn't in any way detract the informativeness of their articles, which are factually written.

besides the BS about North Korea's military budget, right???.

You mean...your BS?

C'mon man--sourcesor it didn't happen. CRACKED delivered.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
JuiceSqueeze
Posts: 109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2011 7:52:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/7/2011 4:03:53 PM, jat93 wrote:
At 11/7/2011 3:39:21 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
http://www.cracked.com...

Go to #6 (the first one).

Wow, very informative. Thanks. Ridiculous (but expected) how badly the American media spin foreign "threats" out of proportion...

the article is bogus, iran hasn't halted its nuclear program (cooked NIE report by bush, later debunked under obama) and the size of its military budget isn't a proper factor in identifying a threat or non-threat.

the facts are these:

*Iran remains the most prolific sponsor terrorism worldwide
*Iran sponsors multiple terrorist groups - sockpuppet regime in Gaza (Hamas) and sub-national terrorist group in Lebanon (Hezbollah) both of which have killed Americans and American allies.
*Iran sponsors militants in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Iranian-manufactured IED's have been discovered throughout the country.

As far as the dangers of a nuclear around go, well it doesn't take a genius to read the writing on the wall. Arab states have made no attempt to cover up their fear of Iran and will definitely arm themselves with nuclear weapons if the Shias develop them. Saudi Arabia basically paid for Pakistan's nuclear program for precisely these kinds of scenarios.

The US doesn't want to see its defense umbrella weakened by nervous Arab states, and it knows Israel won't tolerate present US defense policies if Iran goes nuclear.

So a nuclear Iran is definitely the biggest dangers in the world today. A nightmare for most. Too bad the Iraq War destroyed most faith in the US and likely will deter a future engagement with Iran.

I'm sure Israel will just bomb them like they bombed Iraq/Syria.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2011 8:04:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/7/2011 7:49:09 PM, DanT wrote:
At 11/7/2011 7:47:39 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 11/7/2011 5:55:50 PM, DanT wrote:
At 11/7/2011 4:03:53 PM, jat93 wrote:
At 11/7/2011 3:39:21 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
http://www.cracked.com...

Go to #6 (the first one).

Wow, very informative. Thanks. Ridiculous (but expected) how badly the American media spin foreign "threats" out of proportion...

It's funny how many people cite comedians for sources.

I understood the rest of the post, but I just wanted to point out that the fact that CRACKED is a comedy site doesn't in any way detract the informativeness of their articles, which are factually written.

besides the BS about North Korea's military budget, right???.

Let's see, Cracked claimed that NK's military budget was 5 - 8 billion, the government (who has more interest in being accurate than anyone, and the funding to be accurate) estimates that it is at most $7 billion [1]. Do you need more?

[1] http://www.state.gov...
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2011 8:06:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/7/2011 7:52:45 PM, JuiceSqueeze wrote:
At 11/7/2011 4:03:53 PM, jat93 wrote:
At 11/7/2011 3:39:21 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
http://www.cracked.com...

Go to #6 (the first one).

Wow, very informative. Thanks. Ridiculous (but expected) how badly the American media spin foreign "threats" out of proportion...

the article is bogus, iran hasn't halted its nuclear program (cooked NIE report by bush, later debunked under obama) and the size of its military budget isn't a proper factor in identifying a threat or non-threat.

the facts are these:

*Iran remains the most prolific sponsor terrorism worldwide
*Iran sponsors multiple terrorist groups - sockpuppet regime in Gaza (Hamas) and sub-national terrorist group in Lebanon (Hezbollah) both of which have killed Americans and American allies.
*Iran sponsors militants in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Iranian-manufactured IED's have been discovered throughout the country.

I think that title might actually go to Afghanistan, which gets plenty of money from us, so I think we qualify as the largest sponcers of terrorism (against ourselves).


As far as the dangers of a nuclear around go, well it doesn't take a genius to read the writing on the wall. Arab states have made no attempt to cover up their fear of Iran and will definitely arm themselves with nuclear weapons if the Shias develop them. Saudi Arabia basically paid for Pakistan's nuclear program for precisely these kinds of scenarios.

The US doesn't want to see its defense umbrella weakened by nervous Arab states, and it knows Israel won't tolerate present US defense policies if Iran goes nuclear.

So a nuclear Iran is definitely the biggest dangers in the world today. A nightmare for most. Too bad the Iraq War destroyed most faith in the US and likely will deter a future engagement with Iran.

I'm sure Israel will just bomb them like they bombed Iraq/Syria.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
JuiceSqueeze
Posts: 109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2011 8:36:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I think that title might actually go to Afghanistan, which gets plenty of money from us, so I think we qualify as the largest sponcers of terrorism (against ourselves).


$$ goes to the Afghanistan government, not the Taliban.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2011 8:36:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/7/2011 8:04:01 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/7/2011 7:49:09 PM, DanT wrote:
At 11/7/2011 7:47:39 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 11/7/2011 5:55:50 PM, DanT wrote:
At 11/7/2011 4:03:53 PM, jat93 wrote:
At 11/7/2011 3:39:21 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
http://www.cracked.com...

Go to #6 (the first one).

Wow, very informative. Thanks. Ridiculous (but expected) how badly the American media spin foreign "threats" out of proportion...

It's funny how many people cite comedians for sources.

I understood the rest of the post, but I just wanted to point out that the fact that CRACKED is a comedy site doesn't in any way detract the informativeness of their articles, which are factually written.

besides the BS about North Korea's military budget, right???.

Let's see, Cracked claimed that NK's military budget was 5 - 8 billion, the government (who has more interest in being accurate than anyone, and the funding to be accurate) estimates that it is at most $7 billion [1]. Do you need more?

[1] http://www.state.gov...

I thought it said $5 billion, I didn't see the 8.

The Supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei hates America, the west, and Israel.

the way the site slanted it,it sounded like he wasn't a threat.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2011 8:47:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
North Korea is more dangerous and more desperate than Iran and yet it still obeys mutually assured destruction.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2011 9:36:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/7/2011 8:47:35 PM, bluesteel wrote:
North Korea is more dangerous and more desperate than Iran and yet it still obeys mutually assured destruction.

I agree, the Korean War never ended, and North Korea never gave up their goal to conqueror South Korea.

It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when. They are simply waiting for the best opportunity.

When North Korea invades, they will have the support of Iran, Pakistan, China, and most likely Russia.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2011 10:18:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
1. make war with israel
2. possibly make an arms race with saudi arabia because one is shia and the other is sunni
3. Give the technology to terrorists and cuba.

So the first 2 are just going to make a turn for the worse everywhere. The 3rd is going to hurt us indirectly. Terrorosts are gonna use it agaist everyone they dislike ( especially the US) and Cuba will be in range of the southern states, so indirectly they will i reapeat WILL hurt us. Their military can't affect us from the middle east because it isn't advanced enough.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2011 2:00:41 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
The Iran leaders know that attacking Israel with nuclear weapons would mean that Iran would face the same retaliation. There is no way for Iran to strike USA with nuclear weapons.

People speaking of a third world war are exaggerating. Pakistan and India are both nuclear powers, and they've had political issues for decades. No side has used nuclear weapons against each other. Israel and Iran would not do it either, except if Israel doesn't keep its bigoted nose out of Iran's business.

I'm not sure if North Korea is more dangerous than Iran, as bluesteel says. Iran has more oil to roll their tanks, as well as more economic strength. Furthermore it has ties with religious groups, while North Korea has none. Russia, China, Syria, etc., have good ties with Iran much like with North Korea. So I don't see where North Korea poses a bigger danger.
JuiceSqueeze
Posts: 109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2011 2:41:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The Iran leaders know that attacking Israel with nuclear weapons would mean that Iran would face the same retaliation. There is no way for Iran to strike USA with nuclear weapons. People speaking of a third world war are exaggerating. Pakistan and India are both nuclear powers, and they've had political issues for decades. No side has used nuclear weapons against each other. Israel and Iran would not do it either, except if Israel doesn't keep its bigoted nose out of Iran's business.:

pakistan and india are both nuclear powers and they've had about 6 nuclear stand offs. SIX! iran could absorb dozens of nuclear strikes, and considering the suicidal behavior in the iran/iraq war, and palestinian war there isn't a lot of evidence to suggest they value human life.

israel will make sure iran can't get a nuclear bomb. too bad jimmy carter was our president, iran wouldn't even be islamist.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2011 3:34:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/8/2011 2:00:41 AM, Mirza wrote:
The Iran leaders know that attacking Israel with nuclear weapons would mean that Iran would face the same retaliation. There is no way for Iran to strike USA with nuclear weapons.

People speaking of a third world war are exaggerating. Pakistan and India are both nuclear powers, and they've had political issues for decades. No side has used nuclear weapons against each other. Israel and Iran would not do it either, except if Israel doesn't keep its bigoted nose out of Iran's business.

I'm not sure if North Korea is more dangerous than Iran, as bluesteel says. Iran has more oil to roll their tanks, as well as more economic strength. Furthermore it has ties with religious groups, while North Korea has none. Russia, China, Syria, etc., have good ties with Iran much like with North Korea. So I don't see where North Korea poses a bigger danger.

warheads don't need missiles to detonate.

Imagine the first nuclear car-bomb.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2011 3:38:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/7/2011 8:36:19 PM, JuiceSqueeze wrote:
I think that title might actually go to Afghanistan, which gets plenty of money from us, so I think we qualify as the largest sponcers of terrorism (against ourselves).


$$ goes to the Afghanistan government, not the Taliban.

$$ > Afghan Government > terrorists
also
$$ > Pakistani Government > terrorists

you forget there is great deal of corruption in that region.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Veridas
Posts: 733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2011 12:10:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Ore_Ele wrote:
The TSA is on your side.

The TSA is the Landkreuzer P 1500 for the 21st century. Just be grateful Richard Reid didn't stick that bomb up his arse. I wouldn't trust half of any given group of people not to drown in a birdbath or cause themselves massive bodily harm armed only with a telephone.

Ore_Ele wrote:
Yeah, but it will be fun to watch from a distance, right?

"From a distance" is kind of relative when we're talking about weapons specifically designed to travel a f*cking long way. Especially given that we're closer to Israel than you are.

Ore_Ele said:
I mean, is there really any place further away from us that could engage in a nuclear war?

http://media.tumblr.com...

Ore_Ele said:
I really wouldn't mind losing the title of "only nation dickish enough to use nuclear weapons."

Sort of depends on your definition of the word "use" really. I mean you're the only nation to use them on living, breathing people yes. However, all members of the nuke club use nukes because if your last line of defence is a 3,500 pound 20-foot wang with wings then you're gonna wanna make sure it bloody well does it's job of
making everything within a 30 mile radius suddenly become crispy.

Ore_Ele said:
We kinda thought that it would be the knew big thing, but it didn't catch on and we just looked like jackasses after it.

Only to the people who didn't know just how stubbornly the Japanese would fight. I mean Hiroo Onoda was a Japanese soldier who spent so long in the wilderness that he didn't know the war had ended, so he kept fighting it. Until 1974.

Ore_Ele said:
This is finally the time we can shed that title, so we shouldn't do anything that might keep that title on us.

Yes, because wishing nuclear armageddon on a second batch of innocent civilians really robs you of that "total prick" title now doesn't it?

Ore_Ele said:
FYI, everyone should also read up on Poe's Law.

I...

Oh f*ck you Ore_Ele.
What fresh dickery is the internet up to today?