Iran - Socialogical survey

[yespkorg]

Hi I'm leading a sociological survey.
What do you think about Iranian nuclear program?


Please in future do not include links in the text and use the forums default colour. - Majestic

[EAS_Intrepid]

Simple.

1) Iran has to act infull compliance to IAEA regulations and orders.
2) Iran has to stop ANY enrichment of Uranium, until IAEA weapon inspectors have made sure that Iran does not use the uranium for military purposes.
3) IF Iran uses the uranium for said military purposes it is to be forced to cease any civillian or military nuclear program by means the UN Security Council and its members deem necessary.

To make it clear: Iran is, as contributor to the IAEA and a signer of the International Non-Proliferation Treaty, ALLOWED to maintain a civillian nuclear program...

[Syf]

I agree with EAS. Nuclear power generation is acceptable use by all countries. As a weapon, they should be banned, and any country with them must destroy them completely. Anyone that ignores the rule, well, is a prime target to get a first strike.

[Harrie]

I will put as plainly as I did in my Civics class. The idea of a Muslim nuclear power scares me. Now don't get me wrong, Islam as a whole preaches compassion and love, my fear is not of the religion as much as it is the sympathy followers of said religion feel for the more radical elements.

Put yourself in bin Laden's shoes, now imagine the discount Iran might give you to 'lose' a few nukes as opposed to the inflated retail price from North Korea. Well? Who would you choose?

[Syf]

Personally, I think EMPs are a much better weapon. Nukes are to dangerous not only to the target country, but to all those around them. The fallout of a nuclear war would bring an end to all human life (plus most other animals, fish, reptiles, etc). Is it really that good of a weapon of choice. What's the point of not only killing your enemy, but your allies as well?

Admin Note: Make no mistake, if I see any more attempts to embed a link in the text, or any links of any kind on this thread, it will be locked. Consider this the only warning, Yespkorg. Also, it will be grounds for a banning. If you wish to post a link, it must be approved by an admin.

Also, let's keep it civil here in the thread. This topic does pose a possible cause for misunderstandings. Everyone is entitled to express their opinions/views of the subject at hand. However, one flame, and I will personally lock this thread.

[EAS_Intrepid]

Actually, every kind of fundamentalist with a nuke scares me... Muslim fundamentalists, Christian fundamentalists, Jewish fundamentalists, Communist fundamentalists, Capitalist fundamentalists etc etc etc.

These weapons were once developed to put a quick end to a certain war in Europe, then used against Japan.

Then the victors of this certain war needed all those new bombs, like little children are jealous of the toy the other kid has.
The problem is, that this toy is much to dangerous. 50 years the superpowers used it to scare the hell out of each other...
Basically these weapons were devleod to be weapon systems no-one would use.
That is just plain stupid. The only scenarios in which nuclear weapons are to be used were 1) short and heavy strike and 2) if the Soviets rolled over Western Germany with their massive Tank force.

It is indeed kind of ironic that the nation that developed the bombs is now most afraid of those... no flame intended.

I agree to Syf, ban the nukes. Better today than tomorrow. No nukes at all, and I want some nations to start reducing: UK, France, Russian Federation, USA, Israel, India, Pakistan, China.

The only nations that kept up nuclear deterrence until 2002 was Pakistan and India. They now don't necessarily want to go to war with each other.

[Cylon]

well it doesnt look like any country with nuclear weapons is going to give them up soon. (uk is renewing there system so it will function until 2050.) But why should countryies like Britian USA France etc be aloud nuclear weapons and others not. It should be all or no one.

[Lord_Trekie]

well it doesnt look like any country with nuclear weapons is going to give them up soon. (uk is renewing there system so it will function until 2050.) But why should countryies like Britian USA France etc be aloud nuclear weapons and others not. It should be all or no one.
I definatly prefer the no one part. I live in the US and one thing that bothers me the most is what will happen when some trigger-happy government official decides he wants to launch nukes at another country and someone retalliates with nukes. That is in my opinion on of the scariest things that could happen to me in this day and age.

[Syf]

well it doesnt look like any country with nuclear weapons is going to give them up soon. (uk is renewing there system so it will function until 2050.) But why should countryies like Britian USA France etc be aloud nuclear weapons and others not. It should be all or no one.

Your right. It should be all or one. But, personally, I'm for the none option. LT and I are both US citizens, and we are both ready to plop bricks out of our arses because of what Thermal Nuclear War would do. All people of the world should be educated about what would happen. Every class/grade/school/university should have a required learning of this matter, every single year of education. The only way to make it understood, is to hammer it into the children, our future, from day one.

[Cylon]

though the main nuclear threat is not from other countries but from terrorists, if they caused a nuclear attack the 'nuclear deteront' of other counties would be useless. I think some sort of method of stoppin missiles in midflight would be best.

[Lord_Trekie]

though the main nuclear threat is not from other countries but from terrorists, if they caused a nuclear attack the 'nuclear deteront' of other counties would be useless. I think some sort of method of stoppin missiles in midflight would be best.
There was a supposed program in the 80's called "Star Wars" and if I recell correctly it was a program to put satellites in space that would use lasers to shoot down nuclear weapons mid-flight, but the program was said to be too far fetched by NASA, however I believe it is being reconsidered at present.

[EAS_Intrepid]

though the main nuclear threat is not from other countries but from terrorists, if they caused a nuclear attack the 'nuclear deteront' of other counties would be useless. I think some sort of method of stoppin missiles in midflight would be best.
Terrorists are not likely to deploy a nuclear weapon with a missine, hence midflight interception is as useless as nuclear detterrence these days.

You should keep an eye on Pick-Up Trucks or other small trucks. Like in "The Sumn of All Fears" by T.Clancy. There the bomb was delivered with a truck.


There was a supposed program in the 80's called "Star Wars" and if I recell correctly it was a program to put satellites in space that would use lasers to shoot down nuclear weapons mid-flight, but the program was said to be too far fetched by NASA, however I believe it is being reconsidered at present.

Shortly after a certain day in Fall 2001, the US Missile Defense was reintroduced to the to-do-list of the Pentagon. So far no missile interception system really succeeded.
Now they want to reuse refitted B-707 (or B-747) of Boeing to test anti-missile lasers... :?

[Cylon]

of corse if only one country has the missile deffence system then whats to stop them lanching a nuclear attack

[Harrie]

I'm probably what you might call a 'blind patriot' because I tend to have not only more conservative veiw but also more radical. I make my plans reguardless of what others think. Five years ago I didn't under stand the ramifications of 9/11 but now as a senior in high school, my thinking goes along the lines of those of MacArthur.

Just before MacArthur was removed from power I've always heard he said that he wanted 'to lay a cobalt causeway' into China. I had a similar idea, in mind for the terrorists. We hunt them down, we make them know they aren't safe in their own beds, that this nation (nor should any nation) have to deal with the senseless murder of thousands without some kind of retribution. If it means all out war with Muslim nations, then so be it. If every American had even one tenth the anger I still feel burning in my chest when I remember sitting in class that morning, watching the towers come crashing down along with my sense of safety then one of two things would be true today; bin Laden would be dead and we would be at peace or national enlistment rates would be at an all time high and my motto would be everyone's motto.

Of course this is also why I don't think I'm suitable for politics, I'm too heavy handed for today's bunch of simpering weaklings who try please everyone. We need people willing to stand before the oppositions guns. I want the government officals willing to go stand on the front lines with our troops, not just a well protected bunker or aircraft carrier a thousand miles from no where.

[Syf]

Shortly after a certain day in Fall 2001, the US Missile Defense was reintroduced to the to-do-list of the Pentagon. So far no missile interception system really succeeded.
Now they want to reuse refitted B-707 (or B-747) of Boeing to test anti-missile lasers... :?

Actually, the YAL-1A is already in flight tests. It's a Boeing 747-400F modified to sport a Nose-mounted turret with 1.5m telescope. It uses a High energy C.O.I.L. base laser. It is scheduled for field tests sometime in the next 2 years.

Harrie, It's ok to feel that way. If I had my way, we would have struck first at Bin Laden, then announced it to the world.Personally, I think that our US government keeps us US citizens in the dark too much...

Anyways, There are several projects that are currently under way by several governments that will help secure the people from Nuclear missile threats.


Terrorists are not likely to deploy a nuclear weapon with a missine, hence midflight interception is as useless as nuclear detterrence these days.

You should keep an eye on Pick-Up Trucks or other small trucks. Like in "The Sumn of All Fears" by T.Clancy. There the bomb was delivered with a truck.

That's exactly the real threat ALL the free world countries have to fear.

[EAS_Intrepid]

According to the Sunday Times, Israel plans an attack against Iranian Nuclear Facility. The attack is to be staged with shelter-penetrating air-to-ground-missiles as well as tactical nuclear weapons, while being carried out by the Israeli F-16 combat aircrafts.
The newspaper's source is stated as a "Israeli Military Official", though the civil government denied the plans.

The Sunday times furthermore stated, that the attack will only be launched when Iran does not comply with the UN Resolutions and the sanctions.

Estimated targets are three Israeli nuclear facilities: Natans, Ishafahan and Arak.

Iran has responded to this report, saying, that "Israel would face a counter strike and would not exist long enough to regret their actions."

The Sunday Times Article:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2535310,00.html


Military Data:
Israeli modified F-16 Fighting Falcon (http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/aircraft/f-16i/F-16I.html)

[Harrie]

Please... History shows that if this happened the UN would most likely back up Israel and come down on Iran with every thing from troops to sanctions.

UN stepped in when Israel invaded Egypt to stop Israel from being distroyed and again during the Yom Kippur war when Israel was only days away from being completely over run.

[EAS_Intrepid]

You know, that when Israel does this, we re talking about a large scale war in the Middle East?

Hell, the Israelis must be crazy...

I would not support any UN backup to Israel in such a decision. I even think that such action would make Israel an aggressor and a direct threat to international security.
But I actually think that there are a lot of cool heads in the Israeli military staff..

[Blindeye]

Words ... heavy handed for today's bunch of simpering weaklings ... words

This is not a war that can be fought by Patriotism and guns, it is fought with vigilance, idealism, and intelligence. We have not fought any war like this before, except on the other side of it (Revolutionary War). Its a war that is won by undermining their will. To show them we aren't affected by them and we are BETTER than they think we are the wind goes out of their sales, and the terrorists become the target of the angry civilians. Boots on the ground in places like Iraq are simply a meat shield to maintain order. The only way to win that way is ruthlessness, disregard of human life, and unrelenting force. By calling those who have different strategies like myself weaklings you are undermining your point. Also, I would hardly say I am trying to make everyone happy. I am merely trying to keep a majority of people ALIVE.

Nukes may be a necessary evil now. Technically speaking, nukes may be our only hope in a war with China, and this threat maintains balance. That being said nukes are a horrid thing, and Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons shouldn't be tolerated.