Can anyone tell me why war is necessary to stop Iran from having nukes?

[Hugabear]

I understand that we would prefer if Iran didn't have nukes. We'd prefer if NOBODY had nukes.

How long has Israel had nuclear weapons, and yet nobody ever threatened to go to war with Israel to stop their nuclear program.

India and Pakistan developed nuclear weapons, nobody tried to stop them. Last time I checked, Pakistan is much more unstable than Iran.

Hell, even friggin' NORTH KOREA developed nuclear weapons, yet we didn't threaten military action to prevent them from doing so.

So why Iran?

[Vincardog]

1. The only explanation is that the MIC wants another money fix

[Hugabear]

5. It's been far too long since the last World War

Forget regional conflicts. What we really need is a good old fashioned World War. I'm sure the MIC would just love that.

[redqueen]

26. +1

[Speck Tater]

2. No matter what the problem, there are two things that always work: 1. violence. 2. the free market.

:sarcasm:

(I hope you know I'm not really a stealth Republican.)

[liberal N proud]

3. Because Israel feels threatened

[jobycom]

4. How many nations have actually used nuclear weapons on another country?

Hint: It wasn't a Muslim nation.

[PDJane]

14. The US is, of course, the only country to use the ABomb.

However, if you broaden the definition to so-called depleted uranium munitions, the number of users gets larger.

Yeah, I know it's supposed to be harmless. That's a large pile of non-chemical fertilizer.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Fumesucker]

12. You do know that Ahedinnerjacket is not the most powerful person in Iran?

Welcome to DU..

I hope you enjoy your stay.

:hi:

[SomethingFishy]

16. Oh fucking please... Iran is not suicidal....

You think Iran doesn't know that if they attempt to nuke Israel it would mean the end for them? We are ready to level half their country for just talking about nukes.

Oh and one more thing. George W. Bush was allowed to have his finger on the button for 8 years. What gives you the right to tell another country they can't even have a button when this country allowed George Bush to keep his finger on ours?

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PDJane]

19. Get a grip.

Iran isn't going to bomb Israel, because they know what would happen should they do so. Israel is quite aware of this.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CJCRANE]

23. _

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CJCRANE]

29. _

[CJCRANE]

21. That wouldn't make sense.

Palestinians see Jerusalem as their capital.

[CJCRANE]

17. Um, not exactly. They want the Palestinians to live there

so it wouldn't make any sense to annihalate the place.

And I'm pretty sure the North Koreans have said all sorts of belligerent things as well as firing missiles at various things.

[Warren Stupidity]

25. That is not what Ahmadinejad actually said, but carry on.

Iran has not, since the mid 1700s, engaged in aggression against its neighbors. On the other hand I can think of one nation that has a recent history of aggression against many nations and that has demonstrated a willingness to use atomic weapons by actually doing just that. Should that nation also be attacked and forced to dismantle its nuclear weapons?

[rhett o rick]

32. I think he is just here for a short visit. nm

[cpwm17]

30. You mean when Hillary Clinton threatened to "obliterate" Iran

Yes, I'm sure that's what you're talking about. Because, as you should know, Iran hasn't threatened to annihilate anybody - or any equivalent threat. That's a fabrication by war mongers.

[rhett o rick]

31. So we go to war because of what they said? nm

[AndyTiedye]

7. Because AIPAC infiltrated the NSA, so They Have Congress by the…

[The Straight Story]

8. North korea is friends with china, Iran is not really friends with anyone on a major level

They play with the Soviets and such, but they would not defend them.

India and Pakistan we believe we can control to some level - Iran, not so much.

[Fumesucker]

9. Because shut up..

That's why..

[SammyWinstonJack]

42. ...

:spray:

[krispos42]

10. Well, because if Iran gets nukes, they'll start a nuclear war.

:crazy:


So we have to start a nuclear war with them to keep them from starting a nuclear war with... um... *throws dart* ... Bolivia. Yeah, that's it. Bolivia."

[Spider Jerusalem]

11. Why Iran? Regional balance of power

it's all about Israel's status as the only nuclear-armed Middle Eastern state (even if Israel doesn't admit to having nukes). If Iran has nukes? That equation changes. Suddenly you have the threat of mutual assured destruction. And it becomes plausible that faced with that threat Israel wouldn't dare pull the trigger and might conceivably find itself overwhelmed in conventional war with an Islamic Republic that has vastly superior numbers if not equipment and training.

[teddy51]

13. I love your OP, and certainly would like to know the answer as well. Other

than Israel says that Iran can't have them.

[orpupilofnature57]

15. Because 600% requires tons of paranoia ,give HALLIBURTON a fighting chance!

Times are tough and dictators are dropping right and left ,except of course the ones with the constant flow nuclear hearts, but the cia has him covered.

[toddwv]

22. The MIC needs a constant escalation of wars in order to support its ridiculously bloated budget.

It's simple economics and politics. If there is no massive front-line action somewhere providing a steady stream of war-porn, the public starts wondering why we have over around 300,000 troops stationed overseas...

If there is no "enemy", there are no justifications for the freedoms that have been "sacrificed" and people turn away from the hard-line ideologies that they are more apt to embrace during times of strife.

[JoePhilly]

24. We have to have a war with Iran to prevent a war with Iran.

Oh wait ... its not happening. Sure, the GOP would love to have one. It would be a great distraction, but unless we elect a GOP President, its not happening.

[rhett o rick]

28. War is an "ends". Fortunes are expanded via wars. nm

[azul]

33. Yes. So that they will be unable to defend our oil.

They are sitting on our damn oil and we want to be able to use it whenever we choose.

Once we invade it will be admitted that it was all about oil, after all.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

34. I can see two reasons Iran getting nukes is worse than many other nations doing so.

1) The risk it will supply them to a third party.

The odds of Iran actually dropping a nuke itself are very small, I think, just as the odds of any other nuclear nation doing so are.

But Iran makes a habit of encouraging, funding and arming terrorist and militant groups in neighbouring states (yes, I know some people say that's just rightwing scaremongering; no, they're not worth taking seriously). The odds that Iran would supply one of those groups with nuclear weapons, and that they would use the, while still small, are larger.



2) The effect on the balance of power in the region.

The Iranian government desperately wants to increase its power and influence in the region. This would be a very bad thing, because the Iranian government is unutterably evil (no, that's not just right-wing scaremongering either), and possessing nukes would give it more influence over its neighbours, not to mention possibly triggering an arms race.



I don't think either of those is sufficient to justify a war; I do think that they're reasons to be more concerned about Iranian nukes than about Israeli, Pakistani, Indian or even North Korean (the North Korean government is insane but isolationist, and mostly contents itself with making life horrible for North Koreans) ones.

[Hugabear]

35. I dont buy that at all

Theres a huge difference in supplying weapons to various groups and giving them nukes. We've supplied right wing terrorist groups around the world, but never given anyone nukes. Besides, it probably wouldn't be too hard to find out who supplied the nuke, and they would be toast.

[Warren Stupidity]

38. "unutterably evil"?

Iran is no more unutterably evil than our good friends the Sauds over in their little Sunni theocracy. In fact it is arguably quite a bit less evil. By the way Pakistan, with its inner instability, is far more likely to manage to lose a nuke or two to the wrong people than anyone else. But we aren't going to bomb Pakistan into oblivion. Then again China is their silent regional ally so probably that would be a massive strategic mistake on the order of '41 and the eastern front.

[Odin2005]

36. The only reason Iran wants nukes is because of Chimpy's "Axis of Evil" speech.

North Korea got themselves nukes for the same reason.

The only one to blame for Iran's nuclear program is George W. Bush.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

43. Nonsense.

The Iranian government was evil, militaristic and aiming to increase its power in the region long before Bush pointed it out.

Not everything wrong with the world is America's fault.

[Odin2005]

44. Nice fallacious argument, there. I'm a poster who hates "hate America First" BS.

[lunatica]

37. I'm anti war, so no, I can't justify this war either.

[TBF]

39. Sure - here is your list of countries with proven oil reserves --

1 Venezuela (more information) (2010) <2> <3> 296,500,000,000
2 Saudi Arabia (more information) (2011)<4> 264,600,000,000
3 Canada (more information) (2008) 175,200,000,000 <5>
4 Iran (more information) (2011) 154,700,000,000
5 Iraq (more information) (2008) 115,000,000,000
6 Kuwait (more information) (2010) 104,000,000,000
7 United Arab Emirates (more information) (2008) 97,800,000,000
8 Russia (more information) (2009) 74,200,000,000
9 Libya (more information) (2010) 47,000,000,000
10 Nigeria (more information) (2007) 37,500,000,000

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_proven_oil_reserves

Any additional questions?

[Motown_Johnny]

40. They didn't need a nuclear weapons program to go to war with Israel

some nations don't believe Israel has any right to exist and go to war with it simply to cease it's existence.


Iran is a special case because Reagan gave Khomeini and his followers weapons for hostages (illegally) so when they develop nukes it will be a direct reflection on Reagan.

Just like Iraq was a special case because H.W. Bush didn't go to Baghdad when he had the chance.



The conservatives are just trying to cover up the big mistakes they have made in the past by making bigger mistakes now.


Edit to add, not that H.W. didn't do the right thing refusing to go to Baghdad, it is just how conservatives viewed the decision that I was referring to.

[spanone]

41. war keeps the military budget churning

[truth2power]

45. It's not about nukes. n/t

[rucky]

46. The war you know vs. the war you don't know?

dunno

I got nothing.

[mmonk]

47. Because the ruling class profits from war and security.

[MedleyMisty]

48. Back during the run up to Iraq

I frequently asked people why we were allowed to have nukes but non-Western non-majority white countries weren't.

No one ever answered.