[URL="http://news.sky.com/story/1148934/israel-will-not-let-iran-get-nuclear-bomb"]Source[/URL]
[QUOTE=Sky News]
[B]Israel is ready to act "alone" to stop Iran getting a nuclear bomb, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has warned.[/B]
He said the only way to peacefully stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons is to combine tough sanctions with a credible military threat.
Mr Netanyahu argued Israel's future is threatened by a "nuclear-armed" Iran seeking its destruction.
He told the UN General Assembly: "Israel will not allow Iran to get nuclear weapons. If Israel is forced to stand alone, Israel will stand alone. Don't let up the pressure (on Iran)."
He added that the only deal that could be made with Iran's President Hassan Rouhani, was one that "fully dismantles Iran's nuclear weapons program."
[/QUOTE]
[img]http://media.skynews.com/media/images/generated/2013/10/1/262432/default/v1/irandelegate-1-522x293.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE]He said the only way to [b]peacefully[/b] stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons is to combine tough sanctions with a [b]credible military threat[/b].[/QUOTE]
Hmmm....
[QUOTE=agentalexandre;42372079]Hmmm....[/QUOTE]
Better words than actions.
I'd prefer that no one had any nuclear bombs.
sigh, the same bullshit every month for the past twenty years or so.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;42372094]I'd prefer that no one had any nuclear bombs.[/QUOTE]
you cant uninvent things.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;42372196][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_disarmament[/url][/QUOTE]
And what is to prevent someone from making a new one?
Try it, Israel, I dare you, you won't last two weeks without USA holding your hand.
[editline]1st October 2013[/editline]
It's hilarious how Israel is basically North Korea when it comes to these statements.
[QUOTE=deadoon;42372231]And what is to prevent someone from making a new one?[/QUOTE]
I dunno but whatever we're doing to Iran is going quite fine
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;42372251]Try it, Israel, I dare you, you won't last two weeks without USA holding your hand.
[/QUOTE]
they've done it before and they'll do it again.
[QUOTE=deadoon;42372231]And what is to prevent someone from making a new one?[/QUOTE]
International treaties?
I mean, a lot of countries already have agreed not to use chemical and biological warfare, so nuclear disarmament isn't very much of a stretch.
Plus there's the fact that nuclear stockpiles are smaller today in the USA and Russia than in the cold war.
We should probably invest into better protection against nuclear warfare, since it seems like it's inevitable
That will also kind of break the whole lot of power that comes with Nuclear weapons.
And people will just choose not to use them, hopefully.
[QUOTE=Shreddinger;42372297]We should probably invest into better protection against nuclear warfare, since it seems like it's inevitable
That will also kind of break the whole lot of power that comes with Nuclear weapons.
And people will just choose not to use them, hopefully.[/QUOTE]
Why not invest into preventing wars in the first place?
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;42372251]Try it, Israel, I dare you, you won't last two weeks without USA holding your hand.
[editline]1st October 2013[/editline]
It's hilarious how Israel is basically North Korea when it comes to these statements.[/QUOTE]
Israel has been doing fine in recent years and they haven't asked us for help in many things since the 90s. Occasionally some input on wars/terrorism/economics, etc. But the US has just been the "big brother that is kinda just there but when serious shit goes down you want him around." So, Israel has basically been on its own, but asks big brother over here for our input on what to do.
With that said, Israel is in the Top 10 for most powerful militaries in the world because of Western backing and technology. No Middle Eastern country alone would stand a chance, so they're threats are actually credible. Childish and probably bullshit, but credible.
I just want the Middle East to settle the fuck down already and want everybody to get along, but that will never happen.
[QUOTE=deadoon;42372231]And what is to prevent someone from making a new one?[/QUOTE]
Sanction the shit out of countries that refuse disarmament, let them see what good their nuclear might is when their economy turns to shit. See: North Korea.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;42372346]Why not invest into preventing wars in the first place?[/QUOTE]
As long as bad people exist the possibility of war is there.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;42372346]Why not invest into preventing wars in the first place?[/QUOTE]
I don't think it's possible, maybe if humanity had a goal as a whole and activity supported it.
You would have to unify everyone.
Defending against nuclear attacks seems easier.
[QUOTE=sgman91;42372376]As long as bad people exist the possibility of war is there.[/QUOTE]
Yet we live in the least violent time in human history.
[editline]1st October 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Shreddinger;42372380]I don't think it's possible, maybe if humanity had a goal as a whole and activity supported it.
You would have to unify everyone.
Defending against nuclear attacks seems easier.[/QUOTE]
Well, what's stopped nuclear attacks before now?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;42372392]Yet we live in the least violent time in human history.
[editline]1st October 2013[/editline]
Well, what's stopped nuclear attacks before now?[/QUOTE]
Mutually assured destruction.
While i don't believe anyone should be brandishing nukes, you can't blame Iran for wanting them. All the big players and most credible threats to their soil posses them; the US, Russia, Israel and Pakistan all have the ability to glass some Persian mountains if they wanted to. They're some of the most justifiable paranoids in the middle east, having had their affairs meddled with by larger powers for the better part of 200 years.
A sabre rattling Israeli strategy is the worst to use, it basically justifies their fears rather than sway them. Afterall, the only reason anyone still keeps nukes is they're afraid someone will use one on them, so they keep them around to scare everyone off. The more Israel threaten Iran, the more they're see this as the only credible counter threat to them (and everyone else).
Violence isn't always the answer guys.
[QUOTE=Squad1993;42372421]Mutually assured destruction.[/QUOTE]
Right, so nobody uses nuclear weapons.
What is the difference in that case, between a world without nuclear weapons, and one with nuclear weapons?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;42372392]Yet we live in the least violent time in human history.
[editline]1st October 2013[/editline]
Well, what's stopped nuclear attacks before now?[/QUOTE]
Well, previous attempts didn't really stop the attacks.
I was thinking about a solution that wont come at the cost of the quality of living.
Actually stopping the nuclear attack seems very very unlikely.
That's like trying to neutralize an explosion
I was thinking about better shielding for whole cities, seems far fetched but It's probably easier than unifying humanity.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;42372432]Right, so nobody uses nuclear weapons.
What is the difference in that case, between a world without nuclear weapons, and one with nuclear weapons?[/QUOTE]
That is hard to tell because WWII ended because of NW.
And I for one probably wouldn't be here if my grandfather had invaded Japan.
[QUOTE=Squad1993;42372421]Mutually assured destruction.[/QUOTE]
Precisely. Until everyone gives up their nukes simultaneously and doesn't hide any stockpiles this is the reason.
Even if every major country publicly disarms their nukes, there is a near guarantee that they will still have some hidden due to their effectiveness as a weapon.
Until that happens, it is better to have everyone's reserves of nukes public.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;42372432]Right, so nobody uses nuclear weapons.
What is the difference in that case, between a world without nuclear weapons, and one with nuclear weapons?[/QUOTE]
Nukes act as a shield of fear. Having them makes it so anyone who otherwise would attack you will think twice as even if you win you will still lose.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;42372432]Right, so nobody uses nuclear weapons.
What is the difference in that case, between a world without nuclear weapons, and one with nuclear weapons?[/QUOTE]
Well, without nuclear weapons there is no mutually assured destruction, is there? Nation A does not attack Nation B because it will initiate a nuclear war which will likely fuck over both nations equally, so might as well not try. If neither has nuclear weapons then Nation A actually has a chance of successfully invading Nation B with acceptable losses, something that wouldn't be possible in a nuclear war. Paradoxically nuclear weapons are peacekeepers.
I think complete nuclear disarmament is a bad thing myself, due to a great thing callled MAD. mutually assured destruction, you can be guaranteed that any country that uses a nuclear weapon would be obliterated by 10 of them for each one they use, we get rid of the risk of them being used and we increase the chances of another large war, at least thats what I think
[QUOTE=Squad1993;42372455]That is hard to tell because WWII ended because of NW.
And I for one probably wouldn't be here if my grandfather had invaded Japan.[/QUOTE]
Despite the war in Europe being over? Japan was only really the only one left, and they were already losing and being pummeled by the allies by the time the bombs were used.
[QUOTE=Im Crimson;42372509]Well, without nuclear weapons there is no mutually assured destruction, is there? Nation A does not attack Nation B because it will initiate a nuclear war which will likely fuck over both nations equally, so might as well not try. If neither has nuclear weapons then Nation A actually has a chance of successfully invading Nation B with acceptable losses, something that wouldn't be possible in a nuclear war. Paradoxically nuclear weapons are peacekeepers.[/QUOTE]
exactly what I'm saying, the threat of them being used is more then enough to stop most wars
I think the only way to stop nuclear warfare is to render the effectiveness of nuclear weapons to be completely useless, with some new technology that will shield whole cities.
Again this is really hard and will probably take decades of of hard scientific research, hopefully within that time frame, we won't destroy ourselves.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.