If Iran DOES develop a nuclear weapon, would that be reason enough to invade?

[Poiuyt]

That's one of the things that bothered me about Bush's runup to the Iraq war. There was never any discussion about imminent intent to use the weapons (that Saddam didn't have).

If Iran should develop nuclear weapons, is that reason enough to invade? Is the mere possession of weapons by certain countries reason to attack?

Or would you need to show intent to use the weapons?

Or would you need to show that an attack is imminent?

[Hydra]

1. Since this is Little Boots at the helm:

Yes
Yes
No
No

real reason we're doing this: Because the conquest must continue.

[Buzz Clik]

5. No proof of anything necessary. Where there's a will, there's a lie.

[truedelphi]

2. I like what Jim Webb said in the Democratic response to

Bush's State of the Union address:
<I'll paraphrase>>
That during the vietnam War we had ample evidence that China was supplying weapons to North vietnam and that those weapons were killing our service men and women.

We also knew that China had acquired the bomb and that China was expanding its nuclear arsenal.

But we didn't go and declare war on China.

So if we didn't do that to China, why should we do that against Iran?

Except of course that Iran has oil.

Never mind that Iran is at least five years away from having a single nuke.

[annabanana]

8. I'm wtih Webb on this one.. . . .n/t

[ShortnFiery]

3. Hell NO! Considering the bat shit crazed nutcase we have sitting in the Oval Office,

The rest of The World, by your logic, should invade the USA. :crazy:

"Persian" is not Farsi for STUPID!

It's called Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) and the THREAT OF THIS WORKS and encourages countries to use diplomacy and dialog in order to *scale back* the rhetoric and war-mongering.

[LakeSamish706]

4. The simple answer is "NO"...

"If Iran DOES develop a nuclear weapon, would that be reason enough to invade?" The thing is Iran may already have Nukes and we don't know about it. Russia or North Korea may have given Nukes to Iran and if this were the case and the US attacks Iran... Why wouldn't Iran utilize there Nukes on the Green zone in Iraq and Israel? This would set up cause for Bush's WW111 scenario and probably end life on earth completely...

[Dhalgren]

6. No. If Iran had a nuclear weapon, that would be a reason NOT to

attack them. Bush only wants to attack other nations who will not be able to defend themselves - that is the kind of country the USA is...

[phantom power]

13. You know what the GOP loves to say: "an armed society is a polite society!"

:evilgrin:

[Blue_In_AK]

24. Great minds think alike.

I just posted the exact same quote below. :)

[phantom power]

7. I question the entire premise of preventing sovereign nations from...

becoming nuclear powers. If I was a nation trying to develop nukes, my first response to the "security council" would be something like "Bite me. You first, nuclear-boys."

Any paper-thin moral authority we ever had to tell other nations not to develop weapons that we ourselves have thousands of, evaporated when BushCo got into power and shit on the existing nonproliferation treaties.

[Hydra]

11. Yeah

I would add this: if you are a developing country that's feeling nervous, don't announce your program until you already have a bomb, and don't even THINK of giving it up!

[NanceGreggs]

9. The policies of Bush and PNAC ...

... have now made it necessary for countries like Iran to have nukes. It will serve as a defense against having their country invaded and destroyed in order to get their oil - like, hmmm, Iraq - just to pull one example out of the air.

When people say we can't have a madman with access to nukes, I say we already have one - G.W. Bush. It doesn't get any crazier than that.

[Done]

10. No

Iran having nuclear weapons could lead to a nuclear war in the ME, but if we go after Iran, and Iran has nuclear weapons, it would definitely lead to a nuclear war. It's like starting a war in order to prevent a war. War = peace. Don't make any sense at all.

[MADem]

12. WE can't 'invade'--we just don't have the military to do it.

And it would take over a year, at FULL BORE and wartime footing, to get that military.

If someone in gubmint didn't LIKE the idea of them having nukes, they'd probably bunker bust the facility before it became active. That's how they'd solve it. Like Israel's (ancient history) Osirak and (recent) Syrian jaunts.

But invasion? With what assets? And under President ClintonObamaEdwards or a player to be named later? None of them are running on a "YEAH!!! MORE WAR!!" platform.

We have more CIVILIANS in Iraq now than we do military, and already, our military is stretched-to-breaking. We just don't have the assets for further adventures without finishing up that mess first. And even at that, Iran is bigger, badder and much more nationalistic than Iraq was on its best day. Invasion by just us is an exercise in lunacy, and sabre-rattling to sound tough. The Pentagon knows it.

Now, if the entire world comes to a decision that Iran's leadership is this century's Hitlers In Turbans (which is unlikely in the extreme), then that is a different story....but it would take critical mass to subdue that land. And we don't have that (thank goodness).

[BushOut06]

14. Absolutely NO - containment has always worked pretty well in the past

If Iran actually were to use a nuclear weapon, or supply one to someone who used it, then that would be a different story.

Should we invade Pakistan? We KNOW they have nukes, and a whole bunch of bat-crazy types who would love to use them on people.

How about Israel? We're pretty darn sure they have nukes as well - at least, there's more evidence of them having nukes than Iran working on them.

And have we learned NOTHING from the Iraq fiasco? What happens if we invade Iran, and once again find nothing? What if they're actually telling the TRUTH about their peaceful nuke program?

[endarkenment]

15. No of course not.

When are we invading Israel? India? Pakistan? North Korea?

[blues90]

16. This entire nuclear world is madness

Look at what this crime family did , they gave nukes to Pakistan and India , great move , then they point the finger at Iran as a threat . We all know Iran is a threat only because they sit on oil .

A much better plan would to have no nukes anywhere but this has now blown so far past reason that there will always be nukes and that hovering threat one country has over another .

How would any country prove intent when it comes to nukes , there is only one intent . The intent is either protection or attack and they go hand in hand in one very simple way . Once one is launched there goes everything because in an attack there is a counter attack so both sides lose .

Hell from what I understand even with good intent you can't ever dismantle these damn things and have an end to them because the radiation manufactured is there for ever sitting in landfill somewhere .

Mutual assured destruction , does that not make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside . What a world we live in , my entire life of 58 years has been sitting on top of Mutual assured destruction , sick , twisted minds of mankind .

My answer is NO , what this world does not need is another country with "the bomb" .

And the people who feel bombing Japan was a great thing to bring peace are out of their blooody minds .

[McCamy Taylor]

17. We never attack a country with a nuke. That is why they want one.

What W. and Cheney are doing is encouraging China or Russia to secretly give Iran a nuke so that there are more countries in the world with nukes. That way the GOP will be able to go back to cold war politics to win elections.

China is the one that needs Iran's oil, so it is the one that would be most likely to hand one out--if it thought it could do so without getting caught. China would not do it if there was a chance of getting caught. However, they could use North Korea as a middle man. Or Pakistan.

[LSK]

18. did we feel the need to invade the Soviet Union in the 50 years they had nukes pointed at us

Any more stupid questions? Stop drinking the kool-aid. Iran wouldn't use Nukes even if they had them. They are not a fucking lunatic country that is determined on self-destruction that any nuclear use would ensure.

More importantly: www.iaea.org

[Phx_Dem]

26. sure they would

except Iran would use a proxy group or conveniently "lose" one, which would provide them with an out. Do you really trust the Iranian government to be good stewards of nuclear technology?

[LSK]

28. yes, see the IAEA reference again

BTW why hasn't a nuke slipped out of India, Pakistan or the broken up USSR countries? Because this isn't a science fiction movie.

[Phx_Dem]

33. Just because it has not happened yet

Does not mean it can't. No one ever thought a couple of planes could take down the WTCs either.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

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

[LSK]

29. do you trust the UNITED STATES to not "lose" one?

Like they tried to do about a month ago before a whistleblower blew that plan?

[Phx_Dem]

30. No.

which is exactly my point. If the US can lose 4 nukes for almost 3 hours what can we expect from other nations?

I would like to see the entire world rid themselves of nukes, but that's not going to happen, all we can do is try to prevent the nuclear club from expanding.

[LSK]

35. yes, I would love to rid the world of nukes, but War is not the means to do it

War makes people get nukes to deter war on them.

[spanone]

19. we need dialog, we need diplomacy. we have 10,000 nukes. we need education

[Javaman]

20. nope, if it was we would be invading a host of nations.

but since north korea doesn't have oil...

[Megahurtz]

21. Fuck No!

The U.S. has Nuclear Weapons, Israel has Nuclear Weapons, and who ever else and on and on.
Everyone has fucking Nuclear Weapons so why shouldn't Iran?

Whining about another Country obtaining Nuclear Weapons because you think they will use them on you, is like making a Police report on someone who you think is going to assault you. Even the Police will shake their heads and tell you that there is nothing that they can do until it that person harms you or, they may never harm you anyway.

It's all so incredibly stupid about who can have Nukes and who can't says who? :eyes:

[Disturbed]

25. Most experts in this field have said it would take Iran at least

6 to 10 years to mfg. Nukes. The push for attacking Iran is about regional power & flow of oil. It has nothing to do with Nukes. Also, the constant threat to Iran might be a ploy to get Iran to bankrupt while spending their money on defense.That was the strategy toward the Soviet Union, starting with Eisenhower.

[Blue_In_AK]

22. I say "nukes for all"

An armed society is a polite society, as our right-wing friends are fond of saying.

[hootinholler]

23. Absolutely! As long as we go in via Pakistan. n/t

[Phx_Dem]

27. Your OP sets up a false choice

If Iran were close to developing nukes (which they aren't) why would it ever be necessary to invade them when limited air strikes could suffice. Not saying that Bushco does not want to invade, they sure do but that has little to do with WMD and a lot to do with oil.

[OzarkDem]

31. No

Russia, N Korea, etc, etc, etc.

[MedleyMisty]

32. No.

If it's okay to attack countries on the basis of having nukes, shouldn't we have been invaded and occupied a long time ago?

[porphyrian]

36. Israel would bomb it before it was completed. - n/t