|
| DOS Games Discussion
A message board to talk about DOS games, get help, and find old games.
Do NOT post warez or abandonware requests please
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
dosraider
Admin
Joined: 15 Mar 2005
Posts: 7189
Location: ROTFLMAO in Belgium.
|
 Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 2:19 pm
Post subject: |
 |
|
| MiniMax wrote: | | Any intelligent Iranian leader will realize, that 30 minutes after they have dropped an A-bomb on Israel, all of Iran will be a radioactive wastedump. |
That must be the most simplistic thing I've read since long time.
And who's gonna nuke Iran? 71 or 72 million peeps .....
Us? France? in 30 minutes ? yes? And what if they launch from a ship, sub (ow yes they have subs) unidentified plane or whatever fuck*ng throw it on Israel from Egypt...... suicide ignition on Israel territory.....
You think that in 30 minutes it will be proven beyond doubt it came from Iran?
You're a joke.
| MiniMax wrote: | | So they will never use it. And then - if it is never used, where is the danger? |
Me laughs now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
emmzee
Site Admin
Joined: 14 Sep 2002
Posts: 2140
Location: Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 2:44 pm
Post subject: |
|
|
| MiniMax wrote: | | Okay. Then what about his "masters", the Imans? Unless they are dumb and stupid, then I don't see the danger in allowing Iran to have nuclear weapons. Any intelligent Iranian leader will realize, that 30 minutes after they have dropped an A-bomb on Israel, all of Iran will be a radioactive wastedump. So they will never use it. And then - if it is never used, where is the danger? |
This argument might hold water if Ahmadinejad was interested in taking over Israel because he (and those who take similar opinions) really want (or need) the land. If, for example, Ahmadinejad thought "Man those Israelites have some swanky land there, I wish we could have it for ourselves." That, however, does not seem to be his (their) motivation. Rather, it is the fact that Israel is a Jewish nation that has caused his ire. I don't doubt that he would "nuke" Israel if he had the chance.
As an aside, dosraider (and everyone), let's try to keep things civil, no need for namecalling. If this thread degenerates into ad hominem attacks it will be closed, so let's aim for respectful disagreement and attack arguments, not people. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dogbreath
Admin
Joined: 14 Sep 2002
Posts: 4439
Location: In the back of a jacked-up Ford.
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 3:04 pm
Post subject: |
|
|
| MiniMax wrote: |
Okay. Then what about his "masters", the Imans? Unless they are dumb and stupid, then I don't see the danger in allowing Iran to have nuclear weapons. Any intelligent Iranian leader will realize, that 30 minutes after they have dropped an A-bomb on Israel, all of Iran will be a radioactive wastedump. So they will never use it. And then - if it is never used, where is the danger? |
You don't seem to realize two things. Firstly, these rulers may be intelligent, but they're not necessarily sane. Secondly, Iran isn't exactly the most secure place in the world. So, let's say Iran builds a nuke, hangs on to it for awhile, and everything is just fine and dandy. Then there's another revolution like the one in 1979. The ruling class is murdered, the government is overthrown, and some fanatical group takes over the nuclear launch facility. They're not going to care about the safety of Iran's 70 million people, they're just going to think about how many Jews they can kill before they see Allah, so they hit the big red button. BOOM! There goes Israel! Or any nation in range, really.
If you think that's scenario is far fetched, think again. It happened 28 years ago, we were just lucky that Iran didn't have any nukes. Who says it won't happen again?
Another situation: Iran gets it's nukes, and, thinking itself invulnerable, declares war on Israel or any other surrounding nation. Because of their advanced military and superior numbers, they win, and start lining up the Jews to get gassed like the Nazi wannabes they are. Eventually, France (or any NATO nation, really) decides they've had enough of their allies getting genocided, so they invade Iran with the intention of replacing the leadership with more suitable characters. The bombs are falling, and the Frenchies are closing in on the Axis Of Evil Command HQ. The Imams know they only have a short while left to live, so, deciding to go out in a bang, they hit the big red button. Boom! There goes France.
Think about it for a while. Do you really not see the danger in a crazy, tyrannical, unstable fundamentalist regime possessing nuclear weaponry? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MiniMax
Expert
Joined: 25 Jan 2007
Posts: 162
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 4:12 pm
Post subject: |
|
|
| Dogbreath wrote: | Another situation: Iran gets it's nukes, and, thinking itself invulnerable, declares war on Israel or any other surrounding nation. Because of their advanced military and superior numbers, they win,
<snip> |
It will be a strange type of "win". Israel has nuclear weapons, and I don't think they will hesitate using them against Iran if Iran invades. So the war will have an abrupt end, and no-one will be lined up.
| Dogbreath wrote: | | Then there's another revolution like the one in 1979. The ruling class is murdered, the government is overthrown, and some fanatical group takes over the nuclear launch facility. |
Are you talking about Iran or Pakistan now? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dogbreath
Admin
Joined: 14 Sep 2002
Posts: 4439
Location: In the back of a jacked-up Ford.
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 4:16 pm
Post subject: |
|
|
| Iran, of course... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dosraider
Admin
Joined: 15 Mar 2005
Posts: 7189
Location: ROTFLMAO in Belgium.
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 4:21 pm
Post subject: |
|
|
Oh my, politics ....... 
Me and myself is outta here.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MiniMax
Expert
Joined: 25 Jan 2007
Posts: 162
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 4:39 pm
Post subject: |
|
|
| Dogbreath wrote: | | Iran, of course... |
Good - because if there were the slightest chance of a fanatic, muslim coup happening in Pakistan, then we better demand that Pakistan hands over their nuclear weapons to the USA. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dosraider
Admin
Joined: 15 Mar 2005
Posts: 7189
Location: ROTFLMAO in Belgium.
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 5:02 pm
Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, good point, hand them over to the ONLY country that has used nukes in wartime.
Very good point.
Ow ow ow I was outta here, politics ........  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
emmzee
Site Admin
Joined: 14 Sep 2002
Posts: 2140
Location: Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 6:50 pm
Post subject: |
|
|
| MiniMax wrote: | | Good - because if there were the slightest chance of a fanatic, muslim coup happening in Pakistan, then we better demand that Pakistan hands over their nuclear weapons to the USA. |
No one's suggesting that Iran should hand over nuclear weapons that they already have; as far as we know, they don't have any (yet). The suggestion is that it's not a good idea for a country which has made it clear they wish to see another nation wiped off the face of the earth to create new nuclear weapons. (And when I say "they" I don't mean every person in the country, rather those in charge and who have the ability to make it happen.)
Is the argument that because country 'x' has nuclear weapons, then well, we might as well just give everyone else nukes too? That doesn't follow. Pakistan is a separate issue, mentioning them here only clouds the issue, like saying "Well, yeah, Johnny stole a candy bar, but look what Joey's doing!" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dogbreath
Admin
Joined: 14 Sep 2002
Posts: 4439
Location: In the back of a jacked-up Ford.
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 7:55 pm
Post subject: |
|
|
| MiniMax wrote: | | Dogbreath wrote: | | Iran, of course... |
Good - because if there were the slightest chance of a fanatic, muslim coup happening in Pakistan, then we better demand that Pakistan hands over their nuclear weapons to the USA. |
Eh, Pakistan already possesses nukes, so the cat's already out of the bag on that one. I'm not sure what the USA has to do with this (I don't think they've been mentioned in this thread, other than the OP which happened in New York), but if Pakistan were to do anything with their nukes, they should destroy them, not transport them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MiniMax
Expert
Joined: 25 Jan 2007
Posts: 162
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 26, 2007 2:22 am
Post subject: |
|
|
Dogbreath brought up 2 reasons why Iran should not be allowed to have nuclear weapons. One of them was this:
1) The ruling class is murdered, the government is overthrown, and some fanatical group takes over the nuclear launch facility.
2) Iran gets it's nukes, and, thinking itself invulnerable, declares war on Israel or any other surrounding nation.
Ad 1) My position is that this situation is equally likely to happen in Pakistan as in Iran. Pakistan *has* nuclear weapons, they have an unpopular dictator as head of government, and they have a large fundamental and radical Muslim movement.
If the risk of nuclear weapons ending up in the hands of fanatics is a valid reason to deny Iran the right to have them, then I would expect to hear demands for Pakistan to destroy their nuclear weapons. Yet I don't see it.
Why? Is it because it is not a valid reason, or is it because of double standards when it comes to Iran versus Pakistan?
Ad 2) I don't buy the argument that Iran (as much as they despise Israel) will use nuclear weapons against any country. Nuclear weapons are defensive in nature. They don't work as offensive weapons. Nuclear weapons are that big, scary weapon that really says "Don't invade me, or else!".
And because I don't see them as offensive weapons, I don't see the danger of Iran having them. Yet everyone says Iran can not have them.
Why? Is it because the western world really fear that they will be used offensive? Or is it because nuclear weapons effectively prevents an invasion and a western-style, imposed democratisation process? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dosraider
Admin
Joined: 15 Mar 2005
Posts: 7189
Location: ROTFLMAO in Belgium.
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 26, 2007 3:23 am
Post subject: |
|
|
| MiniMax wrote: | | And because I don't see them as offensive weapons, I don't see the danger of Iran having them. Yet everyone says Iran can not have them. |
Worst case scenario time is here again:
One plane with some suicide folks.
Flying over ............(whatever city goes here, doesnt have to be in the USA)
Nuke on board.
Not realistic?
Been proven to be a realistic possibility.
Someone better forsee a lot of willing virgins, they gonna need them to supply the martyrs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
emmzee
Site Admin
Joined: 14 Sep 2002
Posts: 2140
Location: Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 26, 2007 10:26 am
Post subject: |
|
|
Again, bringing Pakistan into the argument changes nothing. Should Pakistan have nukes? No. Should the USA? No! Should Iran? Certainly not! The difference is, as I've already pointed out, twofold: 1) Iran doesn't already have nukes, so it's possible to prevent them from getting 'em, whereas Pakistan and the USA already have them, and 2) The President of Iran has stated (publicly and repeatedly) that he wants to destroy Israel! So why is it such a leap to suggest that if he had the means to do so that he would? I think he's wrong and stupid in many ways but I don't see evidence that he's a liar.
Regarding nuclear weapons not being offensive weapons, ie, "I don't see them as offensive weapons" ... how many nuclear weapons have been dropped throughout history? Two:
| Quote: | | In the history of warfare, two nuclear weapons have been detonated — both by the United States, during the closing days of World War II. The first event occurred on the morning of 6 August 1945, when the United States dropped a uranium gun-type device ... on the Japanese city of Hiroshima. The second event occurred three days later ... These bombings resulted in the immediate deaths of around 120,000 people [source] |
This seems to be "offensive" (in more senses of the word than one, perhaps) to me ... so the only examples we have of nuclear weapons being used are "offensive".
Analogy: Say some stupid politician says "I really hate gay people. If I had a gun, I'd shoot every last one of them." Should we sell him a gun? Would it be responsible to sell him a gun? The argument that "Other people that hate homosexuals have guns" doesn't mean it would be in any way responsible to also give this guy a gun. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dogbreath
Admin
Joined: 14 Sep 2002
Posts: 4439
Location: In the back of a jacked-up Ford.
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 26, 2007 4:57 pm
Post subject: |
|
|
Minimax: I don't know if you understand this, but, I don't think ANYONE at all should have nuclear weapons. They serve no good purpose, and, IMO, are a form of insanity. Ideally, every nuclear weapon would be dismantled, the uranium put to use in reactors, and nukes banned worldwide. However, some nations already possess them, and currently, there's no plausible way to convince these nations to disarm.
On the other hand, we (every single poster in this thread holds a citizenship a country that's part of NATO) are very capable of preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, so why shouldn't we? What good could possibly come from them owning nukes?
And, emmzee already said it, but, I don't really see how a weapon designed to kill as many people as possible can be considered a defensive weapon. The whole Cold War theory of deterrence doesn't really apply anymore since there are a lot more than 2 teams involved now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group and Ask an Expert
Also powered by Darren and the other admin and mods' hard work! ;)
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
