Nuclear threat

[Flat.tyres]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6997935.stm

Well, we have to take it seriously if the cheese eating surrender monkeys are worried, don't we?

What would happen if Iran had Nuclear Weapons capability? Would it become a diplomatic bargining tool as has happened since WWII or do you think the more fundamentalist outlook of Iran would consider directly or indirectly using it?

It takes a hell of a lot of time, money and expertise to deliver a Nuclear payload by air but next to nothing give it to Al Queda to drive it into Israel in some old banger.

Are we closer now to experiencing Nuclear agression than since the Cuban Missile Crisis?

[Eki]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6997935.stm

Well, we have to take it seriously if the cheese eating surrender monkeys are worried, don't we?

What would happen if Iran had Nuclear Weapons capability? Would it become a diplomatic bargining tool as has happened since WWII or do you think the more fundamentalist outlook of Iran would consider directly or indirectly using it?

It takes a hell of a lot of time, money and expertise to deliver a Nuclear payload by air but next to nothing give it to Al Queda to drive it into Israel in some old banger.

Are we closer now to experiencing Nuclear agression than since the Cuban Missile Crisis?
If Russia and China will see them as a threat too, THEN it's time to worry.

[Eki]

It takes a hell of a lot of time, money and expertise to deliver a Nuclear payload by air but next to nothing give it to Al Queda to drive it into Israel in some old banger.

Al Queda are Sunni, the Iranians are Shiia. They aren't exactly friends, so I don't think they will give anything to Al Qaeda.

[Flat.tyres]

Al Queda are Sunni, the Iranians are Shiia. They aren't exactly friends, so I don't think they will give anything to Al Qaeda.

With a common enemy.

Besides, that was just an example, any number of terrorist groups would suffice.

[Drew]

I can't say I'm worried. The US has far more nuclear bombs than Iran will ever produce.

[BDunnell]

Are we closer now to experiencing Nuclear agression than since the Cuban Missile Crisis?

One crucial difference between now and then is that, to all intents and purposes, we knew the Soviets were not going to launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike. The relationship between the West and the Soviets then was far more conducive to nothing happening than is the case with regard to Iran now, although I still don't believe that we should be quaking in our boots, because Iran will not launch a pre-emptive strike either.

[Mark]

For all their posturing, Iran isn't stupid, it knows fine well if it launches a nuclear weapon from its territory, then they will be wiped out.

The worry is Iran giving weapons to someone else to deliver, but I don't think we need worry to much on that score either. Iran is developing the weapons in order to become a major regional power, especially with an unstable Iraq right on its doorstep.

[Tomi]

For all their posturing, Iran isn't stupid, it knows fine well if it launches a nuclear weapon from its territory, then they will be wiped out.

The worry is Iran giving weapons to someone else to deliver, but I don't think we need worry to much on that score either. Iran is developing the weapons in order to become a major regional power, especially with an unstable Iraq right on its doorstep.

I think the same, also Iran also has big oilresourses to protect, they did look from not so far what happens to countries who has no army to protect their resourses.

[rah]

They are just trying to get nukes to protect themselves. If I was them I would be doing the same. Look at North Korea, the US isn't threatening them with invasion. And if they did get one after all that effort, why the hell would they give it away?

[Eki]

For all their posturing, Iran isn't stupid, it knows fine well if it launches a nuclear weapon from its territory, then they will be wiped out.

True. The Supreme Leader of Iran, Ali Khamenei, who's in in charge of Iran's military is 69 years old. That's no sign of him being suicidal:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khamenei
And it doesn't look like President Ahmadinejad wants to make Iranians extinct either:

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


Family planning and population policy

See also: Family planning in Iran

In October 2006, President Ahmadinejad opposed encouraging families to limit themselves to just two children, stating that Iran could cope with 50 million more people than the current 70 million.[56] In remarks that have drawn criticism, he told MPs he wanted to scrap existing birth control policies which discouraged Iranian couples from having more than two children.[56] Critics reacted with alarm and said the president’s call was ill-judged at a time when Iran was struggling with surging inflation and rising unemployment, estimated at around 11%. Mr Ahmadinejad’s call for an increased birth rate is reminiscent of a demand Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini 1979. The policy was effective in increasing population growth, but was eventually reversed in response to the resultant economic strain.[56]

[Flat.tyres]

2 questions.

1. Would Iran work to eliminate an enemy either directly or indirectly.
2. If they were discovered, would the West risk a Nuclear response against a Middle East country and the Oil reserves in the region?

If there was a Nuclear response to a Iranian first strike against Israel, it would throw the whole region into war and effectively cut off all Oil from the Middle East.