• Ever thought it'd be cool to have your art, writing, or challenge runs featured on PokéCommunity? Click here for info - we'd love to spotlight your work!
  • Dawn, Gloria, Juliana, or Summer - which Pokémon protagonist is your favorite? Let us know by voting in our poll!
  • Welcome to PokéCommunity! Register now and join one of the best fan communities on the 'net to talk Pokémon and more! We are not affiliated with The Pokémon Company or Nintendo.
    Register

High possibility of Nuclear war within 3-6 months?

Black Ice said:
Whoever throws around the first nuke is just asking to get ****ed in the ass.
Click to expand...

That's my favorite so far. lol

But Israel moved up it's attack time on Iran by a few months, so whatever's gonna happen, is gonna happen a lot sooner than the thread title states.

You hear about Iran's suicide boats that they wanna attack navy ships with? lol What a bad idea.

And if the leaders in Iran do whatever it is they are going to do for religious reasons, then there is a lot higher of a chance that they will use nukes. Why? Well, if the leader's are hard core into their religion, then holy war is the best way to go. Doesn't matter if they die or not.


Also, a stronger note, if russia and china both said they are going to answer any US military action, with military action of their own, how is this not going to escalate?
 
I don't think this conflict will be religious, there are political advantages to gain, Iran will become the dominante power in the middle east, and possibly even reinstate a new 'Persian Empire.'
Also I doubt these leader's are suicidal...
If China and Russia do join up with Iran than we will at worst face a World World three with missles's,ect. like in wwii. Now if the leader's get desprate...then a nuclear bomb dropping is possible...humans can do dumb things when desprate...
 
Neither China or Russia view their relationship with Iran as worth WW3 over. Russia has openly spoken against Iran's nuclear program. If Russia didn't attack the West in the hight of the cold war when allies such as North Korea and Vietnam were being attacked they wouldn't do it now.
 
A-hem:

https://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/15/fears-iranian-oil-exports-prices

The Iranian TV claimed they stopped exporting oil to the six European countries that decided to boycott them and stop buying Iranian oil once their current contracts expired, in 5 months. In turn, the Minister of Petroleum and the Minister of Foreign Affairs claimed that those news were mistaken and that they had decided to honour their contracts "on humanitarian grounds since Europe has a cold spell and they need energy to stay warm".
 
The United States needs to do something about Iran. Period.
 
Live_Wire466 said:
And, if we didn't use them in the 60's during actual "tension", we sure as hell won't be using them now.
Click to expand...
Yes.

There is way too much controversy about nuclear weapons for them to be even considered. People still debate about the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, and that was 67 years ago. No one is crazy enough to use them now.
 
... I know that it's kinda bad to speak ill of the dead, but I can resist.

With Kim Jong Il dead, another world leader must take his place as the king of trolls.
 
Live_Wire466 said:
Speaking of, North Korea just agreed to halt Uranium enrichment and Missile testing. So that's going to drop the chance of nuclear war significantly.
Click to expand...

International exchange of nuclear weapons, yes, it was very unlikely to occur and is now even more unlikely to happen.

However with Iran and Israel, it's possible there will be a regional exchange of nuclear weapons (maybe not in the stated time frame, but still.)
 
A great step by NK that gives them moral superiority over many of the supposedly "good guys". Their trololo era is far from over, it's just the approach that changed.

Iran... I don#t think Ahmedinedschad is insane enough to start such a war, Israel on the other hand I'm not too sure about. Israel has always been extremely aggressive towards its neighbors and their allies, an aggressiveness without which the conflicts they are involved in would not exist. Unfortunately this is not purely a thing of the past yet, in fact it has never been more threatening.
 
Frankly, if Israel attacks Iran I don't see any way that we can support Israel and say that we are taking the moral high ground.

I'd rather we defend our allies instead of us acting as their attack dogs. Really though, we should just tell Israel that if they want to start ****, then they will fight alone since we just got out of a 7 or 8 year old war and we have no desire to get sucked into another war.

Either way, my stance is this. So what if Iran gets ONE low quality nuke?
 
Mr. X said:
Either way, my stance is this. So what if Iran gets ONE low quality nuke?
Click to expand...
Matters lots. You just need one. America dropped one bomb on Japan (albeit twice). That is all it takes.

Would one destroy the world? No. Would it cause devastating damage wherever it hit (most likely Israel)? Yes. And if they did that, we're in WWIII for sure. Hopefully that wouldn't be nuclear, but it couldn't. A ripple effect.
 
It's a one off. Once they use it, thats it, we will destroy them.

A single nuke is only good for use as a bargaining chip. A single nuke offers a small measure of defense against other nations.

We don't need to worry about them having one nuke. What we need to worry about is them having more nukes.

We didn't drop one bomb on them. We dropped two and had others that we were going to use. The Japanese surrendered only because they didn't have any counters to our nukes, and they knew that we would use them until they gave up.
 
Mr. X said:
It's a one off. Once they use it, thats it, we will destroy them.

A single nuke is only good for use as a bargaining chip. A single nuke offers a small measure of defense against other nations.

We don't need to worry about them having one nuke. What we need to worry about is them having more nukes.

We didn't drop one bomb on them. We dropped two and had others that we were going to use. The Japanese surrendered only because they didn't have any counters to our nukes, and they knew that we would use them until they gave up.
Click to expand...
I said one, but twice. Two different locations, one bomb each. My point was about the damage it did, not who won or lost or gave up.

And I think that holds here. Sure, it's one bomb. It's one town, one area. It does devastating damage. If they use it, then we destroy them. Yeah... true. But, that doesn't get back the people who just vaporized.
 
If your trying to argue how many people nukes kill, it's still nothing compared to the amount of people that conventional weaponry kills.


The point is this though. Nukes are ment to induce fear. To make other countries think twice before trying to interfere with the affairs of other countries.

The US, no, all current nuclear powers have no right to say that other countries should not be allowed to have nukes while they are allowed to have them. Before these countries try to enforce a no-nuke policy on the world, they should start with their collections first just so they wouldn't be hypocrites over it. Basically, these countries should practice what they preach.

Tell me, why does the US, China, Russia, and a entire list of other countries keep nuclear weapons? I guarentee it's not for peaceful purposes.
 
Mr. X said:
Tell me, why does the US, China, Russia, and a entire list of other countries keep nuclear weapons? I guarentee it's not for peaceful purposes.
Click to expand...
I always assumed that since they had them to begin with, that after the Cold War it was just safer and more economically feasible to keep them in storage than to dispose of them or use them for power. They exist, but they're supposed to be used only in the interest of self-defense or not at all ideally.

Mr. X said:
If your trying to argue how many people nukes kill, it's still nothing compared to the amount of people that conventional weaponry kills.
Click to expand...
Not nukes, a nuke. You said what's the harm in Iran having one bomb. The difference in damage between one nuclear bomb and one "conventional" weapon is big.
 
In the past 50 years, how many people in total have been killed as a direct result of Nuclear weapons? I'd say ~100k, give or take 20.

In the past years, how many people in total have been killed as a direct result of conventional weaponry? I don't feel like doing all the math but I can say now that it is a lot more.

The point though? Although nukes have a greater potental for destruction, its just that that prevents their usage. No one will want to risk nuclear war, unstable elements included. Nuclear weapons, as of now, are nothing more then a shield that makes other nations think twice before deciding to directly screw with the affairs of another.

The fact though is that nuclear weapons are one thing that Israel has over Iran. Iran doesn't have anything superior to them and they know that if Israel really wanted to, then would slaughter them. Arguably this is why Iran is overly aggressive. It's fear of Israel that is making them this way.

The fact that Israel is thinking of military action, and has assassinated a couple of Iranian scientists, does nothing but prove this. Iran can't stop them if Israel wanted to take them out. A nuclear weapon would give them some form of defense.
 
I wouldn't worry about nuclear war. The US has developed technology to destroy missiles in mid-air using lasers. We are fine.

And people aren't retards, they know not to shoot nukes at people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top