Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

What would be the consequences of Iran getting nukes?

Page 1 of 6 [ 91 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

puddingmouse
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Apr 2010
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,777
Location: Cottonopolis

18 Nov 2012, 8:14 am

Would it necessarily be KABOOM? I don't think so. Pakistan and India haven't nuked each other yet.

I realise Iran probably isn't going to get one because it'd have a war with Israel and other powers on its hands before it would be built; a horrible, bloody war.



GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,880

18 Nov 2012, 8:27 am

It may have a bigger impact on the power balance between Sunni and Shia Muslims than the relations between Iran and Israel.

A possible response from Saudi Arabia, for instance, would be to acquire nuclear weapons themselves.

I don't think an Inter-Islamic nuclear arms race would be good for the planet given the extreme propensity for violence in Islam.



puddingmouse
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Apr 2010
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,777
Location: Cottonopolis

18 Nov 2012, 8:46 am

^ I think you are probably correct in all your assertions, there.



Jono
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,677
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

18 Nov 2012, 9:00 am

puddingmouse wrote:
Would it necessarily be KABOOM? I don't think so. Pakistan and India haven't nuked each other yet.

I realise Iran probably isn't going to get one because it'd have a war with Israel and other powers on its hands before it would be built; a horrible, bloody war.


I wouldn't want Iran to get nukes. If they did, they'd probably launch one toward Israel.



puddingmouse
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Apr 2010
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,777
Location: Cottonopolis

18 Nov 2012, 9:06 am

Jono wrote:
puddingmouse wrote:
Would it necessarily be KABOOM? I don't think so. Pakistan and India haven't nuked each other yet.

I realise Iran probably isn't going to get one because it'd have a war with Israel and other powers on its hands before it would be built; a horrible, bloody war.


I wouldn't want Iran to get nukes. If they did, they'd probably launch one toward Israel.


Are they that stupid, though?



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

18 Nov 2012, 9:51 am

puddingmouse wrote:
Would it necessarily be KABOOM? I don't think so. Pakistan and India haven't nuked each other yet.

I realise Iran probably isn't going to get one because it'd have a war with Israel and other powers on its hands before it would be built; a horrible, bloody war.


The consequence would be lots of dead Jews. However this time the Jews are not going meekly to the slaughter. There will be lots of dead Iranians. I really think they ought to thank the Jews who send them the tent of their 72 dark eyed virgin houris.

ruveyn



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,951
Location:      

18 Nov 2012, 10:35 am

The main consequence of Iran getting nukes is Iran getting nuked.


_________________
The mere fact that science may not yet adequately explain an object, event, or experience does not mean the immediate explanation should automatically default to a conspiratorial, extraterrestrial, paranormal, or supernatural cause.


puddingmouse
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Apr 2010
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,777
Location: Cottonopolis

18 Nov 2012, 10:38 am

Fnord wrote:
The main consequence of Iran getting nukes is Iran getting nuked.


You think Israel would do it pre-emptively? I think it would be MAD.



GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,880

18 Nov 2012, 10:39 am

puddingmouse wrote:
Fnord wrote:
The main consequence of Iran getting nukes is Iran getting nuked.


You think Israel would do it pre-emptively? I think it would be MAD.


MAD = Mutually Assured Destruction.

Was that a deliberate pun :D?



puddingmouse
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Apr 2010
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,777
Location: Cottonopolis

18 Nov 2012, 10:41 am

Yes.

Though I was primarily trying to say that it would be Mutually Assured Destruction.



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Arizona

18 Nov 2012, 10:42 am

probably nothing, they wouldn't get invaded and would probably get a lot of aid money to reduce their stockpile

North Korea has nukes and we're not invading them any time soon, they just show them off every couple years when the food is low.



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

18 Nov 2012, 10:43 am

An unstable country like Iran having operational nukes could very well trigger a domino effect that ends in massive global destruction.


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,880

18 Nov 2012, 10:52 am

Raptor wrote:
An unstable country like Iran having operational nukes could very well trigger a domino effect that ends in massive global destruction.


I doubt it would come that far.

Iran doesn't have a lot of *real* allies. A lot of Sunni Islamic countries would probably jump for joy at the sight of a mushroom cloud in Teheran (according to the Sunni hadith, Shia Muslims are apostates, and therefore worse than Jews).

And I bet that the relations between Iran, Russia and China is pragmatic at best. These countries probably wont risk a global war by defending madmen like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

18 Nov 2012, 11:00 am

GGPViper wrote:
Raptor wrote:
An unstable country like Iran having operational nukes could very well trigger a domino effect that ends in massive global destruction.


I doubt it would come that far.

Iran doesn't have a lot of *real* allies. A lot of Sunni Islamic countries would probably jump for joy at the sight of a mushroom cloud in Teheran (according to the Sunni hadith, Shia Muslims are apostates, and therefore worse than Jews).

And I bet that the relations between Iran, Russia and China is pragmatic at best. These countries probably wont risk a global war by defending madmen like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.


Maybe we'll get to find out who's right.....


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland

18 Nov 2012, 11:00 am

puddingmouse wrote:
Would it necessarily be KABOOM? I don't think so. Pakistan and India haven't nuked each other yet.

I realise Iran probably isn't going to get one because it'd have a war with Israel and other powers on its hands before it would be built; a horrible, bloody war.


I think there is more chance of Israel making an arab country go 'KABOOM' as a result of Iran not having nuclear weapons because there is presently no deterrence from them doing otherwise.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,951
Location:      

18 Nov 2012, 11:05 am

puddingmouse wrote:
Fnord wrote:
The main consequence of Iran getting nukes is Iran getting nuked.
You think Israel would do it pre-emptively? I think it would be MAD.

No ... more like the ayatollahs would use one against a secular uprising within Iran, and then blame it on the western forces in control of the zionist state of Israel.


_________________
The mere fact that science may not yet adequately explain an object, event, or experience does not mean the immediate explanation should automatically default to a conspiratorial, extraterrestrial, paranormal, or supernatural cause.