This is a serious topic yes, no jokes here. Let's say that democracy somehow works in Iraq, and a new government comes into power,a moderate one. But she is under constant threat from Iran, and her nuke forces. Now I believe that the US wouldn't want to get too involved in this Iran nuke thing. So would the US allow Iraq to get nukes?

Here is synopsis of Iran's nuke Doctrine:

Iran’s national objectives and strategies are shaped by its regional political aspirations, threat perceptions, and the need to preserve its Islamic government.

The primary rationale for Iran's nuclear weapons program remains Iraq. Iran views Baghdad as the primary regional threat,
even though Iraq suffered extensive damage during the Gulf War. Iran remains unconvinced that Iraq’s NBC programs will be adequately restrained or eliminated through continued UN sanctions or monitoring. The Iranians believe that they will eventually face yet another challenge from their historical rival. The war with Iraq in the 1980s was the worst war in modern Middle Eastern history, and Iran has still not recovered from the destruction and trauma of that conflict. The war exposed Iranian military and strategic weakness and vulnerability, for which a nuclear weapons capability could compensate. Iran’s emphasis on pursuing independent production capabilities for special weapons and missiles is driven by its experience during the 1980-1988 war with Iraq, during which it was unable to respond adequately to Iraqi chemical and missile attacks and suffered the effects of an international arms embargo.

Secondarily, nuclear weapons could prove useful in deterring the United States, in the context of a profound crisis in the Persian Gulf. Tehran strives to be a leader in the Islamic world and seeks to be the dominant power in the Gulf. The latter goal brings it into conflict with the United States, and Tehran would like to diminish Washington’s political and military influence in the region. Iran fears that the sizable US military presence in the region could lead to an attack against Iran.

An Iranian nuclear weapons capability could constitute a balance to Israel's nuclear posture. Iran is concerned by Israel’s strategic projection capabilities and its potential to strike Iran in a variety of ways.


Now Iraq would be under the gun sights of Iran's nuke weapons, especialy if she is a puppet to American policy in the ME. I think that nuke Iran with a vulernable Iraq could stirr some Shi'a problems, giving legitmacy to the Iranians instead of Baghdad.

So basicly the questions are:

i)should Iraq get WMD to counter Iranian ones?
ii)should Iran's nuke facilities be bombed? :eek:
iii)shold Iraq be a non-WMD state to set a example of defiance?

I think the question that should be asked is 'how far along will Israel let the Iran 'nuke thing' go uncontested?

As far as your question, I don't see the US deciding a 'puppet' Iraq having nukes as a good thing. I would hope that this administration would have enough sense of history to realize that your political bedmate today might be your political enemy tomorrow (*see Iran). I don't think the US, or the West in general, would want the possibility of nuclear Iran and Iraq, who've never been exactly friendly to each other anyway, nestled beside each other, both with 'da bomb'. India and Pakistan is a scary enough situation with Islamists doing their best to escalate that nuke situation. And to be honest, I'm not sure how long the US will allow the nuke situation in Iran to go on. God just may tell G-Dubya to defuse that potential problem in the near future.;)

Maybe deep in the future when they prove they aren't going to use them on the first country they encounter hostilities with. WMDs are more for show than use and they are going to have to prove they know that first.

Maybe deep in the future when they prove they aren't going to use them on the first country they encounter hostilities with. WMDs are more for show than use and they are going to have to prove they know that first.

To whom? The first nation (and so far, only nation) to use nuclear weapons in anger? And which nearly used them again thirty years later in Vietnam?

The whole question itself is insufferably arrogant and hypocritical.

So you want another US? We did stupid stuff but we didn't know the right way to handle things like nukes. Let Iraq have nukes anytime soon and you WILL see Tehran smolder. If Iran has them too you would also see Baghdad smolder.

Indeed? And I suppose if you let other religious fanatics have nuclear weapons that they'd use them too?
Ah. My bad. Of course, I forgot India. And Pakistan. And the DPRK.
:rolleyes:

We did stupid stuff but we didn't know the right way to handle things like nukes.
Methinks that you still don't know, given that the US is deveolping nukes for tactical use on the battlefield, and ordering more pits...

But if Iraq becomes a democracy, who are we to say that they shouldn't have WMD. Because democracies would never use them, right?

I think that if Iran had WMD and is targeting Iraq it sadly gives the US cred. to stay in Iraq longer. IMO Iraq should NOT be given WMD , in any form. Iraq itself should be split up. Also a nuke Iran will actually make Iran Less safe then without nukes. The Israeli's and the Americans are going to be up her arse all the time. Iran will not be foolish enough to actually use WMD, I see it as a false threat. But nevertheless a real one. I think the relationship btwn NK and Iran for Israel has huge implactions as well. I mean NK is exporting Scuds and No Dongs to just about everyone in the ME. I wouldn't be surprised on bit NK would export her Taepo- Dong's to the ME as well. Then Europe gets involved.

The real question is: "Should anyone be allowed to have WMDs?" The answer is of course not. WMD are self defence from other wmds, but now we have missiles and stuff to shoot them out of the sky. Someday hopefully we can have that laser to shoot them down from space.

We all know that no one should have them. They are too powerful and too destructive. Will anyone who has them ever give the up? No way! Eventually everyone will have them and someone eventually will use one. That will just be really crappy for everyone involved.

The Middle East is and has been overflowing with oil. What is stopping the US or other powerful nations from simply marching in, ala the colonial era, and exploiting the vast oil wells? Or is economic exploitation the answer? Anyway, as you miss it, I will answer directly:

i) Should Iraq get WMD to counter Iranian ones?
Nukes or chemical/biological weapons? For surely the two groups are not comparable. But anyway, my viewpoint is this: Any nation capable of acquiring nuclear weapons should be allowed to pursue them. And similarly, any nation that feels that another nation acquiring nukes will pose a threat should be allowed to counter.

ii) Should Iran's nuke facilities be bombed?
By whom? The US? I think that would be infinitely stupid. Iran has at least one nuke. It would have more days after the bombing.

iii) Should Iraq be a non-WMD state to set a example of defiance?
The USA shall henceforth-- at least for the foreseeable future, mandate Iraq's domestic and foreign policy. Of course for the next 6 years or so, Iraq will have no WMD simply because the whole purpose of the war was to disarm Iraq of its WMD, or was it to liberate the Iraqis? -- I forget. :rolleyes: After that period of time, with a relative autonomous government placed in Iraq, the USA will classify Iraq as a ‘tactical ally’ and supply her with WMD to counter Iran. The dual stupidity and brilliance of US foreign policy is mind-boggling.

but now we have missiles and stuff to shoot them out of the sky.
Nope. You have missiles that the manufacturers say will shoot them out of the sky.
Unfortunately, from field trials and combat experience, these missiles are pretty useless against missiles. Unless they're strapped to an allied aircraft, at any rate...

Originally posted by EI_Sparks
To whom? The first nation (and so far, only nation) to use nuclear weapons in anger? And which nearly used them again thirty years later in Vietnam?

The whole question itself is insufferably arrogant and hypocritical.

Well, the US does seem to be pursuing a "might makes right" policy .... tsk tsk :(

To whom? The first nation (and so far, only nation) to use nuclear weapons in anger? And which nearly used them again thirty years later in Vietnam?

It's possible whichever power achieved the bomb first in 1945 would have used it. There were those who wanted to use it 5 years later in Korea, but fortunately Truman didn't want to see the results of another Hiroshima and Nagasaki prevailed. Had we not seen the sobering results of those 2 cities they well may have been used in Korea. And some may have argued for using them in Vietnam, but again, they weren't used. I imagine in any war there will be some that are going to call for using nukes as an expedient way to shorten a war, but so far no president since 1945 has felt inclined to do so.

Spyke, we're not talking about possibilities. For a start, it would have been many years before anyone else got the bomb, and secondly, while I might, with a stretch, accept the necessity of hiroshima, nagasaki was plainly wrong.
And the "some people" arguing for their use in vietnam included Nixon. And he'd have used them, were it not for Kent state...

Originally posted by nico
. Let's say that democracy somehow works in Iraq, and a new government comes into power,a moderate one
... especialy if she is a puppet to American policy in the ME.



How cynic...yes ,give the iraquis WMD,and then let them have true elections(that dummie occupation government is capable of such contradiction,sure):the shiite majority will win and instead of nuking each other and let you go cleanhanded,they will be united and nuclear,so you couldn t mess them no more,all right...

I hope u don't think I was sincere in saying that democracy in Iraq will work. LMFAO!!! Of course it won't that is why I wrote:

somehow

Iraq will implode in a civil war. ;)

Spyke, we're not talking about possibilities. For a start, it would have been many years before anyone else got the bomb,

Why not talk about possibilities? Everybody was working on the bomb during WWII. Nobody could be completely sure at what stage the others were. The Japanese had started there program well before the Americans; at the time of Hiroshima they didn't believe the US could surpass their program, which was actually two programs, the army's vs. the navy's. Had either Japan or Germany been ready in 1945 it seems 'plausible' they would have used the bomb. Heck, either France or Britain might have used one in 1940.

and secondly, while I might, with a stretch, accept the necessity of hiroshima, nagasaki was plainly wrong.

While it's tragic that either was used I can accept both of them. Japan could have surrendered before either happened.

And the "some people" arguing for their use in vietnam included Nixon. And he'd have used them, were it not for Kent state...

According to the released White House tapes Nixon put the idea on the table and Kissinger quickly argued against it. I doubt he would have used the bomb regrdless of kent St.

While it's tragic that either was used I can accept both of them. Japan could have surrendered before either happened.
Japan had a surrender document on the table in Moscow before Hiroshima.

According to the released White House tapes Nixon put the idea on the table and Kissinger quickly argued against it. I doubt he would have used the bomb regrdless of kent St.
Kissinger was not trusted by Nixon at the time. And Nixon overruled his objections. The Kent State killings were what changed Nixon's mind, as he later stated in his autobiography.

VERY interesting, could u provide a link please! :)

Did Truman know about this in August 1945? Yes, of course. The Japanese code had been broken, and Japan's messages were being intercepted. He knew that the Japanese government had instructed its ambassador in Moscow to work on peace negotiations with the Allies. Japanese leaders had begun talking of surrender a year before this, and the Japanese Emperor himself had begun to suggest, in June 1945, that alternatives to fighting to the end be considered.


http://www.sumeria.net/politics/a-bombs.html