• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Iran's Khamenei says could accept fair nuclear compromise

justabubba said:
why do you believe the world's dominant weapon system - nuclear weapons - have not been used since nagasaki?
Click to expand...

Well for one, until about 1964, there was only one real nuclear power, the United States.

Since 1989, there has not been a reason for any major power confrontation.

So though WW2 ended 70 years ago, only 25 of those years (1964-89) truly featured situations where MAD would've been applicable. And during that time the U.S. and U.S.S.R. lurched from one major confrontation to the other in 1967, 1973, 1979, 1983.
 
pinqy said:
The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons entered into force in 1970. All countries that already possessed nuclear weapons were allowed to retain them: United States, France, United Kingdom, Soviet Union, People's Republic of China. All other signatoriies have agreed not to develop nuclear weapons. Iran has signed the treaty. India, Israel, and Pakistan have not, and so are not bound by it. North Korea withdrew from the treaty in 2003.

So, by treaty, all countries that currently have nukes are either allowed to have them under the Non-Proliferation treaty, or are not signatories. Iran is a signatory and in violation of the treaty.
Click to expand...

Well said.
 
justabubba said:
so, your position is that there have been no military targets since nagasaki?
Click to expand...

No, I asked what targets have been attacked [with nuclear weapons] since Nagasaki. Are you able to answer?
 
Dayton3 said:
Well for one, until about 1964, there was only one real nuclear power, the United States.
Click to expand...
the soviet's joe1 was detonated in '49

Since 1989, there has not been a reason for any major power confrontation.
Click to expand...
there have been military operations by atomic powers since '89
but you are welcome to share with us why there were no uses of atomic weapons between '49 and '89 except because of MAD

So though WW2 ended 70 years ago, only 25 of those years (1964-89) truly featured situations where MAD would've been applicable. And during that time the U.S. and U.S.S.R. lurched from one major confrontation to the other in 1967, 1973, 1979, 1983.
Click to expand...
and in no instance was an atomic weapon used. the foremost weapon of the day. now, tell us again why that was not MAD at work
 
apdst said:
No, I asked what targets have been attacked [with nuclear weapons] since Nagasaki. Are you able to answer?
Click to expand...

none in war. which underscores my point that MAD has worked
now, you had a point; what was it?
 
Montecresto said:
That would be an Obama foreign policy success. Had John McCain won in 2008, we'd have long ago bomb bomb bomb, bomb bombed Iran, with the applause and support of the fringe right that lurks about this place.
Click to expand...

It's a shame Obama was never elected, or Wed be enjoying universal healthcare, higher taxes on the wealthy, and a robust middle class.

Such a shame he lost his elections...
 
The Russians did not have a reliable nuclear arsenal they could deliver against the U.S. until 1964 with their first decent ICBMs.

From 1964 to 1989, most of the major power confrontations took place well away from each sides primary sphere of influence and direct interests so there was little incentive to escalate further.

Location had more to do with avoidance of nuclear confrontation than MAD.
 
justabubba said:
the soviet's joe1 was detonated in '49


there have been military operations by atomic powers since '89
but you are welcome to share with us why there were no uses of atomic weapons between '49 and '89 except because of MAD

and in no instance was an atomic weapon used. the foremost weapon of the day. now, tell us again why that was not MAD at work
Click to expand...

And incidents where it could have gone to hell.
NOVA | False Alarms in the Nuclear Age
Since the late 1970s, Russian and American missileers have each come close twice to launching nuclear missiles in response to a perceived attack under way from the other side. Here, MIT's Geoffrey Forden supplies the details of those harrowing events.

The Cuban Missile Crisis and nuclear testing: CTBTO Preparatory Commission

Soviet naval officer Vasili Arkhipov vetoed the launch of the nuclear torpedo.

Later that same evening, in waters near Cuba, the destroyer USS Cony fired depth charges near a Soviet B-59 submarine in an effort to force the soviet submarine to the surface. Cut off from communications with Moscow, and under the impression that war had started, Captain Vitali Grigorievitch Savitsky wanted to retaliate by launching the nuclear-tipped torpedo warhead that the vessel was carrying. The United States did not know of this nuclear armament. However, naval officer Vasili Arkhipov refused to grant his authorization that was required for the nuclear attack and persuaded the captain to surface and await orders from Moscow. This fact was only revealed in 2002 at a conference to mark the 40th anniversary of the crisis.
 
JANFU said:
And incidents where it could have gone to hell.
NOVA | False Alarms in the Nuclear Age
Since the late 1970s, Russian and American missileers have each come close twice to launching nuclear missiles in response to a perceived attack under way from the other side. Here, MIT's Geoffrey Forden supplies the details of those harrowing events.

The Cuban Missile Crisis and nuclear testing: CTBTO Preparatory Commission

Soviet naval officer Vasili Arkhipov vetoed the launch of the nuclear torpedo.

Later that same evening, in waters near Cuba, the destroyer USS Cony fired depth charges near a Soviet B-59 submarine in an effort to force the soviet submarine to the surface. Cut off from communications with Moscow, and under the impression that war had started, Captain Vitali Grigorievitch Savitsky wanted to retaliate by launching the nuclear-tipped torpedo warhead that the vessel was carrying. The United States did not know of this nuclear armament. However, naval officer Vasili Arkhipov refused to grant his authorization that was required for the nuclear attack and persuaded the captain to surface and await orders from Moscow. This fact was only revealed in 2002 at a conference to mark the 40th anniversary of the crisis.
Click to expand...

again, NO instance of an atomic weapon used upon an enemy since nagasaki in august '45
please explain why that was NOT MAD at work
 
Dayton3 said:
The Russians did not have a reliable nuclear arsenal they could deliver against the U.S. until 1964 with their first decent ICBMs.

From 1964 to 1989, most of the major power confrontations took place well away from each sides primary sphere of influence and direct interests so there was little incentive to escalate further.

Location had more to do with avoidance of nuclear confrontation than MAD.
Click to expand...

were the only nuclear weapons used in war placed using an ICBM?
that excuse won't flush

i remember participating in nuclear drills in school as early as 1957 ... well before the 1964 date you cite as nuclear warfare against the USA being a possibility
 
justabubba said:
again, NO instance of an atomic weapon used upon an enemy since nagasaki in august '45
please explain why that was NOT MAD at work
Click to expand...
Never said it was- But human - computer error is reassuring.
 
Fearandloathing said:
Please stick to the topic.

I said NOTHING about Israel and do not intend to. I refuse to get into your constant diversions of comparison based on your faulty ideas of history. If you cannot debate properly, don't.

you have supported your president without hesitation in his helping of Iran's nuclear development program while ignoring the facts that Iran is a rogue state, sworn to the destruction of it's neighbor with hostile intentions in the west. That Canada, the "nice country" is in a cold war with them and yet with Obama's insane track record of loss after loss after loss after failure, you still niavely believe Iran's intentions are honorable.

And then defend your position with more comparative reductivism as a defense.
Click to expand...

I disagree with your characterisation of the work of the P5+1 as helping with Iran's nuclear program. They are about preventing Iran from developing nuclear capabilities for anything other than civilian/commercial purposes, and neither you nor anyone else can prove your silly assertion that Obama, and by extension, the P5+1 are intent on helping Iran develop a nuclear weapon. And where have I argued that Iran's intentions are honourable? Huh? I have pointed out that both Israel and the US in the course of history have treated Iran dishonourably, and as such haven't the credibility to be pointing fingers.
 
Dayton3 said:
The Russians did not have a reliable nuclear arsenal they could deliver against the U.S. until 1964 with their first decent ICBMs.
Click to expand...

President Kennedy and his advisers did not agree with you. In October 1962, they took it for granted that the Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba could have been delivered against many cities in the U.S. The nuclear weapons stored in Cuba included sixty one-megaton warheads. Thirty-six of these were for the R-12 missiles there, which had a range of about 1,200 miles. Another twenty-four of these warheads were for the R-14 missiles, which had a range of about 2,800 miles.

Both these types of missiles could be expected to miss their aim points by a mile or two--but if that aim point was the heart of a large American city, nuclear explosions that large would have killed quite a few millions of Americans.
 
Apocalypse said:
Even if true taking out those who are aiding the Iranian regime to gain nuclear capabilities is extremely legitimate.
You don't seem to understand the nature of the Iranian government.
Click to expand...

"Taking out"??????? If you can justify Israel assassinating Iranians in Iran, then why would you condemn Iran doing similar, if by proxy. Wouldn't it be better if nobody were assassinating anybody. Wouldn't policies that promote cooperation, peace and prosperity be preferred to things like our 1953 CIA conducted Iranian coup, that installed a form of government that the Iranian people found disagreeable, and cast off? US policies in the ME have been counterproductive to peace and security. I'm sorry the basic concept of cause and effect escapes you.
 
matchlight said:
President Kennedy and his advisers did not agree with you. In October 1962, they took it for granted that the Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba could have been delivered against many cities in the U.S. The nuclear weapons stored in Cuba included sixty one-megaton warheads. Thirty-six of these were for the R-12 missiles there, which had a range of about 1,200 miles. Another twenty-four of these warheads were for the R-14 missiles, which had a range of about 2,800 miles.

Both these types of missiles could be expected to miss their aim points by a mile or two--but if that aim point was the heart of a large American city, nuclear explosions that large would have killed quite a few millions of Americans.
Click to expand...

Those were IRBMs. Relatively short range missiles. The Soviets did not have a reliable ICBM (long range missiles) until 1964.

Which is why the Soviets put the shorter range missiles in Cuba in the first place.

Be familiar with the terminology.
 
Apocalypse said:
What I was actually saying is that bringing up an opinion of a public figure - as high as a prime minister - about why Hezbollah was created, does nothing to contradict the fact, yes fact, that Hezbollah is armed trained and funded exclusively by Iran and operates by its orders. You haven't denied that, so I can't see how you have convinced yourself that you're making a point here.
Click to expand...

And what I'm saying is that the prime minister of Israel would have a far better idea of the effects of Israeli foreign policy on its neighbour, and that you sir are the one with the opinion.
 
Montecresto said:
"Taking out"??????? If you can justify Israel assassinating Iranians in Iran, then why would you condemn Iran doing similar, if by proxy. Wouldn't it be better if nobody were assassinating anybody. Wouldn't policies that promote cooperation, peace and prosperity be preferred to things like our 1953 CIA conducted Iranian coup, that installed a form of government that the Iranian people found disagreeable, and cast off? US policies in the ME have been counterproductive to peace and security. I'm sorry the basic concept of cause and effect escapes you.
Click to expand...

Because what you fail to understand for the thousandth time now is that Iran isn't comparable with the free world, with Western democracies.
Stopping the Iranian agenda is a moral cause. Promoting the Iranian agenda is an immoral one. Period.
 
Apocalypse said:
Actually yes unlike those states unless you can prove otherwise.
That's how arguments work, you making assertions based on the opinion of a handful American public figures isn't called "forming an argument".
Iran is the no.1 sponsor of terrorism on the planet and that makes it unique, along with its hostile approach and its Islamic fundamentalist agenda.
You claim that you do not argue for allowing them to have nuclear capabilities but I'm afraid that's all you've been doing so far. It's ridiculous.



I already agreed with you on that but it's delusional to believe that the entire world is going to disarm itself from nuclear capabilities.
We need to focus on what needs to be done at present, and what the free world should be focusing on is to not allow nations like Iran and North Korea to gain nuclear capabilities.



Again you're bringing up the US from over 70 years ago.
Nuclear weapons were used once during a time of moral crisis and that was enough for the free world to recognize that it is not to be used again.
Iran should never be allowed to gain these capabilities.
Click to expand...

If the "free world" has come to some morally superior position that nuclear weapons ought not ever be used again, then why have they not eliminated their stockpiles, hmm??
 
Apocalypse said:
Because what you fail to understand for the thousandth time now is that Iran isn't comparable with the free world, with Western democracies.
Stopping the Iranian agenda is a moral cause. Promoting the Iranian agenda is an immoral one. Period.
Click to expand...

I'm not promoting any "agenda" I'm pointing out that decades of destructive US policies in Iran and the region are having grave consequences. And a 2006, Bush era NIE concluded such.
 
Montecresto said:
And what I'm saying is that the prime minister of Israel would have a far better idea of the effects of Israeli foreign policy on its neighbour, and that you sir are the one with the opinion.
Click to expand...

Then you have strong reading comprehension problems because I pointed out how irrelevant whether Hezbollah was formed due to Israeli actions or not is, to the fact that Hezbollah is an Iranian proxy terror organization. Please do give it your best and try to understand the text better, if only for one more time.
 
pinqy said:
The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons entered into force in 1970. All countries that already possessed nuclear weapons were allowed to retain them: United States, France, United Kingdom, Soviet Union, People's Republic of China. All other signatoriies have agreed not to develop nuclear weapons. Iran has signed the treaty. India, Israel, and Pakistan have not, and so are not bound by it. North Korea withdrew from the treaty in 2003.

So, by treaty, all countries that currently have nukes are either allowed to have them under the Non-Proliferation treaty, or are not signatories. Iran is a signatory and in violation of the treaty.
Click to expand...

Oh really? Iran has a nuclear weapon, I'd love to see the proof, I'll be waiting.
 
Montecresto said:
If the "free world" has come to some morally superior position that nuclear weapons ought not ever be used again, then why have they not eliminated their stockpiles, hmm??
Click to expand...

Trust issues obviously.
We're both for eliminating the stockpile of nukes in the entire world, but while you're being delusional about it I can see that no Western state is going to give up on its nuclear capabilities as long as it doesn't know for certain that some hostile state in the future wouldn't try and put its hands on some of their own.
 
Apocalypse said:
Trust issues obviously.
We're both for eliminating the stockpile of nukes in the entire world, but while you're being delusional about it I can see that no Western state is going to give up on its nuclear capabilities as long as it doesn't know for certain that some hostile state in the future wouldn't try and put its hands on some of their own.
Click to expand...

and you have just established the legitimacy of iran's rationale for developing its own nuclear weapons
 
Dayton3 said:
MAD does not work as far as I'm concerned.

Besides which MAD by its very natures requires

1) Considering the other side to be equals. Something I'm not prepared to extend to Iran
2) Believing the other side will act reasonably. Again, not something I'm going to consider Iran.

And who cares if our weapons are offensive? The U.S. can't be defended without them.
Click to expand...

Ok, MAD either works or it doesn't. I'm going to be more concerned about a country that actually has a history of using nuclear weapons, then getting all worked up about a hypothetical with Iran, carry on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom