• 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!

Are nuclear weapons a deterrent?

Are nuclear weapons a deterrent?

  • Yes

    Votes: 38 74.5%
  • No

    Votes: 4 7.8%
  • Maybe

    Votes: 7 13.7%
  • Other

    Votes: 2 3.9%

  • Total voters
    51
There actually were two dirty bombs that got stopped prior to assembly targeting NYC IIRC but they def. got stopped post 9/11 and were supposed to be a second wave of the terrorist attacks. You have exactly expressed the first thing Iran would be capable of, the people there aren't suicidal but their government actually might launch a nuke from Iran just for the hell of it, they are that nuts in the leadership.

No, they wouldn't do that because they don't have to. They aren't suicidal. They pay their crazy terrorist minions to be suicidal. My guess is that they'd launch from the Sinai, and pretend they don't have any idea how that horrible thing happened, while pointing an accusing finger at Egypt.
 
The US may attempt a counterstrike, which Allah would protect them from, and the 13th Imam would return, leading the Persian people to their rightful place at the center of the Faith and the center of the World.

Unfortunately, that sort of irrational zealotry is very possible in Iran. Recall the Basijee martyrs during the Iran-Iraq War: waves of human mine sweepers as young as 12 marching straight across Iraqi mine fields and straight into Iraqi machine gun fire.
 
No, they wouldn't do that because they don't have to. They aren't suicidal. [/quote

well, they don't have to be. See: Allah Will Not Allow Them To Lose.
 
Having more weapons (and thus power) is always preferable to having less.

But having just enough weapons to get you completely annihilated is rather short-sighted.
 
No, they wouldn't do that because they don't have to. They aren't suicidal.

well, they don't have to be. See: Allah Will Not Allow Them To Lose.

Governments just want power, not death. They pay others to die for them, others who believe that Allah will not allow them to lose. :)
 
Governments just want power, not death. They pay others to die for them, others who believe that Allah will not allow them to lose. :)

But sometimes, when those in power are about to be overthrown by an advancing army they pull the temple down upon themselves (and their people) just for spite, rather than surrender. Think of Hitler and Tojo during WWII.
 
No, they wouldn't do that because they don't have to. They aren't suicidal. They pay their crazy terrorist minions to be suicidal. My guess is that they'd launch from the Sinai, and pretend they don't have any idea how that horrible thing happened, while pointing an accusing finger at Egypt.
I hope you are right about that DiAnna. I had heard on a few radio programs, one being Coast to Coast A.M. from a few middle east scholars that a few of the mullahs and Ajmedenijad(sp?) subscribe to the belief that they will reveal the 12th Imam by starting WWIII, a few other programs that aren't coming to mind ATM had similar guests on. If that is the case and not simply an opinion we are all in trouble. C2C is kind of 1/2 truth and 1/2 fantasy so I don't really put total weight on their programming but when I keep hearing it from other sources it does concern me.
 
Anymore nuclear weapons are not a deterrent. Look at Iran, if Iran really had nukes do you seriously think they would use them? Iran would never use a nuke because they knew the minute they did they would be glassed. Perhaps in the past it was a deterrent, nowadays it is a show of power. Look at it like a nice gated community having a quiet battle over who has the best lawn, and best kept house, except they are nuclear weapons. They want it just because we have it and people will listen to them if they have it. For some countries it is more of a bargaining chip.
 
Remember when the world was going to go bonkers if USSR/DPRK/China acquired nuclear weapons?
We said their leaders were ****ing crazy (which are)...

You don't think the Cold War, the Cuban Missile Crisis and all the crap that went with communist dictatorships having nukes was a problem? You don't think nK is a problem? And who ever gave a crap about Chinese nukes? They're isolationist, except for their recent foray into Africa (which is entirely economical), and they're not terrorists.


Why can Israel be the only people in the middle east with nukes?

Because they're the only modern western liberal democracy in the mideast?

Surely you see some kind of difference between Israel and theocratic monarchies.
 
Last edited:
Only incidentally. If Iraq had used nuclear weapons on US troops, they would have destroyed their own country.

Now. A suitcase bomb in New York City? Whole different animal.
The posts in this thread have pretty much covered the topic. Yes, having nukes is a deterrent... which is why every country that doesn't have nukes wants them or will want them as soon as they feel threatened.

Eventually, all of the countries who want them will have them. Genie is out of the bottle, and we're not going to get the top back on... ever. When that happens, rogue nations (like Iran, NK and others) will not be shooting them from their own soil. They'll be selling them to others or giving them to their own lackeys to be set off at remote locations... like Tel Aviv or NYC.

Like Risky Thicket, I don't believe it's a question of "if", it's a question of "when". If Iran's nuclear program is destroyed this year, I don't think WWIII will break out, and I do think it will be at least another decade before Iran comes this close again. But when Iran has a nuke, I believe it will definitely use the nuke in a manner that they can deny responsibility. That is when WWIII will break out.

I hope I'm long gone by then. It's my kids and grandkids that I truly worry about, and what kind of world awaits them. :(
This is the big threat from Iranian nukes, not nukes on missiles, which they will probably keep around as a military deterrent, but nukes built for "personal delivery". The Cold War was bad enough (and I'm not so sure it was all "crazy" - but that's a different subject) but a terrorist with a bomb really is scary. With luck nuclear forensics could identify the material used so maybe we could "blame" someone - though I'm not sure how much real good that would do us if there's a radioactive hole in the middle of NYC or the Maryland/Virginia countryside. But scary as it is it's something we had better prepare for and learn to guard against because it won't get any less likely as time goes by. In fact, I'm surprised we've managed to keep the genie as bottled up as we have.
 
As much as it pains me to say this, I am afraid we are going to venture into nuclear hell over Iran. My guess, before June; maybe in March.

Like it or not, we are inextricably linked to Israel and to Saudi Arabia. Neither nation wants a nuclear Iran. The US doesn't have to initiate the war, we simply need to be in the general area. We have at this point 4 or 5 aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf. Some say that 6 is the magic number. In addition, the US is or has made other strategic moves in the region. If someone completely oblivious to the politics of the region were to look at the US build-up and was asked whether we were acting in a peaceful or warlike manner, I think the answer would be obvious.

If, or when, the fit hits the shan in Iran there is no way in hell the conflict will be contained. Iran won't be a pushover, but the issue is far greater than Iran. We very well may face retaliation from Russia, even China. What will Pakistan do? Would Pakistan take the opportunity to move on Kashmir? What will Turkey do?

It is my opinion that war with Iran may be the beginning of WWIII and America will not go unharmed.

Sorry.
I disagree. No one will come to defense of Iran, at least openly. Iran will not be a pushover, to be sure. But, they will be by themselves. Regardless of how China and Russia view us, they still can't hang with our military. Of course, if many liberals and some conservatives have their way, we will be on even footing with them in the next 10 years. Then, you'll see a bolder and more belligerant group of nations acting however they see fit because they know the sheriff only has two bullets in his six shooter, so to say.
To answer the poll, yes nukes are a deterrent. Do we really think Pakistan would get treated as well as they do if they didn't have their nukes? We wouldn't give rat spit about those corrupt idiots if they didn't have them.
 
Anymore nuclear weapons are not a deterrent. Look at Iran, if Iran really had nukes do you seriously think they would use them? Iran would never use a nuke because they knew the minute they did they would be glassed.

I think you may want to look up the word "deterrent."
 
Anymore nuclear weapons are not a deterrent. Look at Iran, if Iran really had nukes do you seriously think they would use them? Iran would never use a nuke because they knew the minute they did they would be glassed. Perhaps in the past it was a deterrent, nowadays it is a show of power. Look at it like a nice gated community having a quiet battle over who has the best lawn, and best kept house, except they are nuclear weapons. They want it just because we have it and people will listen to them if they have it. For some countries it is more of a bargaining chip.
Therein lies the huge misunderstanding of the Islamic culture. They don't care if they turn into glass man. As long as some infidels go down with them. I believe the Iranians would nuke Israel at the first provocation.
 
Therein lies the huge misunderstanding of the Islamic culture. They don't care if they turn into glass man. As long as some infidels go down with them.
It's not just that, they also have less to lose.

I remember when we first went into Afghanistan some people at work were saying "We should bomb them back to the Stone Age!" Uh, hate to break this to you, buddy, but most of them are already there.
 
It's not just that, they also have less to lose.

I remember when we first went into Afghanistan some people at work were saying "We should bomb them back to the Stone Age!" Uh, hate to break this to you, buddy, but most of them are already there.

True that.
 
If someone had enough nukes to wipe out a country, then yes, they've got a deterrent against crippling, conventional warfare. But this doesn't stop damaging terrorist attacks or small scale raids. In someone has just few nuclear weapons or is in the process of developing them, then it's quite the opposite. A country like that encourages attack far more than it dissuades. In such a situation, a country would be better advised to build a strong conventional military and be nice to their neighbors.
 
I disagree. No one will come to defense of Iran, at least openly. Iran will not be a pushover, to be sure. But, they will be by themselves. Regardless of how China and Russia view us, they still can't hang with our military. Of course, if many liberals and some conservatives have their way, we will be on even footing with them in the next 10 years. Then, you'll see a bolder and more belligerant group of nations acting however they see fit because they know the sheriff only has two bullets in his six shooter, so to say.
To answer the poll, yes nukes are a deterrent. Do we really think Pakistan would get treated as well as they do if they didn't have their nukes? We wouldn't give rat spit about those corrupt idiots if they didn't have them.
Even if China could beat us militarily (just saying for the sake of conversation), they are so tied to our best interests economically that they'd lose as well. Something tells me they know this.
 
Maybe....
depending on the sanity of our protagonist.
The Russians were very much sane, but the Iranians ???
 
Nuclear bombing is the last resort. Should something extreme require them to be used, so be it.
 
Are nuclear weapons a deterrent?

It has been said by many that the primary reason the Soviets never used nuclear weapons on us is because they knew we had them too, and would use them on them in retaliation. May be a tad simplistic, kind of a 'nutshell' description, but I think there is merit to that point-of-view.

We often try to keep other smaller nations from getting nuclear weapons. The stated rationale has been what they might do with them against their neighbors. There might be a grain of truth to that, but I suspect that the real reason we don't want them to have nuclear weapons is because we don't want them to use them against us should we decide to attack them.
There's nothing wrong with that when we're trying to maintain order, and really, if we need to kick butt, we need to keep the nuclear weapons out of enemy hands.
 
re: the "last resort" aspect

I agree that it should, and probably would, be used as a last resort by pretty much anybody. Even Iran. But, let's think about what that can mean.

Hypothetical scenario: We are fighting Iran. We are kicking their butts. They know they're going to lose, and lose bad. At that point, they may literally believe that they have nothing left to lose, and throw some nukes our way as a "last resort".

It's not just a "last resort" aspect from our point-of-view, but from the other side's point-of-view also.
 
In my opinion, Nukes have changed society. We can no longer bully without fear, invade without worry, and force a nation to bow down.

The great equalizer is no longer a .44 magnum...it's bigger than that.
 
It's not just a "last resort" aspect from our point-of-view, but from the other side's point-of-view also.

Yes, but we want some governments to be overthrown and the people to rise. Thus, we are pushing them, hopefully, beyond the last resort. So it's kinda different. Sure, they'd like to wipe us out too (the fundi totalitarian governments vs. modern western liberal democracy) but who's really more likely to be put in that position?

One cannot simple equate our (democracy's) situation with theirs (totalitarian backwards brutal oppression) and expect similar behaviors; that's not logical, real, educated, objective, critical, reasoned, ethical or moral.
 
Last edited:
Nuclear bombing is the last resort. Should something extreme require them to be used, so be it.

This is the precisely the problem, and why it is so important to keep nuclear proliferation to a minimum. The more nations that have them, the more likely some extreme situation will arise that will precipitate their being used as a last resort.

Of course, the ultimate danger lies in their being used with increasing frequency until we reach the point where the obliteration of an entire city every once in a while becomes as commonplace as acts of mass terrorism are today.
 
It's only a deterrent to governments that are sane and know the consequences of mutual destruction. It's totally meaningless to those so entrenched in religion that they wouldn't hesitate to use it if they ever get their hands on one.

And, whoever believes that if you leave them alone, they will leave you alone, will eventually be dead wrong.

Bee
 
Back
Top Bottom