Slashdot Mirror


Iran's Nuclear Ambitions

selven wrote in with something a bit offtopic for Slashdot, but I figured it's worth a discussion today. He writes "Following Iran's revelation regarding its secret nuclear enrichment plant, western leaders are banding together against it, saying that it violates Articles 2 and 3 of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and suggesting serious sanctions against the country if it refuses to back down on its uranium enrichment program. Iran maintains that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only and that it's not fair for the US to be criticizing them in this way while having thousands of nuclear warheads."

7 of 1,032 comments (clear)

  1. Coincidence? by lobiusmoop · · Score: 4, Informative

    All this anti-Iran propaganda seems to be coming out at the same time Iran is switching from Dollars to Euros for its oil transactions. Strangely enough, Iraq previously tried this too, just before the 2003 invasion.

    --
    "I bless every day that I continue to live, for every day is pure profit."
    1. Re:Coincidence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Iran made the switch years ago and now the majority of its oil transactions aren't in dollars.

      http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/economics/article1263954.ece

      The world didn't end and the dollar didn't collapse. A few talentless and greedy bankers did a lot more damage.

  2. Re:A question of intent by claytronics · · Score: 4, Informative

    > Iran, on the other hand, has repeatedly declared it's desire for the total annihilation of the the nation of Israel (among others).

    Well, no, actually. He did call for the regime to fall, a much different meaning. Did Iran threaten Israel with nuclear attack? No.

    On the other hand, we had a U.S. presidential candidate singing "Let's Bomb Iran". Why the double standard?

    > demonstrated intent to export insurrection with the stated goal of complete domination

    Source? (other than Fox News, of course)

  3. Re:containment theory... by Sl4shd0t0rg · · Score: 5, Informative

    This isn't American propaganda. All this is saying is if Russia or China fires on us, we have enough nukes to fire back ensuring that both parties are wiped out. It is base purely on the nuclear arsenal and not military might per se. So chill the fuck out. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction

  4. Re:containment theory... by sexconker · · Score: 4, Informative

    Of course it can.

    Do you really think the bullshit in Iraq or Afghanistan is a full showing of force for the American military?

    They're political occupations designed to stagnate and fail.

    It won't be until the next real war, where American soil is under threat of attack or takeover, that the US military will unleash some of the new toys its been hiding.

  5. Re:containment theory... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Informative

    In a nuclear war, America is the only state capable of defeating China or Russia.

    Unless your mythical strategic defence shield is now working and the propaganda machine hasn't started working yet, this is false. In a nuclear war, America is not capable of defeating China or Russia, it is capable of ensuring that both sides lose. Putting China and Russia in the same category is a bit odd, as both France and the UK have more nuclear warheads than China but an order of magnitude fewer than Russia. Both have enough to destroy every major city in Russia or China, even accounting for some missiles being intercepted.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News