[Trikaduliana]

Meh, stop whining about Iran trying to build a space program, or whatever. It's really tiresome. If they're building ballistic missiles and firing them at people, we stop them when that becomes apparent (and you can't have a missile program without actually firing some missiles, so it will become quite apparent); if they are peacefully trying to develop a space program, let them join the first world and do so. Alienating them is a good way to make sure they do the former and not the latter.

Also, why the heck did they say 'a small group of less than half a dozen nations'. Five? Four? These are numbers that are rather easier to write than "less than half a dozen", and are far more precise...

[xanaxist]

Dude, they're exactly the same thing.

QFT. Iran justed tested an ICBM.

[f6HLLFcw]

Pakistan can put satellites into orbit?

[viagbloggerz]

Take off and nuke the site from space.

[PekHyvac]

well if you were a member of axis of evil - you'd want nukes too after Iraq )

as for Iranians in space to third world development... the funniest part is how everyone here is freaked out by Iranians putting sattelites into orbit, but are not freaked out by Pakistanis having nukes (& capability to deliver) for 10 years or so...

mass media power

[huerta]

What are the compartive payloads of satelites and nukes?

How would iranian nukes ´destabilize the region´ as is often claimed? AFAIK ´destabilizing´ is not quite the appropriate attribute for nuclear weapons.

[betraaaus]

How would iranian nukes ´destabilize the region´ as is often claimed? Because of the insecurity it would forment in places like Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Isreal on top of the fact that no one really trusts a theocracy with nukes.

[Pdarassenko]

How would iranian nukes ´destabilize the region´ as is often claimed? AFAIK ´destabilizing´ is not quite the appropriate attribute for nuclear weapons.

Many see it as the beginning of a new nuclear arms race, since many other countries in the region will try to get nukes as well, if only to be safe from political blackmail. With ranges of missiles growing (and now they basically reached ICBM dimensions as others posted) this could suck more and more states in. We could get a world full of nuclear armed countries, which would be highly unstable.

The current regime with only some countries having nukes is not really "fair", but it has been relatively safe. Now this "relative safety" included several situations where an all out nuke war was possible (esp. during the Cuban Missile crisis). Imagine this with 20, 30 or 50 states possessing nukes, some of them unstable as hell due to domestic reasons already.

[QualityReachOut]

Iran launches a satellite and there's **** all Israel can do about it...

[Ubgvuncd]

What are the compartive payloads of satelites and nukes?

The energy required to complete these missions is comparable. The R7 originally was designed as an ICBM, but still forms the backbone of the USSR/Russia space program. Likewise, the Atlas program for the US (although it performs a much lesser role for the US space program).

There are differences in solid-fuelled rockets versus liquid-fuelled rockets that are interesting to discuss, but really aren't important as far as this discussion is concerned.

[nabsgood]

Are any of those a theocracy centered around a doomsday cult?

[phsyalcvqh]

well if you were a member of axis of evil - you'd want nukes too after Iraq )

as for Iranians in space to third world development... the funniest part is how everyone here is freaked out by Iranians putting sattelites into orbit, but are not freaked out by Pakistanis having nukes (& capability to deliver) for 10 years or so...

mass media power

I freaked. Especially when Pakistan and India were eyeball to eyeball a few years back. IMHO, that was the closest the world has been to nuclear war since Nagasaki. Thank god, they both had the good sense to back off.

[Reafnartefs]

Firing a rocket into space is the same thing as firing an ICBM at a country. Really.

Yes.

So, when are the US, Russia, France, and China going to be brought before the world court for war crimes? What?

[singleGirl]

I don't give a rat's *** as to whether Iran has the capability to send an ICBM into space.

This is your problem. The rest of us actually care whether Iran can bombard us with missiles, esp. ones that could carry the nuclear weapons they want.

[tramdoctorsss]

Yes.
Originally Posted by snoopy369 Firing a rocket into space is the same thing as firing an ICBM at a country. Really.

What? US, China, France, etc. have fired rockets into space. (Fact.)
Firing a rocket into space is the same thing as firing an ICBM at a country (According to Kuci.)

Therefore, according to Kuci, all of the above named countries should be tried for war crimes, for the equivalent of firing rockets at countries without provocation.

My point is that it does not matter if firing a rocket is the technical equivalent of firing an ICBM. It matters simply that it is not an aggressive act; it is a quite reasonable act for a first world country to undertake. We cannot simply say "Iran is going to develop ICBMs and fire them at people" without some proof that they actually are going to do that. Didn't we learn anything from the Iraq/WMD disaster? Anything?

[Spalax]

US, China, France, etc. have fired rockets into space. (Fact.)
Firing a rocket into space is the same thing as firing an ICBM at a country (According to Kuci.)

Therefore, according to Kuci, all of the above named countries should be tried for war crimes, for the equivalent of firing rockets at countries without provocation.

Oh my god, you can't really be this stupid. Your original complaint was that we should wait until they actually build and fire ballistic missiles to start thinking about countering them; I pointed out that THEY JUST BUILT AND FIRED A BALLISTIC MISSILE.

My point is that it does not matter if firing a rocket is the technical equivalent of firing an ICBM. It matters simply that it is not an aggressive act; it is a quite reasonable act for a first world country to undertake. We cannot simply say "Iran is going to develop ICBMs and fire them at people" without some proof that they actually are going to do that. Didn't we learn anything from the Iraq/WMD disaster? Anything? What we learned from the Iraq/WMD disaster was to be a lot more careful when determining whether a country actually has weapons we don't want them to have. Given that Iran just demonstrated that irrefutably to the ENTIRE WORLD, your argument would imply that we should invade them now.

[sonsayx]

Oh my god, you can't really be this stupid. Your original complaint was that we should wait until they actually build and fire ballistic missiles to start thinking about countering them; I pointed out that THEY JUST BUILT AND FIRED A BALLISTIC MISSILE.

AT someone. I said until they fired a missile AT someone. They did not do that.


What we learned from the Iraq/WMD disaster was to be a lot more careful when determining whether a country actually has weapons we don't want them to have. Given that Iran just demonstrated that irrefutably to the ENTIRE WORLD, your argument would imply that we should invade them now. What we SHOULD have learned, is not to push our weight around just because we can; but rather to save it for when we actually need to. Why does 'we don't want them to have [weapons]' matter? We don't want ANYONE to have weapons; that way we could boss everyone else around. That's morally absurd. If they behave as a reasonable state, we should do ... nothing. And so far, they haven't done anything tangible that suggests they are not going to behave reasonably. I don't think anyone in Washington seriously believes they are going to start launching missiles at Israel any time soon; and I certainly don't believe that. Iran developing missiles does little more than evening the balance of power in the middle east, which has been in the direction of Israel far too long. The other countries in the area can't feel comfortable until they're on par militarily with Israel (and therefore don't have to worry about Israel's aggression).

I'm just tired of being in a country full of hypocritical actors, and further, hypocrites calling OTHER people hypocrites for doing precisely the same thing (so, hypocritical hypocrites?). National self-determination is either valuable, or not; if it's valuable, then Iran has that same right, so long as they don't act to deny another nation its self determination. Any limitation to them [until they have proven otherwise] is simply hypocritical.

[EzekelEnzino]

AT someone. I said until they fired a missile AT someone. They did not do that.

... we should wait for them to actually shoot at someone before we try to stop it from happening?

Yeah, double tard.

[zoolissentesy]

This thread makes me glad that California is the American state with the highest probability of getting nuked by a rogue state in the next decade. At least the dumbasses will bear the brunt of the reckoning for their dumabassness.

[wentscat]

2. Hold them to the same standards as everyone else I am pretty sure the standard for actively and openly supplying arms and financial support to people like Hezbollah and Hams = economic sanctions, arms embargos and consternation about what a state sponsor of terror will do with nukes.

Somehow I think categorizing Iran as a theocracy centered around a doomsday cult misses certain important details, like 'truth' and 'accuracy'. Are you denying that Iran is a theocracy and its leaders are members of a religious group actively trying to bring about the end of the world?

I've no problem with minimum standards such as "don't kill people arbitrarily", but even that has to be defined carefully Well then again as Iran is an admitted sponsor of Hezbollah and Hamas, you should be all about the restictions currently enforced on Iran.

at what point will the EU start considering the US a rogue state because of the death penalty, after all. How could the US application of the death penalty in any way be categorized as arbitrary?

The best way to get Iran to behave like a mature state is to treat them that way The best way to be treated like a mature state is to act that way.

just like the best way to get a 16 year old to act like an adult is to treat them that way Actually, thats how you get spoiled brats who take things for granted.