How Will The World Change...
- Thread starter BaalsTears
- Start date
I agree. The proliferation of nuclear weapons technology and ballistic missile technology means that the use of nuclear weapons in this century is inevitable. The most likely use will be between Pakistan and India. In 2002 the US was able to prevent a new war betweeen those countries over the attack on the Indian Parliament. War between India and Pakistan will probably result in the use of nuclear weapons by the side which is losing the conventional war. That would be Pakistan.
If America is attacked with nuclear weapons there will only be one place for millions upon millions of Americans to go. That would be Canada.
Some civilizations have self-destructed, e.g., the Rapa Nui.
Other civilizations have had help, e.g., the Incas, the Mexica, and the Byzantines. But whether they were technological civilizations is open to debate.
As Talks With U.S. Near, Iran Denies Nuclear Arms Effort - washingtonpost.com
As protesters jeer, Ahmadinejad denies Iran wants nuclear weapons | World news | The Guardian
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/20/world/middleeast/20iran.html
Iran Denies Developing Nuclear Bomb Despite U.S. Concerns Over Fissle Material - Iran | Map | News - FOXNews.com
Nobody let the Washington Post, the Guardian, the New York Times or even Fox News in on the conspiracy. These are just the first few articles I found in which the headline reported Iran denying accusations. I couldn't be bothered to read through articles that might mention the denial under another headline.
I think most people who read or watch Western media are aware that Iran denies these accusations.
A ground strike is passé and we'll never see another. It is far better to pull off a rainbow EMP strike and knock out utilities and let the nation targeted kill each other off for a rotten rutabaga.
Last edited:
I agree and EMPstuff is cheaper. Nobodies going to launch an ICBM, it would be suicidal
Normally I would agree with that Cliffy but for the last year or so I'm thinking that may not be true. Isn't it conceivable that a civilization could be hidden and preserved right out in the open?
If it is believed that Iran has become a nuclear weapons state I think it is likely Turkey will seek nuclear weapons. Since the Ottomans seized Anatolia, Turkey and Iran have been in an historic struggle. Look at the history of the Turks and Safavids.
What of Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states? Assuming for the sake of argument that Iran becomes a nuclear weapons state, Saudi Arabia and the other members of the Gulf Cooperation Council will be faced with a choice. They either seek nuclear weapons or they become subservient to the Shia of Iran.
America will, imo, be forced to withdraw from the eastern hemisphere. But America will never withdraw from the western hemisphere. There are Latin nations which may come to believe their only hope of maintaining independence lies in the acquisition of nuclear weapons. Venezuela comes to mind. Brazil also comes to mind.
What of Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states? Assuming for the sake of argument that Iran becomes a nuclear weapons state, Saudi Arabia and the other members of the Gulf Cooperation Council will be faced with a choice. They either seek nuclear weapons or they become subservient to the Shia of Iran.
America will, imo, be forced to withdraw from the eastern hemisphere. But America will never withdraw from the western hemisphere. There are Latin nations which may come to believe their only hope of maintaining independence lies in the acquisition of nuclear weapons. Venezuela comes to mind. Brazil also comes to mind.
First of all we have left out the major factor in Middle Eastern Politics. Everything's ends up
being done together like the oil cartels, but Arabs don't work well together so nothing ever
happens of substance. There are too many levels of Islam to have people going to the step
of Iran as it were.
No I don't think much would really change, and it should be noted that Iran likely has a lot more
of their program in place or they wouldn't be talking about it. Iran is looking down the street
right now not at the world. Their own youth which makes up more than half the population is
in fact getting ready the shed the Islamic State crap and get on with living. Secondly if Iran were
to direct an attack on the world their own people would turn on them. The rest of the world is
starting to see that the Islamic stronghold we thought the people were gripped in is not strong at
all. Much like the power of the former Communist governments in Easter Europe and we all know
how that turned out.
In addition, we have surmised the Islamic Brotherhood would fill the vacuum of the democracy, vs
authoritarian rule conflict. The only problem is the Islamic Brotherhood is a changed movement in
and of itself. That movement like all others in the Islamic world is fracturing. Some of the issues for
example include women's rights and their right to vote. Many factions of the Brotherhood are now in
support of such measures and the smaller fundamentalist groups are threatening to break away.
Fundamentalist Islam wants to go back to the old Empire Days of the 8Th century but the majority
in fact wants to join the modern world, IE the Sunni sect of Islam which is predominant in the
Arab World as Shia is in the Persian areas.
Iran is bound by the dictates of a changing world, the emerging democracies in the region may in
fact unite long enough to take out Iran itself if it poses a serious enough threat to the region. We
in the west always assume the worst and we assume the region is stable and it is not, One look
at the demonstrations breaking out everywhere clearly shows the old Islamic way is giving way to
something new, we just don't know what that NEW is at the moment.
In short Iran, has the bomb the problem is the world has moved on and she could find herself now
to be isolated by the very groups she needs to keep their agenda alive, and that would produce a
total revolution from within. Now administration wants to be fighting the world and its own people at the
same time, ask the Nazi German Regime how that turned out, oh they are all dead, and that is my
point.
being done together like the oil cartels, but Arabs don't work well together so nothing ever
happens of substance. There are too many levels of Islam to have people going to the step
of Iran as it were.
No I don't think much would really change, and it should be noted that Iran likely has a lot more
of their program in place or they wouldn't be talking about it. Iran is looking down the street
right now not at the world. Their own youth which makes up more than half the population is
in fact getting ready the shed the Islamic State crap and get on with living. Secondly if Iran were
to direct an attack on the world their own people would turn on them. The rest of the world is
starting to see that the Islamic stronghold we thought the people were gripped in is not strong at
all. Much like the power of the former Communist governments in Easter Europe and we all know
how that turned out.
In addition, we have surmised the Islamic Brotherhood would fill the vacuum of the democracy, vs
authoritarian rule conflict. The only problem is the Islamic Brotherhood is a changed movement in
and of itself. That movement like all others in the Islamic world is fracturing. Some of the issues for
example include women's rights and their right to vote. Many factions of the Brotherhood are now in
support of such measures and the smaller fundamentalist groups are threatening to break away.
Fundamentalist Islam wants to go back to the old Empire Days of the 8Th century but the majority
in fact wants to join the modern world, IE the Sunni sect of Islam which is predominant in the
Arab World as Shia is in the Persian areas.
Iran is bound by the dictates of a changing world, the emerging democracies in the region may in
fact unite long enough to take out Iran itself if it poses a serious enough threat to the region. We
in the west always assume the worst and we assume the region is stable and it is not, One look
at the demonstrations breaking out everywhere clearly shows the old Islamic way is giving way to
something new, we just don't know what that NEW is at the moment.
In short Iran, has the bomb the problem is the world has moved on and she could find herself now
to be isolated by the very groups she needs to keep their agenda alive, and that would produce a
total revolution from within. Now administration wants to be fighting the world and its own people at the
same time, ask the Nazi German Regime how that turned out, oh they are all dead, and that is my
point.
Maybe, maybe not. Optimism is not a substitute for policy. Francis Fukuyama was an optimist at the time of the fall of the Soviet Empire. He predicted the "end of history." He now has egg on his face.
Imo history does not repeat itself, but human nature has a very limited repetoire of behaviors. Human nature creates the impression that history is something other than random chaos.
Fear, greed, and zealotry always reappear. They create the motivation to have the ultimate weapon.
Imo history does not repeat itself, but human nature has a very limited repetoire of behaviors. Human nature creates the impression that history is something other than random chaos.
Fear, greed, and zealotry always reappear. They create the motivation to have the ultimate weapon.
That is what a nuke is.
The are afraid because they all have US bases that make them targets.
That is one of the byproducts of a nuke. It is possible to create the same effect without the same big explosion and radioactive fallout.
That's why EMP nuke strikes are done at the fringes of space. There is no fall out, radiatition poisoning, damage to human, animals, plants or structures of any kind. You just let them fight each other for food and water
Iran already has the rockets capable.
YouTube - Starfish Prime Test of 1962
And what if all American bases were removed from the entire middle east? What would happen? I'm looking for insight. Tell me something I don't know.
Here's an interesting op/ed:
Pakistan’s Nuclear Folly
Published: February 20, 2011
With the Middle East roiling, the alarming news about Pakistan’s nuclear weapons buildup has gotten far too little attention. The Times recently reported that American intelligence agencies believe Pakistan has between 95 and more than 110 deployed nuclear weapons, up from the mid-to-high 70s just two years ago.
Pakistan can’t feed its people, educate its children, or defeat insurgents without billions of dollars in foreign aid. Yet, with China’s help, it is now building a fourth nuclear reactor to produce more weapons fuel.
Even without that reactor, experts say, it has already manufactured enough fuel for 40 to 100 additional weapons. That means Pakistan — which claims to want a minimal credible deterrent — could soon possess the world’s fifth-largest arsenal, behind the United States, Russia, France and China but ahead of Britain and India. Washington and Moscow, with thousands of nuclear weapons each, still have the most weapons by far, but at least they are making serious reductions....
Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/21/opinion/21mon1.html?_r=1&ref=opinion
Pakistan’s Nuclear Folly
Published: February 20, 2011
With the Middle East roiling, the alarming news about Pakistan’s nuclear weapons buildup has gotten far too little attention. The Times recently reported that American intelligence agencies believe Pakistan has between 95 and more than 110 deployed nuclear weapons, up from the mid-to-high 70s just two years ago.
Pakistan can’t feed its people, educate its children, or defeat insurgents without billions of dollars in foreign aid. Yet, with China’s help, it is now building a fourth nuclear reactor to produce more weapons fuel.
Even without that reactor, experts say, it has already manufactured enough fuel for 40 to 100 additional weapons. That means Pakistan — which claims to want a minimal credible deterrent — could soon possess the world’s fifth-largest arsenal, behind the United States, Russia, France and China but ahead of Britain and India. Washington and Moscow, with thousands of nuclear weapons each, still have the most weapons by far, but at least they are making serious reductions....
Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/21/opinion/21mon1.html?_r=1&ref=opinion