Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[burningpet]

As long as a country does not have reason to believe they are facing imminent and total destruction, they are not likely to use nukes. Of the Nuclear Club, Israel is probably the most at risk of this happening. (North Korea is disqualified for sucking and being under the shadow of four or five different ABM systems.)

Who said anything about governments using those Nukes? that is HIGHLY unlikely. we are talking about said governments abilities, or lack of, in controlling their arsenal of nukes. there is no way an extremist can steal or obtain a Nuke from israel. there is a very high chance of it happening in pakistan, india or iran. hell, in the case of iran, there is a high chance of them just outright giving it to terrorist groups they finance.

Besides, whats facing imminent and total destruction? other than being thrown nukes or other mass destruction weapons at israel, there's no way the surrounding countries can unite again and cause israel to face such a threat. so if the only reason this is not happening is because israel has Nukes, then israel having Nukes actually reduce the chances of seeing another Nuke bomb detonates from the hands of an acting government.

[10ebbor10]

The Saudi's might have the bomb as well.

the way i see it, israel is going to be doomed not because of surrounding arabs, but mainly because we, the secular majority, are collapsing under the economic pressure of financing a disproportional army, a sector of arabs that don't pay taxes, a sector of religious who don't work, rely on government aid and because of financing settlements in the west bank.

Not exactly a sure sign of stability, I'd guess.

[Taricus]

As long as a country does not have reason to believe they are facing imminent and total destruction, they are not likely to use nukes. Of the Nuclear Club, Israel is probably the most at risk of this happening. (North Korea is disqualified for sucking and being under the shadow of four or five different ABM systems.)

Who said anything about governments using those Nukes? that is HIGHLY unlikely. we are talking about said governments abilities, or lack of, in controlling their arsenal of nukes. there is no way an extremist can steal or obtain a Nuke from israel. there is a very high chance of it happening in pakistan, india or iran. hell, in the case of iran, there is a high chance of them just outright giving it to terrorist groups they finance.

Besides, whats facing imminent and total destruction? other than being thrown nukes or other mass destruction weapons at israel, there's no way the surrounding countries can unite again and cause israel to face such a threat. so if the only reason this is not happening is because israel has Nukes, then israel having Nukes actually reduce the chances of seeing another Nuke bomb detonates from the hands of an acting government.

I would hazard that none of the listed countries would actually let a nuclear weapon get stolen, between all three of those having rather significant military assets (Atleast enough to make sure such devices are secure.)

As for Iran hawking off a nuke to a terrorist group, even IF they could make one, who would they give it to exactly? Not exactly a lot of terrorists out there that they could even theoretically sell them to.

[burningpet]

"Not exactly a sure sign of stability, I'd guess." - implying what? that because of this burden we would nuke the world?

"I would hazard that none of the listed countries would actually let a nuclear weapon get stolen, between all three of those having rather significant military assets (Atleast enough to make sure such devices are secure.)

As for Iran hawking off a nuke to a terrorist group, even IF they could make one, who would they give it to exactly? Not exactly a lot of terrorists out there that they could even theoretically sell them to."

Guess again. Pakistan has had its fair share of terrorist raids at its nuclear reactors and storages. it is said that not only it would be the most likely to happen there, but that it might have already happend.

Iran is directly financing terrorists groups, spending billions of USD in weapons and finances of said groups. if you want an exact group that could happily receive such a weapon WHEN they make one (which can be due within a year), then take a look at hizbulla.

And as for india, well, that country is so corrupted, that bribing some high military officials to get a nuclear bomb is not that far fetched and would not be that expensive for organizations that have volumes of billions USD a year for human and drug trafficking.

[Owlbread]

Iran's difficulty in financing terrorist groups is that it can only really supply Shia ones. Besides Hezbollah there are rather few Shia extremist groups actually worth financing outside of Iraq or Bahrain.

[Helgoland]

Taliban in Afghanistan? The confessional divide shouldn't be that much of a problem if you're very far away from each other.

[Owlbread]

Taliban in Afghanistan? The confessional divide shouldn't be that much of a problem if you're very far away from each other.

Actually my understanding of the situation in the mid to late 90s was that everyone expected Iran to invade Afghanistan and depose the Taliban. I think they were even being groomed by the West to do just that. My memory is hazy though.

[LordSlowpoke]

The Taliban are by no means Shia. If anything, Iran would be actively opposing them.

[10ebbor10]

Taliban in Afghanistan? The confessional divide shouldn't be that much of a problem if you're very far away from each other.

Different religious subgroups. Almost arch-enemies really. Pretty sure that Iran would rather give nukes to the US so that they can bomb the Taliban, than give the Taliban nukes to bomb the US.

[Owlbread]

The Taliban are by no means Shia. If anything, Iran would be actively opposing them.

Exactly. If Iran was some kind of Sunni theocracy then we'd probably be in a much worse position. But could you imagine the Vatican supplying radical Protestant rebels that murder and subjugate Catholics in Ireland? That is what it would be like for Iran to supply the Taliban with anything.

[LordSlowpoke]

The Taliban are by no means Shia. If anything, Iran would be actively opposing them.

Exactly. If Iran was some kind of Sunni theocracy then we'd probably be in a much worse position. But could you imagine the Vatican supplying radical Protestant rebels that murder and subjugate Catholics in Ireland?

Were Iran a Sunni theocracy, the Middle East would be a much more stable place. No bullshit going on between the Saudis and Iranians, no need for said Saudis to turn to their American allies so Iran is turned into literally Hitler the worst state since Best Korea.

[Dutchling]

Wouldn't a Sunni Iran theocracy just be Saudi Arabia #2?

[Owlbread]

Wouldn't a Sunni Iran theocracy just be Saudi Arabia #2?

Maybe more of a Republic/Dictatorship than an absolute monarchy.

[Dutchling]

I was under the impression that the Saudi monarchs only rule because the church (mosque?) allows them to do so.

[XXSockXX]

No, they rule of their own dynastic right. They were rulers of Najd who conquered the Hedjaz area and deposed the Hashimids there. Then they clicked the "form Arabia" decision (goddamn you CK2!!!).
They are closely aligned with the Wahhabi branch of Sunni Islam though, which is at odds with many other branches because of it's fundamentalist interpretation of Islam.