Nuclear Iran

[Delfos]

True, but EU isn't in NATO only some European countries. It's true we don't serve much more than puppets but NATO protects all allies against a major threat, like soviet union...as you said. And as you said it doesn't get much purpose beyond aiding Americans at the moment, the only ones that have been using it, NATO can be 'saved' with a new pact with European Union, maybe less extreme, like if they attack USA we don't have to help but we sure will think about it...or something like that. lol

If Iran gets to be target of NATO, or the opposite, Iran attacks USA, NATO will function well, but i sure hope it's not on American interest.

[Bender1968]

It's not what i want, it's probably what they want.

Not every country deserves to be a world power.  Having a couple of nuclear weapons doesn't automatically make you responsible.  Why do you think nuclear power equals stability?  All it really does is allow another rogue state to have a nuclear weapon.  Why do you think Libya still doesn't have one?

NATO is an American alliance and it has lost it's use. It was originally created to defend Western Europe from the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, and now it is used in Afghanistan and the War on Terror. But NATO is a fraud, it is just another way for the United States to control it's allies. Think about, when has there ever been a NATO Supreme Commander that was either a European or a Canadian. None, all of them from the creation of NATO to now have been Americans. The United States may have had good intentions when the alliance was formed, but now it is used as just another tool of the growing American Empire. And don't say that the United States isn't an empire. You don't need an emperor to have an empire. Think about the United States has bases all over the world, in Asia, in Europe, in the Middle-East. Trust me, NATO should be disbanded. But the only way for it to be disbanded is if Europe decides to leave. If Canada, who cares? It not like we actually contribute alot to the NATO Alliance, but if the nations of the European Union left, then the United States would have to disband it. Cause if Europe left, then Canada would leave and then there would be no NATO.

Russia is now a member a NATO, I think that really shows NATO has outlasted its usefulness.

[Myroria]

You do technically need an Emperor, or at least a monarch, to be an Empire. America would be a global state, not an empire. But I get what you're saying, America is basically an empire in actions, if not in name. And you're exactly right.

[Aquatoria]

Russia isn't a member of NATO, but it is in an alliance with NATO.

[Khem]

It's not what i want, it's probably what they want. And why not? As far as i know, they are large enough to support that, if they had Nuclear Power it would be a step further for awesome stability, probably to develop much more social rights and stuff like that. And probably be a world power, who knows. I don't care if they get to be a world power or not, if they do, good for them, but it shouldn't be us who decide who has the right to be a world power or not, nor to deny the access of nuclear power to anyone...although the creation of nuclear weapons is a risk, we either get a solution for that or we can't do much more than sit and watch. If you want to go to Iran to stop it, sure go ahead. Just don't drag the 'western world' behind.

True what you say about NATO, we had to deploy troops in Afghanistan because of NATO, and US force high ranks ask NATO allies to drag more troops into it, no thanks. We didn't start this whole thing. We only send Peace Keeping forces and engineers and stuff like that, and wherever we go there's not much of a struggle. Specially in Kosovo the Portuguese forces had done great job, rebuilding schools and maintaining order. You have to admit, struggle goes wherever the Americans go. We had a force in Kabul a week or so later some Americans got killed, there was no struggle against the Portuguese forces. I mentioned this before. You must see that they are not against NATO, they are only against US forces. We try to help, if US makes it worse by going in Iran, how do you want us to continue helping? France already said is ready for a war with Iran, but Germany is apprehensive. I doubt any other European nation wants or is ready for a war with Iran. I'm sure, when it comes to the table, Portuguese committee will disapprove any incursion in Iran.

alright folks heres a good sign that an offensive might not be a good idea...
"germany is apprehensive."
if the nation that started both world wars and is known for its generally being realy good at war is apprehensive about any offensive. then its probably a VERY bad idea.

[Bender1968]

Russia isn't a member of NATO, but it is in an alliance with NATO.

I stand corrected, its part of EAPC, which is allied with NATO.

[Delfos]

Nuclear power isn't directly resulting in nuclear weapons, specially with all the pressure. Even if they manage to make nuclear weapons i doubt they will use them in the near future. I'm counting Nuclear power as a society propeller, and if society advances, probably justice and government too.

if the nation that started both world wars and is known for its generally being realy good at war is apprehensive about any offensive. then its probably a VERY bad idea.

Not that Germany will be against anyone that tries to attack Iran, but I'm sure that if Germany doesn't help NATO there will be some hard fuss around Iran. I support Merkel on this, pressuring everyone for diplomatic solution. Germany is one of the strongest cards for NATO, as you said, not really good idea starting a war to a strong Middle Easterner nation without the help or consent of Germany.

[Aquatoria]

In a war against Iran, I couldn't see the major players of NATO support it. I mean without Tony Blair, the United Kingdom will most likely not go to war with Iran, France really doesn't like to go to war, and Germany is powerful enough to say no. Canada won't go if the three European regional powers don't go. Thus, the U.S. would either be alone, or will be supported by the minor allies of NATO. The US needs allies, because they haven't fought a war on their own since Vietnam and they lost that war. But I like your idea Delfos, a new pact with the European Union in which the EU decides whether or not they should support the United States.

[Delfos]

it's a solution for NATO, but i don't like the idea :p EU should keep out of such alliances, only if there's an union of north American nations and things like that. I hope NATO doesn't change, just to keep appearances. NATO keeps our forces fresh in war theaters, peace keeping and rebuilding destroyed structures and things like that is great, we do allot on our own too, but nothing like the NATO game. But really, without Germany i don't think France is willing to risk a direct confront, and I'm not sure about UK, still allot of support on USA.

[Bender1968]

Nuclear power isn't directly resulting in nuclear weapons, specially with all the pressure. Even if they manage to make nuclear weapons i doubt they will use them in the near future. I'm counting Nuclear power as a society propeller, and if society advances, probably justice and government too.

You place a lot on "good faith".  You can have clean energy without it being nuclear.  Please read my earlier posts about how nuclear reactors work.

[Delfos]

I know how they work, my uncle used to work for a Nuclear Facility in England. If you produce Nuclear Energy you are producing nuclear energy...and waste. Not nuclear weapons. England has allot of plutonium, doesn't mean they are making nuclear weapons, nor France which is the biggest user of Nuclear Energy.

[Prydania]

I know how they work, my uncle used to work for a Nuclear Facility in England. If you produce Nuclear Energy you are producing nuclear energy...and waste. Not nuclear weapons. England has allot of plutonium, doesn't mean they are making nuclear weapons, nor France which is the biggest user of Nuclear Energy.

1) Both France and the UK do have nuclear weapons
2) Unlike Iran under the current fundamentalist regime, both the UK and France have shown themselves to be responsible members on the world stage.
So when it comes to having a power source that can be used to create a nuclear bomb, I trust the UK and France a lot more then I would trust Iran.   

[Delfos]

They are currently not making nuclear weapons as far as we know, they store the waste underground, if Iran does so then there's no problem.

[Prydania]

They are currently not making nuclear weapons as far as we know, they store the waste underground, if Iran does so then there's no problem.

That goes back to my second point though. France and the UK aren't threatening to destroy sovereign nations. Iran is.
I trust that the UK and France would store their nukes. I don't trust Iran to do that.

[Eientei]

I don't know about that.  I think the Iranian government just wants the political leverage that having nukes would bring.  That's the real problem, and I'm for ending nuclear proliferation anyway, so we need to find an effective way to deal with Iran. 

An effective way isn't invasion, however.  (Unless you ask Dick Cheney.)