Do you think we should need nukes !?

[Fafnir]

Considering the prohibition of killing civilians in Islam and Iran being a theocracy. Wouldn't the Iranian ruling scholars object to it in principle? Because nukes are suppose to target cities. Maybe tactical nukes is more consistent with Islamic principles.

Is this supposed to be a joke?,because ideally one would use emojis/smileys to signify it like so:
Considering the prohibition of killing civilians in Islam
The problem with these sorts of "prohibitions" is that in irans case its faced with an enemy [usraeli/nato] who despite being nominally christian,well the us/nato part at least is,has absolutely no problem with killing civilians of any and all races,creeds and faiths despite a certain christian commandment that says not to.
Ideally one would say that the whole point of nuclear weapons is as a deterrent ie they are never meant to be used so prohibitions on killing civilians shouldnt really apply,another option would be to only use these [strategic] nuclear weapons for the targeting of purely military targets ie military bases or dual use facilities like ports so very few civilian casualties likely[in theory at least].
Lastly I think if the iranian government decided that it was in the national interest of iran to become an nws then I dont imgine that islamic prohibitions will come into it any more than christian ones did in the west.

 

[cocomo]

Is this supposed to be a joke?,because ideally one would use emojis/smileys to signify it like so:


Considering the prohibition of killing civilians in Islam

I don't know why you thought it was a joke? There is quotations of Imam Khomeini which overtly oppose producing Nukes, when he was advised that Iran should produce Chemical weapons to deter Saddam he replied by saying if I do the same whats the difference b/w me and Saddam. He also opposed nuclear weapons. Even though if you don't believe in his morality/principles he did value moral consistency more than utility of nukes which is commendable. Tactical nukes on the other hand are weapons to be used against soldiers in a war which I presume won't raise issue with moralists in Iran.

“If we produce chemical weapons, what is the difference between me and Saddam?”

… Khomeini also repeated his edict forbidding work on nuclear weapons, telling him, “Don’t talk about nuclear weapons at all.”

Previously, Rafighdoost had

… told Khomeini [of] “a plan to produce nuclear weapons.” That could only have been a distant goal in 1984, given the rudimentary state of Iran’s nuclear program. At that point, Iranian nuclear specialists had no knowledge of how to enrich uranium and had no technology with which to do it. But in any case, Khomeini closed the door to such a program. “We don’t want to produce nuclear weapons,”

source: http://fpif.org/ayatollah-khomeini-may-savage-drew-line-nukes/

There are also fatwas against Nuclear program from other scholars in Iran's supreme council.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Khamenei#Fatwa_against_nuclear_weapons

 

[Arminkh]

I don't know why you thought it was a joke? There is quotations of Imam Khomeini which overtly oppose producing Nukes, when he was advised that Iran should produce Chemical weapons to deter Saddam he replied by saying if I do the same whats the difference b/w me and Saddam. He also opposed nuclear weapons. Even though if you don't believe in his morality/principles he did value moral consistency more than utility of nukes which is commendable.


There are also fatwas against Nuclear program from other scholars in Iran's supreme council.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Khamenei#Fatwa_against_nuclear_weapons

This is the exact reason Iran still doesn't have any nukes. At least it appears to be.

 

[cocomo]

This is the exact reason Iran still doesn't have any nukes. At least it appears to be.

What do you think about tactical nukes will there be opposition to them by religious scholars? And do security experts talk about permissibility such weapons as they are supposed to be used in a war or on military installments?

 

[Fafnir]

I don't know why you thought it was a joke? There is quotations of Imam Khomeini which overtly oppose producing Nukes, when he was advised that Iran should produce Chemical weapons to deter Saddam he replied by saying if I do the same whats the difference b/w me and Saddam. He also opposed nuclear weapons. Even though if you don't believe in his morality/principles he did value moral consistency more than utility of nukes which is commendable. Tactical nukes on the other hand are weapons to be used against soldiers in a war which I presume won't raise issue with moralists in Iran.


There are also fatwas against Nuclear program from other scholars in Iran's supreme council.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Khamenei#Fatwa_against_nuclear_weapons

The reason I thought it was a joke is because any weapon can kill a civilian,its not the weapon its the intent of the user that matters,a hammer can smash a skull or build a temple and a tactical nuke can just as easily be used to destroy a civilian target as a military one or vice versa a strategic nuke can be used to destroy a purely military target instead of a city.Personally I find these religious prohibitions to be the worst sorts of hypocrisy indeed one only has to look at the past or even the present record of the muslim countries when it comes to "the prohibition of killing civilians in Islam" tho the christian west is far,far worse it must be said.The simple fact of the matter is this if iran and its government decided that irans survival depended on acquiring these weapons then they would regardless of khomeini,the fact that at some stage iran did appear to have a limited weapons program and now has a credible japan option shows very clearly that altho iran may officially follow khomeini fatwas in reality tho they are keeping their nuclear options open,and in this neck of the woods they would be very smart to do that..
Khomeinis decision on the use of chemical weapons may have been commendable morally but it was a very,very poor decision militarily as it allowed saddam to continue the use of chemical weapons against iran with absolutely no fear of retaliation and if that wasnt bad enough irans opponents portrayed the use of chemical weapons as being by both iraq and iran,so khomeinis moral stance earned iran nothing internationally.But then this is often what happens when you allow political or religous leaders,even worse in khomeinis case as he was both,to meddle in the waging of a war.

 

[The SC]

What do you think about tactical nukes will there be opposition to them by religious scholars? And do security experts talk about permissibility such weapons as they are supposed to be used in a war or on military installments?

Tactical nukes are still considered nuclear weapons..If one looks at the Indian answer to the Pakistani TNW fielded against an Indian invasion (CSD), he can see the type of answers he might get..like full blown nuclear response, targeting cities, populations and major assets.. So any tactical nuclear weapons should be accompanied by the presence of high yield nuclear weapons, otherwise, it is not a risk to be taken..mostly in the case of Iran where just the mention of nuclear weapons manufacturing (even small) will rise voices, sanctions and threats of war rhetoric from the US&CO..

 

[raptor22]

What do you think about tactical nukes will there be opposition to them by religious scholars? And do security experts talk about permissibility such weapons as they are supposed to be used in a war or on military installments?

In Iran supreme leader official website 3 Quranic reasons have been mentioned which makes nuclear weapon and also all sorts of weapon of mass destruction prohibited:

No one should be punished if they are not guilty , innocents must be protected ..if you drop a nuke somewhere you destroy the entire area and whatever in it , it's a blind weapon.
1) 17:15
Whoever is guided is only guided for [the benefit of] his soul. And whoever errs only errs against it. And no bearer of burdens will bear the burden of another. And never would We punish until We sent a messenger.


Whatever that encourage or helps to distribute corruption must be avoided, base on this verse avoidance is referred to striving .. means doesn't mater what you trying to achieve ended in something or not you should not give it a try. if you go after nukes then other would be encouraged to aquaire it on opposite you should make an example that by not going after it.
2) 2:205
And when he goes away, he strives throughout the land to cause corruption therein and destroy crops and animals. And Allah does not like corruption.



It says if disadvantages if doing something is more than its benefits then it should be avoided too.
3) 2:219
They ask you about wine and gambling. Say, "In them is great sin and [yet, some] benefit for people. But their sin is greater than their benefit." And they ask you what they should spend. Say, "The excess [beyond needs]." Thus Allah makes clear to you the verses [of revelation] that you might give thought.

​

 

[OldTwilight]

How can I change thread title !?

Do you think Iran should have nuclear weapons ...

 

[Arminkh]

What do you think about tactical nukes will there be opposition to them by religious scholars? And do security experts talk about permissibility such weapons as they are supposed to be used in a war or on military installments?

My understanding is any type of it is banned. And I have not heard any of the officials ever talk about building one.

However the opinion of people of the streets in Iran is that Iran should have it.

 

[T-123456]

modern day Iran and Saudi Arabia

Why do you want them both to have nukes?
You want us dead Dragon?

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Why do you want them both to have nukes?
You want us dead Dragon?

I'm not saying I want them to have nukes (doesn't bother me either way), but rather that if I was in their position, I definitely would develop nukes.

It seems that is not the case for them though, neither one seems to be trying to develop them openly.

 

[T-123456]

I'm not saying I want them to have nukes (doesn't bother me either way), but rather that if I was in their position, I definitely would develop nukes.

It seems that is not the case for them though, neither one seems to be trying to develop them openly.

Now i know your plan for world domination,both nuke each other and destroy the rest of the ME.
Im sure you wil use a similar trick for the US and Russia,so that they do the same and China will become the sole worldpower.
I must admit,very clever.

 

[Fafnir]

My understanding is any type of it is banned. And I have not heard any of the officials ever talk about building one.

Well of course they wouldnt,at least openly that is,after all iran is a signatory to the npt,however privately that I suspect could be quite different,but from where I`m sitting it certainly looks like iran is definitely keeping all of its nuclear options open despite rouhani and co.

 

[Asghar1234]

This is the exact reason Iran still doesn't have any nukes. At least it appears to be.

No the main reason is Iran will get isolated at level of NK.

Btw why should Iran build a weapon that kill millions or thousands people. I think having nuclear capability is enough.

Even if Iran wants to build nukes it is not sane at this time. yet our economy is not improving well due to obvious reasons. building nukes will damage our economy more. and no worries we have dear friend NK.

 

[Cthulhu]

Guys be realistic here, If we develop nukes all of our rivals will get nukes, and since today's wars in the middle east are mostly Jihadist/Terrorist proxy wars and you can't use nukes against a terrorist group, they aren't even deterrent. Not to mention if we develop nukes the rest of the world will sanction the sh*t out of us.