Iran and nuclear weapons

Post Reply New Topic

Sand:

You know of a place I can buy a nuke for emergencies only? Sweetness!

Orwell:

I think the holy-crap-we-better-not-let-anyone-do-that-again position is good, no matter who did it in the first place. I hate the fact we did it at all, even if I can't fault their logic in doing so, given the evidence they had.

My problem with Iran getting nukes as opposed to say, South Africa, is that Iran has this tendency of funding terrorism, and has stated repeatedly that Israel should be wiped off the map. One of the three, I'm not overly worried. Put the three together, you have means (nuke), motive (religious hatred), and opportunity (terrorists to deliver the bomb).

Give it time. Fascination with iPods takes a bit of time to wear off before new novelties can entice.

Iran is tricky since the threat isn't so much from them directly, but more who they might hand off a bomb to. A nasty question might be if they succeeded in constructing a bomb, and worst case gave it to one of their many affiliated terror groups who then detonated it in a western city, what would the proper response be? Would there be public support in the west to obliterate the whole country in retaliation rather than self defense? We are talking about religious fundamentalists here to whom the old rules of MAD may not fully apply. MAD only works when you're dealing with a rational adversary with an instinct for self preservation, not something I'd want to gamble on when it comes to the Iranians. I'd support a precision strike on their nuclear facilities to prevent them from developing a weapon, their ability to retaliate is pretty low, and we've already got our troops over there in case they tried to use Israel as a hostage. Hell, we could probably have the Israelis do the airstrikes for us, it's not as if the Muslim world can hate them any more than they already do, and they've got to be just itching to do it anyway.

From Sanhedrin 72a in the Babylonian Talmud:

If he is coming to kill you, rise up early and slay him first.

ruveyn

I very much consider the source of the advice.

As already mentioned, if a nuclear bomb is detonated in any Western city or Israel it would probably be delivered hidden in a truck as opposed to an ICBM. Then who do you point the finger at? Just like 911 fingers point all over the place but you can't say one particular country is directly responsible, just some loose network of terrorists scattered around Islamic countries.

To add more fog, what if Al-Quida manage to make their own nuclear weapon from the nuclear material that has "gone missing" since the collapse of the Soviet Union? Any physics graduate can make a crude atomic bomb given the materials and an engineering workshop, it isn't difficult. I could make one myself. If Israel went up in a nuclear mushroom then it might not even be Iran that is responsible! (one clue to the source would be the "fingerprint" of the fissile material used in the bomb e.g. is it plutonium or uranium based, but may still be ambiguous)

Who do you blame with an anonymous attack? Who do you retaliate against? Who do you defend yourself against? Do you sit idly by and wait for another city to go up in the name of Islamic Fundamentalism? Do you ramp up the internal security so tight in your own country it becomes a police state or virtually under military rule - gone are the freedoms you take for granted, no free movement, checkpoints and searches everywhere.

Sure. But that doesn't explain why we hang on to enough nukes to destroy the world several times over. I mean, what could possibly be the use of that many nukes? Even if we got into a nuclear war, only a fraction of our arsenal would be necessary to end the world. After that, you're beating a dead horse. And it's still hypocritical for us to have nukes and say that no one else is allowed to have them.

My problem with Iran getting nukes as opposed to say, South Africa, is that Iran has this tendency of funding terrorism, and has stated repeatedly that Israel should be wiped off the map. One of the three, I'm not overly worried. Put the three together, you have means (nuke), motive (religious hatred), and opportunity (terrorists to deliver the bomb).[/quote]

Israel isn't the only country that feels threatened with the Ayatollahs having command of a nuclear arsenal. Quietly, the Sunni monarch run gulf states fear a nuclear armed shi'a country. They don't want to stir up internal Islamic tensions but they have as much to fear from the religious establishment in Qom, Iran having the bomb as does the Jewish state and Western european countries. Iranian Pasdaran and Hezbollahi soldiers try to foment revolution in Kuwait, Bahrain, and even in Saudi Arabia..Those sunni monarchs there fear it. And " Any" country can not just have nuclear weapons..Iran has never backed down from supporting international terrorism since 1979. The best way of dealing with Iran is a modified containment strategy articulated by Kenneth Pollock in his book " The Persian Puzzle"...freezing Iranian intl. assets, making sure the inflation rate there is above 14 percent, and making it uncomfortable for radical presidents forcing the Iranian people to elect a Majles ( parliament) that is more moderate and conciliatory to the West, and possibly having them lead an internal revolution to overthrow the concept of the Valeyet-e-Faqih. An Israeli airstrike as of right now, would not be the same as the Osirik plant in 1981 or the recent attack on the Syrian nuclear facility. This requires overfly rights over Iraqi airspace, which the Bush and now Obama administrations have not allowed, compounding the problem with that is if Israel attacked any of the sites like Natanz or Bushere, the IRGC could arm and give aid to Al-Sadr's militas in southern Iraq to renew the fragile civil war, ending the ceasefire. This would possibly cause a rif with the Israel/US relationship. Not to mention, the Iranian nuclear program is scattered from the Caspian sea to the Persian gulf, so one strike alone won't take it out..it would require a constant bombardment.

Have got any evidence for these claims that the Iranian army used teenage kamikaze's to clear mine fields?
Also, get your facts straights, the war you're referring to on the eastern Iraqi border was STARTED BY DEAR OLD SADAM HUSSEIN, DICTATOR OF IRAQ!
Are you also aware that Russia considers Iran and ally and that a U.S. invasion to install a pro-western, pro-american regime would give Russia the opportunity it has been waiting for to test its renewed military??

The Russian military is a joke. But even so, it is insane to invade Iran. If one makes war on Iran it should be exterminated, not invaded.

The first thing one learns is never try to conquer a Muslim country for it is inhabited by madmen who think Shahada (martyrdom) is a nifty neat thing. Conquering Muslims is like trying to herd peeper frogs. It cannot be done at any reasonable cost.

Muslims do not want to live on Earth. They want to live in Paradise.

Delenda Islam Est

ruveyn

A joke with enough nukes to end humanity. I'm laughing already.

Their guidance systems leave something to be desired. On the field they were whipped bloody by Afghan mujihadeen (with a little help from the U.S. -- See -Charley Wilson's War- ). They have not the balls to attack the U.S. even if we nuke Iran to ashes. Why? If they do we will completely exterminate them. That is why. For similar reasons we will not attack the Russia. Russia will fall apart without any war by us. It is a thugocracy that lives at the level of third world squalor.

The Russians will not get up their fighting spirit unless they believe that they are threatened or attacked. Under those circumstances they can be quite formidable. So we will not make war against them unless they attack us first.

By and large the Ruskies are bolyaks with thick fingers and a lack of nuance. We have nothing to worry about from them. They manufacture mostly s**t and they run their country in a comensurate fashion. However they compose excellent sad songs.

They are not too bad in science, but in technology they are a joke. If all the Jews left Russia tomorrow, their scientific establishment would be crippled for a time.

ruveyn

Consider how well they have done against the Chechens. It is a laugh and a half. Why haven't the Russians nuked Chechnaya? Because the probably can't hit it with their missiles. Or perhaps they lack the courage.

ruveyn

yeah, that must be the reason.

cus, if their guidance system worked, they would nuke chechnya. i bet thats why they didnt nuke the beslan school too.

As for Russia, she currently has between 700-900 operational ICBMs(keep in mind that the US currently maintains a fleet of 500 operational IBCMs ) which gives them the ability to deliver 1,576 nuclear warheads to American Soil! Furthermore, Russia has recently begun manufacturing Topol-M ICBMs(AND nuclear warheads). Another serious concern on the part of the US Navy is the Russian(and chinese)Navy's supercavitating torpedoes and nuclear-tipped supesonic missiles. Now that they are no longer communist and are bringing in revenue through oil and gas sales, Russia is back on her feat and Im AMAZED that patriot/nationalist boneheads like you and IdahoAspie still think that its the 1990s as far as Russia is concerned.
Yeah, the Soviet Union lost the afghan war but the US lost the vietnam war!

Provided their guidance is any good. In any case the Ruskies are not going to start WW3 over Iran.

ruveyn