Iran

[BHCWarman88]

I am becoming intersted in this Iran Nuclear Program Crap. I think Iran already has a Bad name, so the Minute they tryo doing this, we got to label iran as "oh my god,they going to make weapons!!!!!!!!"


not really. how do you really know that? But Again, you can't Trust Iran to the Sense that,THey Raided our U.S Embrassy,they got sudicdie bombers from their conutry going to Iraq (?) and crap. I read in my Magainze I get every 2 weeks that Iran Preseident said if the U.S or the Brits attack them, they will send, 40,000 trained Sudice Bombers to US and British Tagerts. My God,they will blow us to Hell if you think about it. 40,000 people blowing themselves up isn't like 9/11,with just 20 or so Hi-Jackers and taking over 4 plans, and 3 out of the 4 made it, expect for Flight 93 (go Flight 93!)


but I think

get out the H bomb
if we attack Iran,just bomb them with the H Bomb and some other minor nukes,that should handle it..

[Justiciar]

It is, saddly, innevitable. Seems more likely that Ahmadinejad claimed Iran had the capability to instantly send 40,000 trained soldiers against the US and it's allies. 40,000 scuicide bombers? Yah. Bull. Either he was talking out of his arse or this magazine was going all dramatic.

[Major Robert Dump]

It is all a conspiracy for a war from the west, France already has buildings leased in Iranian neighborhoods to put in bagel factories which would exclusively serve invading forces and Iranians who register as innocents. Several wealthy English political families have rented booths in salons to cater to Westeners in need of a cut and shave. The United States will benefit from the vast amounts of capital and manpower that is going to developing the Osprey, it will creat jobs and tax money. Meanwhile, when the Osprey is finished it will enable a single company of Marines to take and hold an area the size of South America, which means we will need only 60 or so Marines to keep Iran locked down. This will save us billions in military spending as we will only need few hundred soldiers (and half a dozen Ospreys!) active in the nation at once, and with a few hundred we could run 4 wars at once.

The Osprey also cracks corn, so it can be used in humanitarian missions as well.

[Major Robert Dump]

No, I'm explaining how the industrial complexes of the West want a war in Iran, because people like Dick Cheney want to get more drunk and sleep.

[Watchman]

Using nukes has been kinda taboo since '45, for bloody obvious reasons. I don't really see what the US would stand to gain from breaking the practice, save for more bad publicity in one shot than they've managed to corner in the whole period since WW2 ended...

A newspaper here incidentally recently quoted a four star General(ret.) acerbically observing that all the Iranians need to take Basra is ten mullahs and one car with loudspeakers.

[rory_20_uk]

America was contemplating using Nukes in Korea. What a mess that would have been!

Iran will fight back if invaded... that's news? What would the USA do if invaded?

"Get out the H bomb"...

I don't doubt your enthusiasm, but the complete lack of the geopolitical realities of the area appear to be missing. Perhaps a bit of

[Dâriûsh]

A newspaper here incidentally recently quoted a four star General(ret.) acerbically observing that all the Iranians need to take Basra is ten mullahs and one car with loudspeakers.

[Rodion Romanovich]

but I think

get out the H bomb
if we attack Iran,just bomb them with the H Bomb and some other minor nukes,that should handle it..

Clever thinking. That would be the last thing you ever did. And the last thing anybody else on this earth ever did. The moment the taboo on nukes is broken by one of the major powers, then you can say goodbye to earth.

If Iran would get a nuke and use it, and the attacked country would respond by nuking Iran, there is a chance that the results wouldn't turn out with everyone wanting to use nukes. But the moment someone like USA, France, Russia, China or similar use a nuke as an offensive weapon, and not as revenge against a nuke, then everything will surely go to ****. For example if firing a nuke as revenge against chemical weapons will immediately be considered an excuse by all nations to immediately start using nukes, in which case we can say goodbye to earth.

It's also a fallacy to think that launching of mininukes won't trigger the disaster. Quantitative moral rules never work - imagine if we'd say that all nukes below a certain weight of uranium would be called mininukes and be allowed. Then everyone would use nukes that were just below that limit. Eventually someone will happen to slip over the limit by accident or deliberately because the other side has managed to go closer to the limit than they could, and then everyone will want to slip over the limit, or someone discovers a new more powerful way of detonating the same weight, with the result that the mininukes become like real nukes. In any case, the moment mininukes are allowed, the disaster will be triggered too.

Suggesting that a nuke be fired is the most naive thing that could ever be suggested. Coming from people living in the militarily most powerful nation of the world I'm really starting to worry...

[Major Robert Dump]

They should make a movie about this utterly terrifying nuke standoff!
Bush could be played by Tim Conway, it would cement his legacy, and the oatmeal guy could be Cheney. Satan could play the ldeader of Iran and Morgan Freeman could be the wholesome black guy from the UN who tries to diffuse it all.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Suggesting that a nuke be fired is the most naive thing that could ever be suggested. Coming from people living in the militarily most powerful nation of the world I'm really starting to worry...

I don't think it is naive. The reasoning behind your post is fallacious in that not everyone has nuclear weapons. Most of those that do don't have adequate inter-continental ability. The old doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction no longer holds sway, as the USA almost certainly has the ability now to bomb even a big nuclear power and still defend itself completely against any reprisal strike. Even Russia would be unable to guarantee getting any of its capability through the US shield - or indeed off the ground at all, should the US strike first.

We should be grateful that this capability is in the hands of a stable democracy. It is a little concerning that many of the neo-cons seem to think first strike nukes are a serious option in the modern world, but I doubt if the American people would allow this to happen beyond sabre-rattling. Lots of hardline conservatives like to talk tough - they are usually all mouth and trousers.

This is at the root of the Iran problem. Even if the Iranians get a nuclear weapon, they would be unable to use it because they know they would be vapourised. It's a dick-measuring exercise. Instead of responding with empty threats, the West should be recognising Iran's legitimate desire to be seen as a regional power and guarantee that they won't be attacked. The loonies currently in power in Iran see that North Korea (plus probable but highly useless bomb) are not threatened with attack, so they want the same guarantee. Either we give it with diplomacy, or they try to get it via a bomb.

Ahmadinejad won't last. He is made safer at the moment because he has successfully baited the 'Great Satan' and most people support even their idiotic leaders when the country is threatened. He is also helped since Iran is finally winning the war in Iraq. But he is largely loathed, even by the poor who originally voted for him. No ordinary Iranian is keen on confrontation with the USA, but they have their national pride too.

And before anyone brings up suicide bombers and nutty leaders to argue that they just might be mad enough to try a nuclear attack, remember that all these leaders are very fond of their palaces and comforts - they get other people to commit suicide, they aren't too keen on that option themselves.

[Rodion Romanovich]

I don't think it is naive. The reasoning behind your post is fallacious in that not everyone has nuclear weapons. Most of those that do don't have adequate inter-continental ability. The old doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction no longer holds sway, as the USA almost certainly has the ability now to bomb even a big nuclear power and still defend itself completely against any reprisal strike. Even Russia would be unable to guarantee getting any of its capability through the US shield - or indeed off the ground at all, should the US strike first.

We should be grateful that this capability is in the hands of a stable democracy. It is a little concerning that many of the neo-cons seem to think first strike nukes are a serious option in the modern world, but I doubt if the American people would allow this to happen beyond sabre-rattling. Lots of hardline conservatives like to talk tough - they are usually all mouth and trousers.

This is at the root of the Iran problem. Even if the Iranians get a nuclear weapon, they would be unable to use it because they know they would be vapourised. It's a dick-measuring exercise. Instead of responding with empty threats, the West should be recognising Iran's legitimate desire to be seen as a regional power and guarantee that they won't be attacked. The loonies currently in power in Iran see that North Korea (plus probable but highly useless bomb) are not threatened with attack, so they want the same guarantee. Either we give it with diplomacy, or they try to get it via a bomb.

Ahmadinejad won't last. He is made safer at the moment because he has successfully baited the 'Great Satan' and most people support even their idiotic leaders when the country is threatened. He is also helped since Iran is finally winning the war in Iraq. But he is largely loathed, even by the poor who originally voted for him. No ordinary Iranian is keen on confrontation with the USA, but they have their national pride too.

And before anyone brings up suicide bombers and nutty leaders to argue that they just might be mad enough to try a nuclear attack, remember that all these leaders are very fond of their palaces and comforts - they get other people to commit suicide, they aren't too keen on that option themselves.

No, it's not a fallacy. First of all you only have defenses against long-range missile transported nukes, not nukes moved into USA in other ways. Russia would easily be able to move a long-range stealth submarine to the American coast, unload a nuke near a coastal city rather than fire a nuke by missile, then detonate it. It's a serious fallacy to think you're immune to nukes. It's also a serious fallacy to think that even if you were immune to nukes today, think using nukes now wouldn't have consequences. Weapon technology changes quickly, and so does power balance. And even if power balance didn't change quickly, it's a fallacy to think you can do whatever you like because you have power. That's what makes people want to dedicate their lives to hurting you even if they have to die for it, and what gives fuel to extremistic islamists. The foolish and navie rhetorics of some Americans is helping the extremist islamists more than any of the measures bin Laden and other terrorist leaders can do themselves. Even suggesting usage of a nuke as anything but revenge against a nuke, is stupdity beyond reason and a person who does that should be kept in a mental hospital because he's a threat to mankind due to his madness. And if he isn't mad but only ignorant, he should at least be kept away from power until he learns something about politics. Launching a third nuke is to doom earth and mankind to death. There's no exception, there are no excuses. Using as a rhetoric is about as clever as having a politician saying: "We hereby declare war" or "We're going to genocide this or that population", then afterwards say "I'm just kidding!". And by stable democracy do you mean a democracy where only the same 2 parties switch between power? Remember that if you are seriously considering launching a nuke then you're a greater threat than Iran can ever be.

Furthermore, another fallacy and contradition - the reason for an attack on Iran is that you're afraid of Iran using nukes against you. Why be afraid of Iiran using nukes against you if you're immune to nukes? So because you're immune to nukes you attack Iran with nukes so that everyone wants to start nukes, because you want to prevent Iran from getting nukes to use against you, because nukes are dangerous... Now make up your mind - are you immune to nukes or not

[Banquo's Ghost]

No, it's not a fallacy. [snip] Now make up your mind - are you immune to nukes or not

Calm down laddie, and read again what I actually wrote. Nowhere was I advocating actual use of nuclear weapons, merely noting that if the US was to decide on a first strike, they would likely get away with it - as things stand.

And if you take another deep breath, you may notice that I'm Irish not American, and we haven't got any nukes at all. Your venom is misplaced.

[discovery1]

The old doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction no longer holds sway, as the USA almost certainly has the ability now to bomb even a big nuclear power and still defend itself completely against any reprisal strike. Even Russia would be unable to guarantee getting any of its capability through the US shield - or indeed off the ground at all, should the US strike first.

Whoa, our missile shield has been reliable since when? And when did it gain the ability to stop massive nuclear attacks like that which Russia would throw at us.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Calm down laddie [snips out nazi communistic speech]

I'm Irish not American [snips out anti-american communistic terrorist speech]

What does it matter if you're American or Irish? Who said my post was directed at you just because the opening of it was a comment on a quote by yours? And please stop the speeches preaching nazi and communistic idealogy, they don't belong here.

edit: needed some bold font

[AggonyDuck]

Clever thinking. That would be the last thing you ever did. And the last thing anybody else on this earth ever did. The moment the taboo on nukes is broken by one of the major powers, then you can say goodbye to earth.

If Iran would get a nuke and use it, and the attacked country would respond by nuking Iran, there is a chance that the results wouldn't turn out with everyone wanting to use nukes. But the moment someone like USA, France, Russia, China or similar use a nuke as an offensive weapon, and not as revenge against a nuke, then everything will surely go to ****. For example if firing a nuke as revenge against chemical weapons will immediately be considered an excuse by all nations to immediately start using nukes, in which case we can say goodbye to earth.

That is definately a false assumption, simply because we're not having a WWIII at the moment and you can damn well be assured that Nuking Iran wouldn't actually start one. To be honest if USA did drop a nuclear missile at Teheran, the biggest reaction would be by Human Rights activists and Islamic extremists.
Of course there would also be a lot of discontent about by everyone, but simply if the USA did it with a decent reason, then neither the EU or anyone else for that sake would actually sanction the US. The biggest probs for the US with using nuclear weapons on Iran come from the population of the US itself and the waves of Islamic extremists that arise to meet the barbarians from the west.

[Rodion Romanovich]

A few things you seem to forget:
1. Russia is standing on Iran's side. They get money from helping Iran with nuclear power. Thus, an attack on Iran will severe relations between USA and Russia.

2. Secondly, the moment someone uses nukes, the old non-usage mutual understanding ends. Which means there won't be an instant armageddon, but there will be an armageddon for sure the moment any of the nuke using countries end up in diplomatical conflict.

1. They will use it, probably against Isreal which would certainly respond with a massive retaliation strike. It was only some quick negotiations that kept them from doing so to Iraq during Desert Storm after being attacked by SCUD missles.

Only way for Iran to nuke Israel is by missile, and Israel has the same anti-nuke missile system USA has. Also, if Israel responds to a nuke attack with nukes, it won't break the current implicit non-usage treaty between nuke-owning countries. In fact, Israel can probably send enough nukes and regular bombs to kill twice as high a percentage of the Iranian population as the Iranian nukes killed, before the revenge will be seen as exaggerated enough to break the implicit treaty. Also, Iran won't launch nukes if they know the revenge for nukes is nukes. So if there's no attack on Iran, there is a chance for peace and stability. Besides nobody even knows whether Iran is going to use the rest-products of their nuclear power plants for bombs, that's an assumption you're treating as if it were a truth. The other alternative, to attack a country with a nuke because maybe it will use it's nuclear power plant rest products for nukes, will however for sure result in armageddon. Maybe not instantly, but it'll break the implicit treaty.

What's interesting is that you apparently don't understand one of the basic rules of diplomacy - to see why your demands can't be accepted, so you can get an honest chance of thinking through how those demands can be changed to avoid a conflict and achieve a compromise. Iran needs nuclear power to replace the energy loss when they run out of oil. To demand that they don't get nuclear power plants is an impossible demand to make, and they'll surely do anything they can to fight for their right to supply themselves with this basic resources needed for survival on earth today - energy. If you don't have energy supply you are degraded to a stone age life-style at best. So first of all to make that demand you have to offer Iran to supply them with energy. Secondly you must guarantee that the price of that supply won't be higher than their price for supplying themselves with nuclear power would be. Thirdly you need to lower the price even further to be able to compete with the last important advantage of Iranian nuclear power plants - that they own the power plants and don't risk losing power due to diplomatical instability, like for example much of Scandinavia almost starved because of the world wars even when neutral, and similar things. Unless you can provide these things, you have a conflict where Iran will surely want to fight back. If you decide to use nukes to genocide part of their population, then you can be even more sure they'll fight back even more fiercely, where there's also a risk that your popularity in the world decreases, and Russia might get involved, and the implicit treaty of non-usage of nukes is broken. It's your choice, but you should know all the consequences of the choice before you make it. And I'd also like to inform the paranoids out there that I'm not their enemy, I'm holding the opinion that nuking shouldn't be done for the sake of the entire world population, and guess what - the concept world population includes America. An anti-American is a man who never criticises America, always praises America, until the day he suicide bombs Americans without forewarning. The day I praise the idea of nuking a nation because it doesn't want to accept that it isn't allowed to have energy to supply it's people, then you can be scared. Until then, listen to what I have to say because if you ask appropriate questions about my argumentation rather than calling me anti-American like Haruchai, you usually end up understanding why I hold my standpoint and most people in the end realize that my points were valid and helpful, as was my intention.

2. Such a destabilization of the middle east would bring on the battle of Armageddon (or at least one very much like it) mentioned in various prophecies. I'm quite sure that an ecenomic depression from the soaring oil prices, brought on by this action, would force the hand of the western countries so dependent on oil to strike back hard.

Oil is already running out so we'll have that "battle" either way in that case. Or a responsible nation whose government isn't the rape-bitch of it's corporations' lobbyist groups could put some of it's tax money into researching synthetic fuels and similar, or we vote for a party that has an ideology compatible with a life without so much transportation.

[rotorgun]

[/QUOTE=LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix]A few things you seem to forget:
1. Russia is standing on Iran's side. They get money from helping Iran with nuclear power. Thus, an attack on Iran will severe relations between USA and Russia.[/QUOTE]

What you seem to forget is that Iran is currently in competition with Russia over the sale of oil to China, the fastest growing economy in the world. While she may make a fuss about our coming conflict with Iran publicly, I feel that she would welcome it privately as it would get rid of a competitor. As others have said, she is broke, and needs the buisness.

[/QUOTE]2. Secondly, the moment someone uses nukes, the old non-usage mutual understanding ends. Which means there won't be an instant armageddon, but there will be an armageddon for sure the moment any of the nuke using countries end up in diplomatical conflict.[/QUOTE]

Agreed, but what would your country do if it were attacked by a madman in such a way? I doubt that they would vote to have a tea social and discuss the matter.

[/QUOTE] Also, Iran won't launch nukes if they know the revenge for nukes is nukes. So if there's no attack on Iran, there is a chance for peace and stability. Besides nobody even knows whether Iran is going to use the rest-products of their nuclear power plants for bombs, that's an assumption you're treating as if it were a truth.[/QUOTE]

How can you be so sure? Have you listened to the threats of the President of Iran? I have not made this assumption in actuality. I will be the first one to applaude the efforts of the Iranians to develop nuclear energy for peaceful uses. It's just a little hard for me to trust them after all that has passed.

[/QUOTE]What's interesting is that you apparently don't understand one of the basic rules of diplomacy - to see why your demands can't be accepted, so you can get an honest chance of thinking through how those demands can be changed to avoid a conflict and achieve a compromise. Iran needs nuclear power to replace the energy loss when they run out of oil. To demand that they don't get nuclear power plants is an impossible demand to make, and they'll surely do anything they can to fight for their right to supply themselves with this basic resources needed for survival on earth today - energy. If you don't have energy supply you are degraded to a stone age life-style at best[/QUOTE].

It is the fact that they had refused to allow inspections by the international community until only recently, and when they did agree, it was only a small team of what....about five inspectors? These could only go where the Iranians would allow. In a country that size, do you think that there is a possibility that they might be hiding something? As much as it pains me to do so, I agree with Secretary of State Condaleza Rice that a little more transparency would do a great deal to restore faith.

[/QUOTE]An anti-American is a man who never criticises America, always praises America, until the day he suicide bombs Americans without forewarning.[/QUOTE]
Huh?

[/QUOTE]The day I praise the idea of nuking a nation because it doesn't want to accept that it isn't allowed to have energy to supply it's people, then you can be scared.[/QUOTE]

I agree. As I have said, however, does this apply to a nation that has chanted "Death to America....Death to Isreal" so often that it now sounds like a broken record?

[/QUOTE]Until then, listen to what I have to say because if you ask appropriate questions about my argumentation rather than calling me anti-American like Haruchai, you usually end up understanding why I hold my standpoint and most people in the end realize that my points were valid and helpful, as was my intention.[/QUOTE]

I never claimed that you were anti-American. Those are words you put in my mouth. I happen to think your arguments are very enlightening. I hope that you feel that my viewpoints are not the mad ravings of a lunatic, but the thoughts of a reasonably intelligent person, who is perfectly willing to see my government come to a peaceful solution to all this. I stand a fair chance of being directly involved as I am a member of the military and would be glad to not have to get involved. We are quite commited in Iraq in any case.

[/QUOTE]Oil is already running out so we'll have that "battle" either way in that case. Or a responsible nation whose government isn't the rape-bitch of it's corporations' lobbyist groups could put some of it's tax money into researching synthetic fuels and similar, or we vote for a party that has an ideology compatible with a life without so much transportation.[/QUOTE]

No one could be in more agreement with you. I long for the day when this world can do so. I am not in favor of the use of fossil fuels, but I still get into my car and drive to work every day like billions of others. If I had any sense, I would move closer to work, and ride my horse there every day. The problem with that is that I would likely be arrested for violating some kind of town ordinance.

[Watchman]

This constant fall-back to the assumption that Ahmajeddin is an unrestrained, suicidal lunatic and the rest of the Iranians, be they of the ruling circles or the Great Unwashed, would be willing to sheerfully go along with him in the case he was, is becoming quite tedious. What is it with this knee-jerk categorization of anyone who blows hot air back at the US in a belligerent manner as a certified madman ? I mean, I distinctly recall the sort of flak that was thrown at Prez Fox of Mexico and others of the sort only a while ago, which seemed to carry much the same tone too...

Would someone care to explain why this is ? I'd like to be convinced the reasons aren't what I'm assuming them to be, as I would actually like to think higher of Americans than that...

[Rodion Romanovich]

Agreed, but what would your country do if it were attacked by a madman in such a way? I doubt that they would vote to have a tea social and discuss the matter.

Of course if attacked by nukes you may use nukes back. But only AFTER being attacked, and only if the attack was by nukes. All these factors are needed for avoiding an end to the implicit treaty.

How can you be so sure? Have you listened to the threats of the President of Iran? I have not made this assumption in actuality. I will be the first one to applaude the efforts of the Iranians to develop nuclear energy for peaceful uses. It's just a little hard for me to trust them after all that has passed.

Most muslim people I know have another way of communicating, often being more prone to threats, but it's usually empty threats. Not a good way of behaving in politics if you want to stimulate peace. It's also bad that the individual suicide bomber organizations never say what they demand/want in order to stop their attacks. So we can only guess, and in this case the guess is that Iran wouldn't accept measures preventing them from getting nuclear power because they want a secure and cheap resource of energy when they run out of oil. Both sides are extremely bad at communicating properly and it requires a person prepared to almost humiliate himself to communicate properly with the threats of Iran. Still, it can be done, and must be done, or the price is too high - for both parts.

It is the fact that they had refused to allow inspections by the international community until only recently, and when they did agree, it was only a small team of what....about five inspectors? These could only go where the Iranians would allow. In a country that size, do you think that there is a possibility that they might be hiding something? As much as it pains me to do so, I agree with Secretary of State Condaleza Rice that a little more transparency would do a great deal to restore faith.

The inspections are nothing you have an automatic right to ask for. You probably want them, but there's no right for it. It's not something that justifies nuking them if they refuse inspections. Given that USA has earlier shown that they're prepared to invade countries in the Middle east (Afghanistan and Iraq comes to mind), it's understandable if Iran wants to keep anything they can about their military secret.

Huh?

That wasn't directed at you but I might have made a mistake making it look like that was the case.

I agree. As I have said, however, does this apply to a nation that has chanted "Death to America....Death to Isreal" so often that it now sounds like a broken record?

It's pure scare tactics and almost entire empty threats on their part. Surely there's some parts of real threat behind it, but if you look at how many of those who chant that that actually carry out an action in that direction, it's less than a PPM (parts per million).

I never claimed that you were

Again this was not directed at you. I've realized by this threat that people automatically assume everything in the post is reply to them if you quote them in part of the post. I will keep that in mind and apologize to Haruchai for my first post (the one above the anti-American accusation he made), because it might indeed have seemed like an attack on him. It shows the weakness of words for communicating, but can also teach us a lesson very applicable to the USA-Iran relations question - only when the discussion has been going on for a while do the misunderstanding become clear enough that they can be understood as misunderstandings.

I happen to think your arguments are very enlightening. I hope that you feel that my viewpoints are not the mad ravings of a lunatic, but the thoughts of a reasonably intelligent person, who is perfectly willing to see my government come to a peaceful solution to all this. I stand a fair chance of being directly involved as I am a member of the military and would be glad to not have to get involved. We are quite commited in Iraq in any case.

No problem, your view is fairly moderate and actually very close to my own in many ways, in that you are interesting in avoiding the nuking. It also seems like you're really meaning it too as you are ready to listen to suggestions for methods to avoid the nuking, and are ready to take part in finding such ways yourself.

No one could be in more agreement with you. I long for the day when this world can do so. I am not in favor of the use of fossil fuels, but I still get into my car and drive to work every day like billions of others. If I had any sense, I would move closer to work, and ride my horse there every day. The problem with that is that I would likely be arrested for violatinfg some kind of town ordinance.

[BigTex]

I am becoming intersted in this Iran Nuclear Program Crap. I think Iran already has a Bad name, so the Minute they tryo doing this, we got to label iran as "oh my god,they going to make weapons!!!!!!!!"


not really. how do you really know that? But Again, you can't Trust Iran to the Sense that,THey Raided our U.S Embrassy,they got sudicdie bombers from their conutry going to Iraq (?) and crap. I read in my Magainze I get every 2 weeks that Iran Preseident said if the U.S or the Brits attack them, they will send, 40,000 trained Sudice Bombers to US and British Tagerts. My God,they will blow us to Hell if you think about it. 40,000 people blowing themselves up isn't like 9/11,with just 20 or so Hi-Jackers and taking over 4 plans, and 3 out of the 4 made it, expect for Flight 93 (go Flight 93!)


but I think

get out the H bomb
if we attack Iran,just bomb them with the H Bomb and some other minor nukes,that should handle it..

The problem if Iran gets Nukes is they will most likely use them. Their leader is a bit of a loon, who thinks he's going to create the next great persian empire. They not only have suicide bombers in Iraq, but they've hit far off places like Israel. They've funded and created many terrorist groups. Their sole purpose for existence since the end of the Iran and Iraq war was to kill the USA. They blame us for the loss of that war, seemingly forgetting it was sadams military stupidity that saved them.

As for them sending suicide bombers to countries that support us, it depends on what we do. If we where to just use airstrikes and destroy all their nuclear facilities, and then make it very clear to them that worse will happen. Then probably not, Iranians do value there lives. If we invade and dont have a large enough force, then probably.

And no hydrogen bombs wouldnt be a good idea, too big to indiscriminate in their targeting. They also release some radiation, all be it less then a fission bomb. Though there is the neutron bomb they've been working on for awhile, that would leave no radiation, and leave most buildings standing past 1/2 a mile.

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix
And please stop the speeches preaching nazi and communistic idealogy, they don't belong here.

Wew I bet no one saw this thread degrading into "YOUR A NAZI!!". There's no reason for the comparison, in fact the Nazi's were allys of iran.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Wew I bet no one saw this thread degrading into "YOUR A NAZI!!". There's no reason for the comparison, in fact the Nazi's were allys of iran.

Iran today does not compare to Iran back then. Plus there was no formal alliance, they just had a common enemy in Britain. And your God's pope was an ally of the Germans, who later became Nazis. So feel owned, by your own logic.

Well that made sense.. I don't recall Haruchai mentioning the Working Man's Master Race at any point.

Exactly, and where do you find anti-American text in my post? Nowhere. Just because I don't agree with his favorite party about political questions, he says "why do you hate freedom?" or tries to defame me like nazis and communists did during their dictatorship regimes, by writing "snips anti-American rant", to make me look like anti-American. So he's very much a nazi and communist in my eyes, but that's just my own opinion, which I hadn't intended to explain at length until you asked for it.

As for the nuking, sure go ahead, but don't say afterwards that the people with higher IQ than you didn't warn you before.

[Rodion Romanovich]

You should try arguing the topic at hand, not making petty personal remarks every post that reek of something you'd see in a Diablo II conversation.

Well, it would be easier if Haruchai wouldn't accuse me of being anti-American because I'm against launching of nukes and destruction of earth and mankind. Go back to where the whole thing begun and you can see how it all started. Now, however, that he's stopped the accusations I believe the discussion can go back to the topic initially discussed.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Haruchai has not once advocated the use of nukes in this thread. He has stated the possibility, and the probably eventuality of what would occur in that scenario. You are the one taking things out of hand.

He started the flaming by calling me anti-American for not wanting to use nukes.

It's about time to get back on topic or the mods will probably close this thread...

[Justiciar]

I see a joke taken too hard and a dissagrteement turned sour(er). I don't think Haruchai meant to insult you. Try being a little more polite, say your sorry to each other, and drop it tbh. It's getting in the way of the topic.

[rotorgun]

Hi guys and gals!

I'm enjoying this arguement and thought I'd wade in a bit. The main problem with Iran getting a nuclear weapon is threefold:

1. They will use it, probably against Isreal which would certainly respond with a massive retaliation strike. It was only some quick negotiations that kept them from doing so to Iraq during Desert Storm after being attacked by SCUD missles.

2. Such a destabilization of the middle east would bring on the battle of Armageddon (or at least one very much like it) mentioned in various prophecies. I'm quite sure that an ecenomic depression from the soaring oil prices, brought on by this action, would force the hand of the western countries so dependent on oil to strike back hard.

3. It clearly stands in the way of the stategic aims of the Bush/Cheney administration to eliminate the possibility of any strategic competitor from emerging after the fall of the Soviet Union. This is outlined in the Strategic Defense Planning Guide , published by Mr. Cheney and co- authored by Paul Wolfowitz in 1992 during the previous Bush administration. They simply cannot afford to let their control of the oil reserves of the region to slip into the hands of any such regional power. My guess is that they would rather fight than negotiate.

Hmm....what shall we do?

"Cry havoc...and let slip the dogs of war!" Shakespeare

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Rotogun, yes, you beat me to it. I would however add that Iran is still committed to the destruction of Isreal.

As to this idea that once one guy uses a Nuke everyone will want to is bull. Think about it, there is a reason for that stigma and the H-Bomb is more powerfull by an order of magnitude. Using one will result in a bloody conventional war. If the US gets Nuke happy the European nations would invade post-haste, once the battle is on American soil they can't use Nuke anymore.

Regardless it is not going to happen and to ensure it doesn't happen the US is willing to go to war with Iran, if they do it will have to be shrot, fast and devastating, scorched earth. At the moment there is no other option.

Needless to say this is something no one wants, which is why the US isn't rattling its sabre much.

[Banquo's Ghost]

If the US gets Nuke happy the European nations would invade post-haste, once the battle is on American soil they can't use Nuke anymore.

I think I misunderstand. Are you suggesting that the EU would go to war with the USA?

[BHCWarman88]

Rotogun, yes, you beat me to it. I would however add that Iran is still committed to the destruction of Isreal.

As to this idea that once one guy uses a Nuke everyone will want to is bull. Think about it, there is a reason for that stigma and the H-Bomb is more powerfull by an order of magnitude. Using one will result in a bloody conventional war. If the US gets Nuke happy the European nations would invade post-haste, once the battle is on American soil they can't use Nuke anymore.

Regardless it is not going to happen and to ensure it doesn't happen the US is willing to go to war with Iran, if they do it will have to be shrot, fast and devastating, scorched earth. At the moment there is no other option.

Needless to say this is something no one wants, which is why the US isn't rattling its sabre much.

First 2 setences are well known facts,no need to say that again.

EU won't attack the US. Yeah, like Russia,China,NK(North Korea) and the rest of EU will send 1 A or H Bomb each to the US and blow us to Heck and back.
Using Nukes against Iran will have to be Used. if We invade,you damn well know they going to use Nukes + those "40,000 sudice Bombers" that Iranian Prsident said he "will use". And using one of "them bombs" will end the war fast. Look at Japan in WW2 for my prime Example.

[Watchman]

Hi guys and gals!

I'm enjoying this arguement and thought I'd wade in a bit. The main problem with Iran getting a nuclear weapon is threefold:

1. They will use it, probably against Isreal which would certainly respond with a massive retaliation strike. It was only some quick negotiations that kept them from doing so to Iraq during Desert Storm after being attacked by SCUD missles.

You sound quite certain. Bought a new crystal ball, or have you found out you're Nostradamus reborn...?

Plus isn't Israel's all-but-officially-admitted nuclear deterrent plus actual capacity to use it somewhta bigger than Iran's anyway ? Iran may have a categorical rage on for Israel, but that doesn't mean they'd be willing to do a double suicide to get it done away with. And doesn't USA have some sort of defense agreement going with Israel ? One suspects if Iran went to do something as nutty as using nukes the Americans could not but come down on them like the proverbial ton of bricks if only to salvage their credibility with certain other dependents and protegés - like Taiwan and Japan...

Certain parts of the Iranian top brass may have a Cause or two, but I singularly doubt if they'd be willing to go kamikaze on it - or if their less enthusiastic peers would let them, if it came down to that.

If the US gets Nuke happy the European nations would invade post-haste, once the battle is on American soil they can't use Nuke anymore.

...
...
...wut ?

No, seriously. What ? Invade ? What with ? Commercial passenger liners and cargo ships perhaps ? And I can only imagine what they'd be telling the soldiers; "let's all go get our throats cut boys!" perhaps ? Aside from the crisis-response force the EU's putting together, the only countries in the club with meaningful capacity for overseas power projection are the UK and France. The former pundits often accuse of being an US lapdog if not an outright Trojan Horse, the latter is famous for its unscrupulous and almost elegantly opportunistic Realpolitik. Nevermind now that the aforementioned power-projection capacity is mainly of the "colonial police" calibre - France in particular has a long track record of meddling in its former African colonies and the UK still has odd overseas enclaves that need looking after (think Falklands), but neither has or even wants the capacity to fight major Great Power league wars overseas. Aside from these two, who retained such minor intervention ability almost more for the prestige than anything else, all European armies of any note built themselves around the idea of fighting a very desperate holding action against the Soviets after WW2. Thankfully for everyone they never had to find out how well they'd prepared, but in any case the up-and-comer boy band US got to handle the Big Global Hitter gig. The Old World band, although grizzled stage veterans, had kind of finally burned out while on tour, and aside from some minor solo gigs was content to rest on its (ill-gotten) laurels and pass the time playing the local scene.

Lemme tell ya what EU will do if the US goes and does something as idiotic as dropping one of Them Bombs. They'll suddenly go all poker-faced and put on these really fake-looking plastic smiles, and smile and nod and be very polite to their runaway colony all the while cutting every tie they have with it they can in the hopes of escaping the blast radius. I'd imagine they'd also bend over backwards to help the irate and irradiated locals fix what now can be and save whomever is possible, just to point out they're much nicer people than those nasty folks beyond the Atlantic who really never had any manners anyway, now where did we go wrong with his upbringing.

They'll probably also be going into a full paranoia mode that gives an entirely new meaning to Fortress Europe, in the case someone ignores the message.

[rotorgun]

=Watchman]You sound quite certain. Bought a new crystal ball, or have you found out you're Nostradamus reborn...?

LOL...no I don't have delusions of being a prophet or seer. I was not so much referring to all of the Iranian population, merely the insane fool that is running the show. While I have no certain intelligence on the matter, I have somehow, after the events of 911, been shocked into taking these Muslim madmen a bit more seriously.(No offense meant to any non-mad Muslim bretheren)

Plus isn't Israel's all-but-officially-admitted nuclear deterrent plus actual capacity to use it somewhta bigger than Iran's anyway ? Iran may have a categorical rage on for Israel, but that doesn't mean they'd be willing to do a double suicide to get it done away with. And doesn't USA have some sort of defense agreement going with Israel ? One suspects if Iran went to do something as nutty as using nukes the Americans could not but come down on them like the proverbial ton of bricks if only to salvage their credibility with certain other dependents and protegés - like Taiwan and Japan...

Certain parts of the Iranian top brass may have a Cause or two, but I singularly doubt if they'd be willing to go kamikaze on it - or if their less enthusiastic peers would let them, if it came down to that.

I certainly hope you are right. I would feel much better about the whole matter if the Iranian government would take some measures, such as impeaching this man who makes these threats against Isreal and the United States. Perhaps the world would be more convinced of their claims of wanting nuclear fuels for peaceful uses. How much power does this...so called President yeild? His popularity with his people, if the media can be believed, makes me think that he has much power.

No, seriously. What ? Invade ? What with ? Commercial passenger liners and cargo ships perhaps ? And I can only imagine what they'd be telling the soldiers; "let's all go get our throats cut boys!" perhaps ? Aside from the crisis-response force the EU's putting together, the only countries in the club with meaningful capacity for overseas power projection are the UK and France. The former pundits often accuse of being an US lapdog if not an outright Trojan Horse, the latter is famous for its unscrupulous and almost elegantly opportunistic Realpolitik. Nevermind now that the aforementioned power-projection capacity is mainly of the "colonial police" calibre - France in particular has a long track record of meddling in its former African colonies and the UK still has odd overseas enclaves that need looking after (think Falklands), but neither has or even wants the capacity to fight major Great Power league wars overseas. Aside from these two, who retained such minor intervention ability almost more for the prestige than anything else, all European armies of any note built themselves around the idea of fighting a very desperate holding action against the Soviets after WW2. Thankfully for everyone they never had to find out how well they'd prepared, but in any case the up-and-comer boy band US got to handle the Big Global Hitter gig. The Old World band, although grizzled stage veterans, had kind of finally burned out while on tour, and aside from some minor solo gigs was content to rest on its (ill-gotten) laurels and pass the time playing the local scene.

Lemme tell ya what EU will do if the US goes and does something as idiotic as dropping one of Them Bombs. They'll suddenly go all poker-faced and put on these really fake-looking plastic smiles, and smile and nod and be very polite to their runaway colony all the while cutting every tie they have with it they can in the hopes of escaping the blast radius. I'd imagine they'd also bend over backwards to help the irate and irradiated locals fix what now can be and save whomever is possible, just to point out they're much nicer people than those nasty folks beyond the Atlantic who really never had any manners anyway, now where did we go wrong with his upbringing.

They'll probably also be going into a full paranoia mode that gives an entirely new meaning to Fortress Europe, in the case someone ignores the message.

Well, and truly spoken. Perhaps it is you with the clarvoiant abilities my freind?