View Full Version : Isreali-Iran prophecy, what do you think?
My instructor for kickboxing/MMA is a former marine(Should I point out that I live in USA?), served all around the world but specifically in Isreal for a number of years. He made this prediction a couple of days ago, something that iv been thinking for a long time but he actually said it would come in a few weeks. He said that Isreal is going to strike Iran in the next few weeks, guarenteed. Im thinking a overnight massive airstrike or something like that, he didnt specify. He said this while we were talking about the secret nuclear base that was just uncovered.
What do you guys think? The guy is definetely not stupid, hes a bright guy and I respect his opinion.
HoreTore
10-02-2009, 16:37
Not going to happen.
Simply because Israel won't be daft enough to risk a full-blown war all over the region, not while their main ally, the US, is already stretched to its limits.
Hooahguy
10-02-2009, 16:39
Not going to happen.
Simply because Israel won't be daft enough to risk a full-blown war all over the region, not while their main ally, the US, is already stretched to its limits.
agreed.
Vladimir
10-02-2009, 16:41
agreed.
To what are you agreeing? There are several assertions in that post.
Hooahguy
10-02-2009, 16:44
To what are you agreeing? There are several assertions in that post.
that it wont happen, at least in the next few weeks. maybe in a year or two
unfortunately earlier israel said that it wont allow iran to develop nuclear arms, now they have to do something about it.
An Israeli fly-over across the US-occupied and Shia-dominated Republic of Iraq with the aim of bombing Iran? That'll make a fun last quarter of 2009.
Sarmatian
10-02-2009, 17:03
He said that Isreal is going to strike Iran in the next few weeks, guarenteed.
Just wondering, on what does he base his claim? He's a personal friend of Israeli PM? Chief of Staff? He has access to Mossad or CIA?
Rubbish...
Furunculus
10-02-2009, 17:18
the UK/US/Israel have certainly known about the facility for ages, they just chose to release the information for diplomatic pressure.
iran's nuclear program is probably the most penetrated and sabotaged in modern history.
israel will strike if they feel the current regime* cannot be dissuaded from its nuclear weapon ambitions by the P5+G**, but only if they feel they know the full extent or iran's program***, and until such action becomes both feasible and necessary they will continue to buy themselves time by sabotaging irans program****.
so no, i think next month is unlikely, sometime next year is more like it.
* unstable theocracy
** no concerted and crippling sanctions in the event of non-compliance
*** by complete infiltration
**** by leaking faulty engineering plans into irans covert sales network
...while we were talking about the secret nuclear base that was just uncovered.
What secret nuclear base? No really, I am curious.
I don't see what's wrong with Iran having nuclear power. They're way more stable than say...Iraq or..Afghanistan.
Nuclear power isn't a problem, nuclear weapons would be.
Ooo. I eagerly await the desmistification of yet another prophecy!
Meneldil
10-02-2009, 19:15
Nuclear power isn't a problem, nuclear weapons would be.
How so? Given how the US administration keeps threatening Iran, I'd sure as hell would support any attempt to get nuclear weapons if I were Iranian. I have a few french-iranian friends, and even though they all hate the mollahs (most of them left their country after the revolution, or have parents who did that), they feel Iran should get nuclear weapons just to protect itself against the US, Israel, and the dozen of other countries that would happily tear Iran apart.
I mean, everybody knows the US thought, and still think about invading Iran. Iran is thus perfectly entitled to try to protect itself.
Tribesman
10-02-2009, 20:00
What do you guys think?
It ain't gonna happen
The guy is definetely not stupid
That is debatable
Furunculus
10-02-2009, 20:26
they feel Iran should get nuclear weapons just to protect itself against the US, Israel, and the dozen of other countries that would happily tear Iran apart.
how is israel capable of tearing iran apart, and why would they want to do so?
Sarmatian
10-02-2009, 21:02
how is israel capable of tearing iran apart, and why would they want to do so?
By dropping hot plutonium/uranium on them.
Why would they want to do a lot of things they did so far...
What's the deal with that recently discovered "nuclear base"? Anything concrete about it or is it "we just know that Iraq has WMD" type of thing?
Megas Methuselah
10-02-2009, 21:27
unfortunately earlier israel said that it wont allow iran to develop nuclear arms, now they have to do something about it.
No, they don't. Look at Canada: the government says all sorts of bull; that doesn't mean they actually stand by their words. :laugh4:
Evil_Maniac From Mars
10-02-2009, 21:33
No, they don't. Look at Canada: the government says all sorts of bull; that doesn't mean they actually stand by their words. :laugh4:
The situations may be slightly different.
What secret nuclear base? No really, I am curious.
It isn't really secret anymore, I suppose.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
10-02-2009, 22:09
What secret nuclear base? No really, I am curious.
The one reported to the UN by Iran.
Kadagar_AV
10-02-2009, 22:26
I havent heard anything about it either...
Link, anyone?
HoreTore
10-02-2009, 22:45
Gah, don't any of you people read the newspapers anymore?
Kadagar_AV
10-02-2009, 22:54
I read swedish and austrian newspapers....
you would think that is something big was up, they would write something about it...
so, again, link?
HoreTore
10-02-2009, 22:58
I read swedish and austrian newspapers....
you would think that is something big was up, they would write something about it...
so, again, link?
I read the newspaper. Geez. You kids and your internets these days....
I don't see what's wrong with Iran having nuclear power. They're way more stable than say...Iraq or..Afghanistan.
Quite so.
The US and Israel have been threatening Iran for at least a decade. If I was Iran I would be putting all my military spending into nukes and anti aircraft tech.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
10-02-2009, 23:57
I don't see what's wrong with Iran having nuclear power.
Nuclear power isn't the issue, the weapons are.
No, there's nothing wrong with Iran having nuclear weapons - for Iranians. We, on the other hand, have a strong interest in it not happening.
They're way more stable than say...Iraq or..Afghanistan.
Neither of which are in any danger of becoming nuclear powers any time soon, so I think it's alright.
Nuclear power isn't the issue, the weapons are.
Yet for some reason, Israel and the United States see nuclear power and nuclear weapons as the same thing. When it comes to Iran that is.
Just wondering, on what does he base his claim? He's a personal friend of Israeli PM? Chief of Staff? He has access to Mossad or CIA?
Rubbish...
Personel relationships with Isreali's, and being a soldier. Nothing much beside that.
I havent heard anything about it either...
Link, anyone?
Get out of the cave of yours, heres a linky. Couldnt find the ones I read when the story first broke (which I think was during the UN meeting). Was all over the news like a Paris Hilton scandal, and that says something.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/politics/obama-demands-immediate-inspection-of-iran-s-secret-second-nuclear-base-1.922080?localLinksEnabled=false
iran's nuclear program is probably the most penetrated and sabotaged in modern history.
I would agree with that.
It ain't gonna happen
That is debatable
Thanks for contributing to the conversation.
Anyone want to send me a pm instructing me how to add names to the quotes? I never figured it out.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
10-03-2009, 01:12
Anyone want to send me a pm instructing me how to add names to the quotes? I never figured it out.
Normal quote tag:
Post
Name added:
[_Quote=Mooks] Post [/Quote_]
Without the underscores of course.
LittleGrizzly
10-03-2009, 02:05
I support Iran's right to self defence...
Samurai Waki
10-03-2009, 02:37
I would only ever support an Israeli based strike on the Iranian Nuclear Facilities, if Israel were to decommission their own nuclear arsenal first. Dangerously hypocritical.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
10-03-2009, 02:44
I would only ever support an Israeli based strike on the Iranian Nuclear Facilities, if Israel were to decommission their own nuclear arsenal first. Dangerously hypocritical.
In the interests of pure fairness, yes. In the interests of practicality I'm going to have to disagree.
I support Iran's right to self defence...
I'm just a little worried about the potential implications of that on the rest of us. Our concern with nuclear bombs isn't with them using them in self-defence, mind.
HopAlongBunny
10-03-2009, 03:06
I think it entirely depends on what Big Brother (USA) wants.
Iran is following a reasonable security policy; I don't agree with it but its hard not to see the upside from their point-of-view. Like N Korea you may get sanctions and a threadbare economy, but no one is going to invade you.period.
It isn't really secret anymore, I suppose.
The one reported to the UN by Iran.
I assume you guys mean the facility they have recently begun working on at Qom? The facility they will allow IAEA inspectors to visit regularly? The facility that has no nuclear materials, presently?
Is that the secret nuclear base, to which you refer?
A bit bombastic, is it not? Calling it a base makes it sound like a militarized nuclear launch silo. But I suppose it is a useful term if the goal is to demonize Iran. Then no one will care if bombs are dropped on it.
Meneldil
10-03-2009, 10:39
how is israel capable of tearing iran apart, and why would they want to do so?
I thought the idea that Israel feel threatened by Iran and would happilly blow the country to pieces was pretty widely known by now. Isn't that the main reason why people go 'ZOMG IRAN IS NAZI GERMANY' whenever this topic pops up in a convo?
I don't like the mollahs very much, but if I were an Iranian, I'd probably support any attempt to get nuclear weapons, at least as long as the US keep acting like a bully.
Here's a link (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6850325.ece) about the secret nuclear facility discovered by UK, France and Israel.
Furunculus
10-03-2009, 11:06
I thought the idea that Israel feel threatened by Iran and would happilly blow the country to pieces was pretty widely known by now. Isn't that the main reason why people go 'ZOMG IRAN IS NAZI GERMANY' whenever this topic pops up in a convo?
I don't like the mollahs very much, but if I were an Iranian, I'd probably support any attempt to get nuclear weapons, at least as long as the US keep acting like a bully.
Here's a link (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6850325.ece) about the secret nuclear facility discovered by UK, France and Israel.
ah, so israel is aggressive towards iran because iran is aggressive towards israel!
n.b.
i'minadinnerjacket is teh JOO:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/6256173/Mahmoud-Ahmadinejad-revealed-to-have-Jewish-past.html
Tribesman
10-03-2009, 11:07
Thanks for contributing to the conversation.
Would you like some more?
I am curious as to how he served all round the world but specificly in Israel for a number of years, the job is limited to two seperate deployments of 15 months duration.
So I think it is not only debatable if this person is indeed stupid I think it is very likely that he is a prize bullexcrement merchant.
Tellos Athenaios
10-03-2009, 11:17
I would support nuclear power if I were Iranian without the idea of "self defence" as well... Petrol isn't that cheap over there compared to the wages... (Not all that long ago there used to be riots in Teheran because petrol was actually rationed.) Yes, Iran probably has large gas & oil reserves (which go mainly towards export); but no, it is still more expensive than nuclear power...
Just in case someone suffers from bad memory:
http://www.sustainabilitank.info/2007/06/28/iran-petrol-riots-co2-emissions-pollution-from-excess-use-of-cheap-fuels-oh-my/
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/06/27/1963258.htm?section=justin
Meneldil
10-03-2009, 11:20
ah, so israel is aggressive towards iran because iran is aggressive towards israel!
n.b.
i'minadinnerjacket is teh JOO:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/6256173/Mahmoud-Ahmadinejad-revealed-to-have-Jewish-past.html
Wait, doesn't that work the other way around too?
"So Iran is agressive towards Israel because Israel is agressive towards Iran." Both side have a history of violence (though honestly, so far Iran has a much better record than Israel, despite Ahmadinejad's mumbo-jumbo). That's sad. Now, I still don't see why Iran should just sits here and wait for a potential attack from the US. It is a sovereign nation, hated not only by the US and Israel, but also by many of its neighbours (Saudi Arabia, Irak, Pakistan), just like Israel.
LittleGrizzly
10-03-2009, 15:27
I have always thought if there is only one nation deserving of nuclear weapons it would be Iran....
Well Palestine would out do them in terms of needing defensive tools but I really wouldn't want them to have nuclear weapons. Iran has been attacked and threatend constantly... if a nation like Israel needs nuclear weapons then Iran definately needs them...
Of course I would prefer the whole middle east free of nukes, preferably the world, but as it is humanity is not enlightened enough to reach that level yet...
Kadagar_AV
10-03-2009, 21:00
I for one supports nuclear plants in Iran.
Mainly because of 2 reasons:
A) It is for them cheap energy.
B) If it would blow up it would be bad for surrounding countries too, thus limiting hostilities.
I am WAY more worried about USA, the only country who has actually used nukes...
Oh, and just as a PS: Nuclear weapons and nuclear energy isn't really the same thing, now is it? :inquisitive:
This very much reminds me of the "oh so bad" WMD in Iraq:wall:
Evil_Maniac From Mars
10-03-2009, 21:09
I for one supports nuclear plants in Iran.
Mainly because of 2 reasons:
A) It is for them cheap energy.
Maybe pebble bed reactors which have constant inspection teams, with a group on standby to destroy it on the first signs of Iran making a weapon.
B) If it would blow up it would be bad for surrounding countries too, thus limiting hostilities.
:inquisitive:
I am WAY more worried about USA, the only country who has actually used nukes...
I hate it when people use this argument. The USA used nuclear bombs in a limited fashion to secure a surrender when nobody else had them, and may or may not have saved a lot of lives in the long run by doing it. It will not use them today. Being worried about America using nuclear bombs just because it can is about as rational as being worried about butterflies in China causing hurricanes in Florida.
I have yet to see anyone give me a single rational explanation as to why America would use nuclear bombs in the modern day.
Oh, and just as a PS: Nuclear weapons and nuclear energy isn't really the same thing, now is it? :inquisitive:
No, they aren't. We don't want Iran to develop the infrastructure to make nuclear weapons though.
This very much reminds me of the "oh so bad" WMD in Iraq
Only most of the world believes that Iran is doing it and Iran itself owns up to having the plants.
The USA used nuclear bombs in a limited fashion to secure a surrender when nobody else had them
No. Japan was already close to surrendering. The only reasons why they used it was to show the Soviet Union they had a weapon, and because of their impatience. Two strikes on civilian targets, that's horrible.
Megas Methuselah
10-03-2009, 21:26
No. Japan was already close to surrendering. The only reasons why they used it was to show the Soviet Union they had a weapon, and because of their impatience. Two strikes on civilian targets, that's horrible.
First time I've heard those used as the sole reasons for the nuclear strikes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But of course, this period in history is not my forte.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
10-03-2009, 21:27
No. Japan was already close to surrendering. The only reasons why they used it was to show the Soviet Union they had a weapon, and because of their impatience. Two strikes on civilian targets, that's horrible.
It may or may not have saved lives. That isn't really the point of this debate, which is why I left it vague.
Furunculus
10-03-2009, 21:30
No. Japan was already close to surrendering. The only reasons why they used it was to show the Soviet Union they had a weapon, and because of their impatience. Two strikes on civilian targets, that's horrible.
so was the 1000's of POW's dieing of malnutrition and horrific bestial abuse on the burma railways while 'great' nations discussed honourable surrender terms.
if one allied POW survived because the war was terminated earlier by the use of nukes then i happily cheer their use, it was japans war after all.
the fact that a nuke was used in anger before everybody else had them meant that the devastating consequences were known (and unwitting Armageddon unleashed) only compounds my sanguine attitude.
I assume you guys mean the facility they have recently begun working on at Qom? The facility they will allow IAEA inspectors to visit regularly? The facility that has no nuclear materials, presently?
Is that the secret nuclear base, to which you refer?
A bit bombastic, is it not? Calling it a base makes it sound like a militarized nuclear launch silo. But I suppose it is a useful term if the goal is to demonize Iran. Then no one will care if bombs are dropped on it.
Wait, at Qom? HAHAHA, so much for any successor Muslim clerical state in case the Iranian Islamic Republic is toppled. By turning Qom into an important strategic site, the clerics have just denied themselves a "A la Vatican" theocratic Muslim microstate once they are out of the scene. Oh well, if they are willing to build nuclear facilities in a Holy City just as a deterrent to say "LOOKZ1 TEH DEVILISH WESTERNERS ARE ATAKCING OUR HOLY CITIES1 THEY ARE ENEMIES OF ALL ISLAM AND IRANIANS!1" with the drawback that if they get the same revolution their predecessor got, I doubt the next Iranian regime would even consider giving nuclear facility-Qom to theocrats (Like it was considered during the 79 Revolution), then it's all fine by me.
Tribesman
10-03-2009, 22:09
Oh well, if they are willing to build nuclear facilities in a Holy City just as a deterrent to say "LOOKZ1 TEH DEVILISH WESTERNERS ARE ATAKCING OUR HOLY CITIES1 THEY ARE ENEMIES OF ALL ISLAM AND IRANIANS!1"
:dizzy2:
the nuclear facility isn't in the city just like the rocket testing facility isn't in the city.
Sarmatian
10-03-2009, 22:27
Leaving the "should Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons" debate aside for the moment, it still isn't known whether that facility is actually supposed to do that.
I'm not convinced. After Iraq, it takes a lot more than "there's a nuclear facility in somewhere in the desert" to convince me.
:dizzy2:
the nuclear facility isn't in the city just like the rocket testing facility isn't in the city.
My best bet is that it is in the outskirts of the city, which is still "at Qom" by all means.
Tribesman
10-03-2009, 22:46
My best bet is that it is in the outskirts of the city, which is still "at Qom" by all means.
Instead of taking your "best bet" why don't you just look up the location in the bloody report:dizzy2:
Kadagar_AV
10-03-2009, 23:29
I agree, after Iraq it will take a LOT befoe anyone believes there is a danger.
You know, the old story about the boy who cried "wolf".
About US and nukes... My history book reads that the nukes used on civilians were more used as a propaganda toy to make the "red" know about it and get a case study. I know american history books have another version, but do you really bealieve your own history books will trashtalk yourselves?
My logical conclusion is: You could have dropped the bomb on some naval harbour. If they don't surrender, you could have dropped it on some military town. If still no surrender, drop it on a town.
Then, as a last mean, drop it on a BIG town like you did.
Now, I dont have imaginiation enough to explain why you should drop it on a second big town (except your "intelligence" wasnt sure soviet had got the message).
:thumbsdown:
Evil_Maniac From Mars
10-03-2009, 23:34
There are a few theories, and I take the one that making sure the Soviets were scared was only a very good side effect for America.
You still haven't given a rational reason why America would use one today. Do you also believe that Germany is the most likely nation on Earth to commit another Holocaust, just because one was committed by Germans in the past?
Tribesman
10-04-2009, 00:08
Which "bloody report"?
I don't know, could it possibly be the report at Geneva that wasn't in Geneva but was near Geneva about opening the facility at Qom that isn't in Qom but is near Qom to inspections by the IAEA?
I don't know, could it possibly be the report at Geneva that wasn't in Geneva but was near Geneva about opening the facility at Qom that isn't in Qom but is near Qom to inspections by the IAEA?
The facility is in the mountains near Qom.
Tribesman
10-04-2009, 00:41
The facility is in the mountains near Qom.
Where did you find that incredibly elusive information?:2thumbsup:
Can you go one better Dariush?
If I was to leave the city of Qom and head out on a major highway which city or province should I aim for to be able to pass near the site on my journey?
Strike For The South
10-04-2009, 01:03
I don't want Iran to have weapons becuase it will hurt US power in the region. I really don't care about fairness.
I don't want to kill anyone over but if the US can use (what's left) of our diplomacy skills I see no reason why we shouldn't try and hamstring Irans weapon devolpment.
No country whoever had something to lose ever played fair.
Being worried about America using nuclear bombs just because it can is about as rational as being worried about butterflies in China causing hurricanes in Florida.
ROFL!!!!
You are so wrong, it is amazingly amusing, you should try stand-up.
I put it this way - You don't have to be worried about America, IF you are on America's side.
On the otherhand, if you are NOT on America's side, they threaten you with nuclear weapons.
Sure, you could argue being the American-lover you are, it is nothing wrong, but I am sure the Japanese during WW2 disagree, I am sure Russia disagrees, I am sure Iran disagrees, and other nations.
I wonder how they respond to you in Nagasaki. "Pfft, radiation poisoning, deformaties and all this pishposh, America having nuclear weapons is being as rational as being worried about butterfies in China causing hurricanes in Florida!".
The problem is, you are seeing it from a very biased point of view. You need to open your mind. There has been serious suggestions and comments about America using nuclear weapons on Iran for example, your comments are completely baseless, you cannot say there is no threat because it is a threat to people. Maybe not to you who worships America, but to anyone not in league with America, it is.
There are plenty of rational reasons for America to use them, just like that are rational reasons Russia would use them, just like there are rational reasons other nations would use them. Doesn't make it any different.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
10-04-2009, 04:07
ROFL!!!!
You are so wrong, it is amazingly amusing, you should try stand-up.
I put it this way - You don't have to be worried about America, IF you are on America's side.
On the otherhand, if you are NOT on America's side, they threaten you with nuclear weapons.
Sure, you could argue being the American-lover you are, it is nothing wrong, but I am sure the Japanese during WW2 disagree, I am sure Russia disagrees, I am sure Iran disagrees, and other nations.
I wonder how they respond to you in Nagasaki. "Pfft, radiation poisoning, deformaties and all this pishposh, America having nuclear weapons is being as rational as being worried about butterfies in China causing hurricanes in Florida!".
The problem is, you are seeing it from a very biased point of view. You need to open your mind. There has been serious suggestions and comments about America using nuclear weapons on Iran for example, your comments are completely baseless, you cannot say there is no threat because it is a threat to people. Maybe not to you who worships America, but to anyone not in league with America, it is.
There are plenty of rational reasons for America to use them, just like that are rational reasons Russia would use them, just like there are rational reasons other nations would use them. Doesn't make it any different.
:laugh4:
You think America will use nuclear weapons? Actually use them? Now, in the modern day? Even if America uses a nuclear weapon on Iran, why would Iran having a single nuclear bomb deter them? Russia won't use them, China won't use them, nobody will use them without either a death wish or some serious pre-strike diplomatic maneuvering. I don't worship America, I'm just not violently opposed to everything America does. Did you read my quoted post properly?
You're forgetting Russia has nukes for itself. That the unwritten rules of nuclear engagement are not the same now as in WWII. That Iran is no WWII era Japan. The only remotely serious suggestion of bombing Iran with a nuke by anyone in power that I've read was in a fiction book, made by a fictional President. Who ended up not doing it.
The only remotely serious suggestion of bombing Iran with a nuke by anyone in power that I've read was in a fiction book, made by a fictional President. Who ended up not doing it.
Mc Cain actually has commented on it.
So if Russia flung nukes at America, America would not use nuclear weapons?
Evil_Maniac From Mars
10-04-2009, 04:34
Mc Cain actually has commented on it.
Exact quote please.
So if Russia flung nukes at America, America would not use nuclear weapons?
Sure it would. But why would Russia strike in the first place? Just like Russia would retaliate if America struck - but America wouldn't strike first. MAD still exists.
I doubt that Israel will do any sort of military strike on Iran in the near future. I'm sure the US won't let them fly over Iraq and unless the Saudis see Iran as big enough menace and allow use of their airspace with all the consequences that makes for them there's no way Israel could even do a strike.
Additionally I doubt that Israel has the strike capabilities to completely destroy all facilities involved in nuclear research and development.
That and Israel would undoubtedly face retribution from Hamas and Hezbollah which might draw them into Palestine and Lebanon again. Also there's be no guarantee that Syria would sit out such a blatant attack on their only ally in the region. Excluding of course the Chinese civil war and the various anti-imperial rebellions.
As for the US use of the A bombs I feel it was justified. It saved the US from having to do a costly invasion of mainland Japan as well as demonstrated a technological edge over the Soviets which kept a peace in the region until the Soviets got the bomb and the start of the Korean war.
The US bombed one city, they didn't surrender, bombed another which together with the Soviet invasion of Manchuria forced the Japanese to surrender. WWII was total war and unfortunately cities as the location of most factories and workers made them fair game at the time. Both cities were important as centers of production, logistical hubs, and both had military facilities. It's unfortunate that the US resorted to such weapons but considering the times I fully support how they were used.
As for US history books not saying anything bad, I've had more then enough texts books in intermediate and high school that went over things like Manifest Destiny and the genocide of the Indians as well as it's bout of Imperialism after the Spanish-American War and the devestation brought by US use of A bombs as well as firebombing.
Lord Winter
10-04-2009, 06:40
Can we really stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons if we want to? We tried sanctions with Pakistan and India and that didn't work. The facilities are far underground and unlikely to be damaged with anything short of a nuke and I think everyone agrees that we can't invade. Instead we should focus on the root causes of the Iranian desire for nukes. The drive towards nuclear weapons is a move for AnotherDinnerJacket to pander to the radicals in the country while keeping the same spirit of the protests we saw in the summer. We also can't overlook the role that the US"s foreign policy has had in inflating the fears of the Iranian people and driving them towards the hardliners. The only thing any step we could take again Iran would do would drive the farther down the path of extremism, and that, not nukes, is the true risk to U.S. interests.
:end:
As to nukes in WW2 and today, I fon't think they dropped the two back then to destroy industry, they did it to show they could eradicate two cities and possibly more, it's almost amazing that the japanese didn't pee their pants and give up directly after the first. I think it was justified for the losses prevented and simply because it was new and I don't think the US had detonated any above the ground before that so it's safe to say they did not know about all the effects and most certainly not about the radiation (which killed some US personnel in later tests as well). Might say it's bad to use experimental weapons but hey, they'd been fighting a bloody World War(that they never asked for, neither wanted to join) for three years...
As to whether Israel will strike that reactor now or the US will nuke it, there's only one appropriate smiley available here and it's at the top of my post, probably as accurate as most guesses here.
Tellos Athenaios
10-04-2009, 08:24
Oh but they had detonated a prototype nuke in New Mexico (Trinity; 1945). Much earlier they also blew up estimated equivalents in TNT just to gauge what a nuke would do: the scientists did have a fairly good understanding of the pure destruction a nuke could cause. And the selection of cities has certainly something to do with how well the geography would (not) get in the way of the nukes: much like how the allies made a conscious effort to pick the ‘best’ tools for the job at Dresden.
Justified? Perhaps. But definitely not because people didn't know what was going to happen: they were brilliant enough to pull off a nuke in the first place, they had been at the forefront of relevant physics & military for decades and they were definitely both well-informed & self-conscious enough to realize what it could do and what their role was.
Hooahguy
10-05-2009, 03:50
Can we really stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons if we want to? We tried sanctions with Pakistan and India and that didn't work. The facilities are far underground and unlikely to be damaged with anything short of a nuke and I think everyone agrees that we can't invade. Instead we should focus on the root causes of the Iranian desire for nukes. The drive towards nuclear weapons is a move for AnotherDinnerJacket to pander to the radicals in the country while keeping the same spirit of the protests we saw in the summer. We also can't overlook the role that the US"s foreign policy has had in inflating the fears of the Iranian people and driving them towards the hardliners. The only thing any step we could take again Iran would do would drive the farther down the path of extremism, and that, not nukes, is the true risk to U.S. interests.
well Israel did with the iraqi reactor.
Lord Winter
10-05-2009, 03:56
well Israel did with the iraqi reactor.
All the sources I've heard have said that the success of a strike is unlikely. Even if it was it would destabilize the region and do more harm then good.
Well, my cousin, who works in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs here of Portugal, says the Israeli will have no choice but to strike until the forthcoming new year.
Furunculus
10-05-2009, 12:55
Well, my cousin, who works in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs here of Portugal, says the Israeli will have no choice but to strike until the forthcoming new year.
just to clarify, are you saying:
a)Israel will have no choice but to [not] strike until the forthcoming new year.
b)Israel will have no choice but to strike [in] the forthcoming new year.
just to clarify, are you saying:
a)Israel will have no choice but to [not] strike until the forthcoming new year.
b)Israel will have no choice but to strike [in] the forthcoming new year.
b) She didn't put it [in] but rather [until], which means it may be sooner than that.
EDIT: According to her, the facility will be fully/near-fully operational by New Year, something Israel wishes to stop at all costs.
Of course, she is rather afraid of its consequences for NATO, which will support Israel doubtlessly.
could be, should be imho but there is still a jewish community in Iran don't underestimate that, when they leave we know. edit that did't in any way suggest a nuke.I like these persians somthing about them
Tribesman
10-05-2009, 14:16
b)
your cousin doesn't know much then, as despite all the earlier sabre rattling Israel knows that a strike against Iran isn't a viable option.
Of course, she is rather afraid of its consequences for NATO, which will support Israel doubtlessly.
Really?
Sarmatian
10-05-2009, 18:10
Of course, she is rather afraid of its consequences for NATO, which will support Israel doubtlessly.
What kind of support your talking about here? Military, political, verbal... ?
Seamus Fermanagh
10-05-2009, 19:15
Can we really stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons if we want to? We tried sanctions with Pakistan and India and that didn't work. The facilities are far underground and unlikely to be damaged with anything short of a nuke and I think everyone agrees that we can't invade. Instead we should focus on the root causes of the Iranian desire for nukes. The drive towards nuclear weapons is a move for AnotherDinnerJacket to pander to the radicals in the country while keeping the same spirit of the protests we saw in the summer. We also can't overlook the role that the US"s foreign policy has had in inflating the fears of the Iranian people and driving them towards the hardliners. The only thing any step we could take again Iran would do would drive the farther down the path of extremism, and that, not nukes, is the true risk to U.S. interests.
Non-nuclear ordinance that can (http://mae.pennnet.com/display_article/367232/32/NEWS/none/none/1/Massive-Ordnance-Penetrator-fit-to-B-2-would-speed-to-next-year-if-Congress-agrees/#) take out such buried targets is in an advanced stage of development. How soon or if it will be deployed is another question.
your cousin doesn't know much then, as despite all the earlier sabre rattling Israel knows that a strike against Iran isn't a viable option.
Oh, but she doesn't work only in Portugal. She is a Portuguese delegate in the UN as well. Sure enough, she doesn't work in the International Security Affairs area, but rather in the Economic Cooperation and Development area.
But obviously she is a friend and acquaintance of a great many people of different countries who work in the area of International Security area. Taking that into account, I'd say she would know much more than all of us together. I must say I thought an Israeli attack on Iran rather far-fetched, and after talking to her about it briefly, she says its only too probable.
What kind of support your talking about here? Military, political, verbal... ?
She didn't specify, but I was too surprised at her ready response to even press the matter further. Though, I suppose NATO giving military support is improbable. Probably International support, which might still impact greatly NATO's commitments in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Tribesman
10-05-2009, 23:58
Taking that into account, I'd say she would know much more than all of us together.
If she knew then she would know that Israel at a push with lots of co-operation and lots of luck by putting all its assets into a single unrepeatable high stakes gamble could if everything went perfectly achieve.....very little.:yes:
If you consider "very little", maintaining the Nuclear monopoly in the region for several/many/a lot of years more, then yes, you would be correct.
Tribesman
10-06-2009, 11:45
If you consider "very little", maintaining the Nuclear monopoly in the region for several/many/a lot of years more, then yes, you would be correct.
:dizzy2:
Whatever happened to your arguement about Israel launching a strike ?:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
...Eh? I'm talking exactly about that.
Tribesman
10-06-2009, 12:05
Eh? I'm talking exactly about that.
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
So you realise they can't do it then?
Honestly I have no idea.
What I was saying is that if they do succeed, they will cripple a uranium refining plant, which seriously throws back the ability (And the date) of the Iranians to produce enough Uranium to build a nuclear weapon.
Tribesman
10-06-2009, 15:13
What I was saying is that if they do succeed,
A very very big if.
they will cripple a uranium refining plant,
wow
which seriously throws back the ability
Really?
Israel has the ability to take out if they are lucky one facility at one location in an all or nothing strike that they cannot repeat.
Since the Iranian program involves duplicated facilities at various locations an Isreali strike means aiming to achieve bugger all at a huge cost.
Not even Netanyahu and Lieberman are quite that stupid.
Vladimir
10-06-2009, 16:52
Interesting discussion. Information from "sources" in minor European governments and revisionist history. Lovely.
Mc Cain on Iran (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-zoPgv_nYg)
A very very big if.
wow
Really?
Israel has the ability to take out if they are lucky one facility at one location in an all or nothing strike that they cannot repeat.
Since the Iranian program involves duplicated facilities at various locations an Isreali strike means aiming to achieve bugger all at a huge cost.
Not even Netanyahu and Lieberman are quite that stupid.
Who is to say they'll be hitting merely a single target?
As a signatory of the NPT, Iran is required to give 3 months notice to leave the treaty and begin nuclear weapons development. Until that decision is made, their nuclear facilities are subject to inspections and infractions could lead to sanctions. Israel, India, and Pakistan are not signatories, and their situations are not comparable to Iran's.
Once the 3 month notice to leave the NPT is given and the time expires, more power to them. If Iran attempts to hide weapons development without withdrawing, they get what they deserve.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
10-06-2009, 21:37
Mc Cain on Iran (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-zoPgv_nYg)
You just linked something which didn't actually show the full answer to his question, just the first sentence where he was laughing about a song. Proves...nothing.
Tribesman
10-06-2009, 22:11
Who is to say they'll be hitting merely a single target?
It is due to the nature of the targets and the availability of assets
The available cruise and ballistic missiles do not have the neccesary destructive ability.
What would be ideal is a weapon that that Israel doesn't have which is under development by someone else for use with a delivery system that Israel also doesn't have.
Israel does have something that could work though, numerous repeated sequencial blasts delivered with absolute precision and perfect split second timing....using their entire store of the weapons and all their delivery platforms, while utilising their entire refueling capacity to operate at the extreme limit of their range.....errrrr......on a single target:yes:
Do you not wonder why Israel has changed its tune so much about launching strikes?
It is because the threat was obviously hollow.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.