Ahmedinejad Threatens U.S. With War 'Without Boundaries"

[Secretly Space Jesus 670]

2 things, Lewis:

 

1. Iran is fully allowed under the non-proliferation treaty to have nuclear power, provided they don't attempt to make nuclear weapons. So until it's actually proven that they're building weapons(at this point there is suspicion, but no proof), they haven't violated the treaty.

 

2. North Korea has had confirmed nuclear tests. They have nukes. There's really no doubt about that. The big deal with their weapon testing of their new missile system about 18 months ago was that had their missiles done what they were claiming(they didn't), North Korea would have had confirmed nuclear weapons and a missile system capable of carrying a nuclear payload and hitting Hawaii.

[Secretly Space Jesus 670]

As Israel is an ally and Iran is not, one would have to believe that we would go up to bat for Israel.

 

Why would Israel need us to back them in an offensive war?

[Fultz4thewin 2,464]

2 things, Lewis:

 

1. Iran is fully allowed under the non-proliferation treaty to have nuclear power, provided they don't attempt to make nuclear weapons. So until it's actually proven that they're building weapons(at this point there is suspicion, but no proof), they haven't violated the treaty.

 

2. North Korea has had confirmed nuclear tests. They have nukes. There's really no doubt about that. The big deal with their weapon testing of their new missile system about 18 months ago was that had their missiles done what they were claiming(they didn't), North Korea would have had confirmed nuclear weapons and a missile system capable of carrying a nuclear payload and hitting Hawaii.

 

I know they're allowed to get nuclear power. I thought the discussion was assuming they were trying to use the program militarily.

 

North Korea has had confirmed nuclear tests, but the success of those tests has been questioned. They kinda suck with developing intercontinental missiles. They only have a few missiles capable of traveling 1,000 miles if there's a strong wind going the direction of their target. I kinda exaggerated when I said they couldn't hit Japan. They could hit Kyushu but Hokkaido is probably out of reach.

[Fultz4thewin 2,464]

Why would Israel need us to back them in an offensive war?

 

help against the counterattack thats likely coming from Iran, Syria, and Lebanon. We wouldn't support a quick attack, but we would support Israel if negotiations with Iran failed.

 

When Egypt attacked Israel we intervened and began to mediate due to both countries being allies. It would be in our interest to support Israel militarily in a war against Iran. Strategically, it doesn't help our interests in the Middle East if Iran has a Nuke. If Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons and is still in the NPT (or in the 90 day window after leaving the NPT) it's likely that China, Russia, UK, and France would become involved (in some capacity, though China and Russia like screwing us in these areas) as well

[Osprey 199]

Israel has nukes because we gave them to them, obviously, and they have shown that they are not willing to use them offensively, they exist as a deterrent.

 

Iran not having missiles is a moot point, IMO Drunk, because there is absolutely nothing stopping them from slipping a dirty bomb or suitcase nuke or tactical nuke to a terror organization willing to use it against us (there's a long line of those). All it takes is one dirty bomb slipping across our woefully patrolled Mexican border and boom, there goes San Diego or worse, LA.

 

ICBM's are meaningless.

 

Also, I believe Ahmedinejad has zero qualms about using nuclear weapons on Israel. This is a man who denies the Holocaust as well as Israel's right to exist. I truly believe if he gets the nuke, he'll use it on Tel-Aviv.

 

And to answer your question, Lewis, Fuel-grade nuclear material can produce significant yield dirty bombs. Maybe not taking out all of Manhattan, but definitely all of the financial sector and making it uninhabitable for 20 years.

[Fultz4thewin 2,464]

Israel has nukes because we gave them to them, obviously, and they have shown that they are not willing to use them offensively, they exist as a deterrent.

 

Iran not having missiles is a moot point, IMO Drunk, because there is absolutely nothing stopping them from slipping a dirty bomb or suitcase nuke or tactical nuke to a terror organization willing to use it against us (there's a long line of those). All it takes is one dirty bomb slipping across our woefully patrolled Mexican border and boom, there goes San Diego or worse, LA.

 

ICBM's are meaningless.

 

Also, I believe Ahmedinejad has zero qualms about using nuclear weapons on Israel. This is a man who denies the Holocaust as well as Israel's right to exist. I truly believe if he gets the nuke, he'll use it on Tel-Aviv.

 

And to answer your question, Lewis, Fuel-grade nuclear material can produce significant yield dirty bombs. Maybe not taking out all of Manhattan, but definitely all of the financial sector and making it uninhabitable for 20 years.

 

we didn't give nukes to Israel, we used to loan out nukes to NATO countries all of the time and we don't keep that a secret, why with Israel? Its been speculated that South Africa and Israel worked on their nukes together. South Africa has since gotten rid of theirs.

[Secretly Space Jesus 670]

Israel has nukes because we gave them to them, obviously, and they have shown that they are not willing to use them offensively, they exist as a deterrent.

 

Iran not having missiles is a moot point, IMO Drunk, because there is absolutely nothing stopping them from slipping a dirty bomb or suitcase nuke or tactical nuke to a terror organization willing to use it against us (there's a long line of those). All it takes is one dirty bomb slipping across our woefully patrolled Mexican border and boom, there goes San Diego or worse, LA.

 

ICBM's are meaningless.

 

Also, I believe Ahmedinejad has zero qualms about using nuclear weapons on Israel. This is a man who denies the Holocaust as well as Israel's right to exist. I truly believe if he gets the nuke, he'll use it on Tel-Aviv.

 

And to answer your question, Lewis, Fuel-grade nuclear material can produce significant yield dirty bombs. Maybe not taking out all of Manhattan, but definitely all of the financial sector and making it uninhabitable for 20 years.

 

 

The potency of a dirty bomb would depend on what chemical isotope the bomb was using as fuel, which is why "Plutonium or Uranium?" and "What isotope?" were two of the questions I said needed to be asked.

 

And as I said before, until someone has evidence that Iran is building weapons and not just building nuclear power stations, an attack is not only not valid under the UN policies, it's illegal under those policies. Fears about what Ahmedinejad may or may not do is no more a valid reason for an attack than what Putin may or may not do, with the only difference being that Putin would be capable of hitting back a lot harder.

 

And if the perception is that we're only attacking Iran because we know they can't fight back, the perception will be that we're ******* bullies, and the last thing we want or need to do when dealing with crazy people is abandoning the moral high ground.

 

As for Israel, what they do with their military is no one's business but their own. However, if Israel wants to attack Iran, they need to be prepared to deal with the ramifications themselves, rather than relying on us to protect them.

[Fultz4thewin 2,464]

The potency of a dirty bomb would depend on what chemical isotope the bomb was using as fuel, which is why "Plutonium or Uranium?" and "What isotope?" were two of the questions I said needed to be asked.

 

And as I said before, until someone has evidence that Iran is building weapons and not just building nuclear power stations, an attack is not only not valid under the UN policies, it's illegal under those policies. Fears about what Ahmedinejad may or may not do is no more a valid reason for an attack than what Putin may or may not do, with the only difference being that Putin would be capable of hitting back a lot harder.

 

And if the perception is that we're only attacking Iran because we know they can't fight back, the perception will be that we're ******* bullies, and the last thing we want or need to do when dealing with crazy people is abandoning the moral high ground.

 

As for Israel, what they do with their military is no one's business but their own. However, if Israel wants to attack Iran, they need to be prepared to deal with the ramifications themselves, rather than relying on us to protect them.

 

I think the general assumption behind any attack is that Iran is well on their way to developing nuclear weapons. Prior to that we can rely on the international bureaucracy to investigate Iran's nuclear program. Especially considering they are a part of the NPT which would allow international inspectors access to their facilities.

 

I don't think Israel would attack Iran unless we give them the go ahead.

[Emory889 353]

Sorry Iran, but like the old saying goes..."better safe than sorry"

 

The world doesnt trust you with weapons that can literally take out countries, and rightfully so..

 

So ya, its totally justified...we're gonna blow that crap up whether it exists or not.

 

Could you imagine if we took the chance and these things DID exist and they DID use it, do you know how much lives would be lost?

 

Dont take the chance. Destroy it...NOW, are very soon or we will suffer the consequence of Ahmedinejad, the ultimate terrorist.

 

We have the smartest bombs on the planet but it is impossible to avoid the deaths of innocent people once a bombing campaign starts. It's not something that should be taken lightly and certainly should not be considered the logical answer to a uncertain question. This shouldn't even be debated until there is actual proof that Iran does possess nuclear weapons and the weapons delivery systems needed to threaten American targets.

 

The overwhelming population of Iran is young people in their 20s that love America and its culture. The potential is there for foreign policy to change by natural means if we continue to pursue diplomatic means. A stupid foreign policy that condones dropping bombs on civilian houses unncecessarily accomplishes nothing.

[TheREALBrooksThompson 157]

Speaking as someone who is only partially educated and who is admittedly ignorant of pretty much everything a person should know to properly comment on this, my problem is this: Given our current experiences in the region, why would we want to start another war over something that we think might happen? Didn't we just have a really bad experience doing that sort of thing?

[Fultz4thewin 2,464]

Speaking as someone who is only partially educated and who is admittedly ignorant of pretty much everything a person should know to properly comment on this, my problem is this: Given our current experiences in the region, why would we want to start another war over something that we think might happen? Didn't we just have a really bad experience doing that sort of thing?

 

well, Iran is pretty much what Iraq should have been. Realistically, there is no need for "war" to fix this issue. Israel would bomb the facilities and take care of pretty much all of that. All of the hypotheticals pretty much stem from retaliation from Iran.

[AcuWill 45]

One issue that is not discussed, is tat many of the eastern powers, Iran, Russian, China, etc. have formed their version of NATO, the SCO. What that means is that if any nation attacks any of them, they would all retaliate.

 

One of the greatest war philosophers, Clausewitz, stated: (I am paraphrasing) "For every escalation, there will be an equal or greater escalation, until one of the two sides simply can no longer escalate." Here we have that exact situation. Already there is another "NATO", they need their own nukes, etc. We must be very conscientious of any escalations we make, because we should fully expect the same or worse back, and quite frankly, we will be the causative factor for the result and responsible.