Do you really are is Iran has the bomb?

[bombshoo]

They could have used it with results comparable to the atomic bomb.

That's possible if you use enough, but firebombing could basically be done with comparable results to an atomic bomb as well. What's truly impressive about the atomic bomb is not that it destroys a city, but that what normally took thousands of planes and tons of bombs (or chemicals) could be done with only one plane and one bomb. Even with nerve agents, which are admittedly very deadly, the amounts needed to do comparable levels of human damage would have been absolutely huge and they still wouldn't really harm the industry of the area, so you would need to follow up any attack with the heavy use of area denial agents like sulfur mustard. The bomb is still a totally different animal than anything before, including chemicals, and that's why I think the comparison is bad.

 

[Justo]

I personally have no issues with Iran getting nukes outside of nukes being expanded into more and more countries. I think Iran's threat is overstated and much like any relatively isolated country Iran just wants security from external threats. Given the way some people are acting on this thread it's quite easy to see why would want such security.

 

[kochman]

Why do you assume this.

Germany did not use nerve gas.

Well, Nazi Germany didn't, Bismark's did...
But, gas is not as effective as the a-bomb... the "super weapon" that Hitler was talking about...

 

[cav scout]

US land forces are notoriously vulnerable to ballistic missiles due to logistical issues (m1 and m2 vehicles are pathetic in this regard). This was observed during the Gulf War. I would definitely invest in missile development even without nukes.

Wait what? The scuds used during the gulf war caused some damage and killed some people (most notably with a lucky hit on a barracks) but they didn't hinder U.S. offensive operations at all. Their primary value for the Iraqi's was as a terror weapon... saying they somehow effected U.S. heavy forces is wildly off the mark and just plain silly.

It's also important to note that our Patriot missiles totally sucked in the gulf war. The newest block of patriot missiles is now designed to intercept and kill a target like a scud or other theater ballistic missile.

 

[Thedrin]

Wait what? The scuds used during the gulf war caused some damage and killed some people (most notably with a lucky hit on a barracks) but they didn't hinder U.S. offensive operations at all. Their primary value for the Iraqi's was as a terror weapon... saying they somehow effected U.S. heavy forces is wildly off the mark and just plain silly.

I don't believe that it's being suggested that SCUD missiles are particularly advanced. But, as you said, when a lucky strike did occur - lucky due to the SCUD not being particularly advanced - it proved to be effective. So there could be an argument to developing missiles.

 

[cav scout]

I don't believe that it's being suggested that SCUD missiles are particularly advanced. But, as you said, when a lucky strike did occur - lucky due to the SCUD not being particularly advanced - it proved to be effective. So there could be an argument to developing missiles.

What was being suggested was that ballistic missiles with conventional warheads were effectively employed against against the "notoriously vulnerable" U.S. forces by attacking "logistics" and this crippled the "pathetic" U.S. heavy mechanized platforms.

This is ridiculous.

Yes, the Iraqi's got lucky once and hit a barracks by chance, killing 24. I will concede that this was effective- but only in the terror/publicity sense. It was not effective at all in hindering the U.S. from administering a terrible ass kicking that completely defeated Iraq in 100 hours.

 

[Leoreth]

Well, Nazi Germany didn't, Bismark's did...
But, gas is not as effective as the a-bomb... the "super weapon" that Hitler was talking about...

I know what you mean, but Bismarck was long out of office when WW1 began.

 

[classical_hero]

They set us up the bomb.


Link to video.

 

[Silurian]

What everybody seems to forget about the a-bomb and WW2 is that by the summer of 1945 the USA had only made 3 and could only make a few a year.

Why would you assume that Germany would have substantially more than the USA.

Say German had 3 a-bombs. So which 3 cities does it destroy the centre of.

In WW2 the UK had chemical (mustard, phosgene) and biological (anthrax) weapons.

It is probable that an attack on the UK with two or three A bombs would have resulted in a week of thousand bomber raids with a mix of HE and chemical/biological weapons.

I’m sure that the USSR would have responded in similar way.

You also have to take into account the near complete interception of German communications by the UK. The UK had also largely infiltrated the German spy net works in the UK. So if Germany had developed the bomb it would have been known. Then the UK could have let the German spies discover the British "bomb" and the Germans would have been deterred.

 

[kochman]

I know what you mean, but Bismarck was long out of office when WW1 began.

Of course, but Hitler spoke of the secret miracle weapon which would turn the war around... It's pretty clear that he meant the nuke...

Thank God it never came to that... He would surely have used it, in my opinion... especially if no one else had it yet.

 

[bombshoo]

What everybody seems to forget about the a-bomb and WW2 is that by the summer of 1945 the USA had only made 3 and could only make a few a year.

Why would you assume that Germany would have substantially more than the USA.

Why assume they wouldn't? Or that it would matter in how they used them? Since we are talking about a completely fabricated scenario, there is no way of saying when or how Germany would have had the bomb or how they would have used it.

Germany never had the bomb and was quite far from ever getting the bomb. The reason that chemical warfare in WWII was so limited was for a specific set of reasons, and without knowing the circumstances in which Germany developed the bomb, you can't say that the same rules would apply. The very different nature of the weapons changes everything. For example, it might not even come down to amounts or size. Since most thought of the atom bomb as nothing more than a very powerful bomb, the Germans very well might have had no qualms about using it. I mean they had no problem using other potentially controversial weapons, such as the V-2 Rockets (which were admittedly not that effective, but they were certainly expected to be).

Just a reminder, I never said Germany would have used the bomb for sure, just that comparing it with chemical warfare is a bad comparison.

 

[downtown]

I'm not worried about the state abusing atomic power so much as I am about middlemen. MAD principles would be a good deterrent from Tehran not attacking anybody, but does that work for a suicide bomber?

 

[Silurian]

I'm not worried about the state abusing atomic power so much as I am about middlemen. MAD principles would be a good deterrent from Tehran not attacking anybody, but does that work for a suicide bomber?

What is the difference between a bomb delivered by a missile or a suicide bomber.
Iran would still get bombed back.

 

[Thedrin]

What was being suggested was that ballistic missiles with conventional warheads were effectively employed against against the "notoriously vulnerable" U.S. forces by attacking "logistics" and this crippled the "pathetic" U.S. heavy mechanized platforms.

This is ridiculous.

Yes, the Iraqi's got lucky once and hit a barracks by chance, killing 24. I will concede that this was effective- but only in the terror/publicity sense. It was not effective at all in hindering the U.S. from administering a terrible ass kicking that completely defeated Iraq in 100 hours.

We have both read Princeps post, but we have comprehended it differently.

My interpretation was that the Gulf War showed that US forces were vulnerable to missiles, but that Princeps made no claims about the overall effectiveness of Iraqi missiles.

 

[Virote_Considon]

Well there is the simple fact that even though the Cold War has ended, brinkmanship is still an important part of policy. Though no one's insane enough to actually use their nukes, if you can convince another nation you just might make limited use of tactical weapons, you could scare them.

Citation needed?

The more countries with nukes, the less nukes are an advantage over other countries -> the more likely they are to be used would seem a pretty likely outcome. Especially with limited use (I mean come on, MAD itself was a pretty outdated concept by the end of the 60s). If Iran built 3 nukes which were known to the world, would it be any less threatening if they used one but kept the other two?

There's a reason other Middle Eastern states stand firmly with us on this. Nukes don't have to be big, massive explosions - you can use them on a small scale and greatly damage an enemy. Iraq still has poisoning from our use of depleted uranium as I recall.

Yeah, and this doesn't make it any less likely that if they had nuclear weapons Iran wouldn't ever use them.

Iran isn't going to go imperialist. They're Shi'a for goodness sake, so a much better idea is to just keep Iraq out of their grasps.

Iran is pretty vocally adamant that it wishes to expand its Shia revolution throughout the Muslim world. Hense widespread Muslim support for Iraq in the Persian Gulf War, particularly strained relations with most of the Arab world, etc.

Well, precisely because of that identification with shia islam Iraq was always pretty much the limit of their possible imperialist ambitions. Going beyond that would be biting more than they could chew, a self-limiting move.

Also Bahraine. Also Azerbaijan (goes both ways). Both of which it does attempt to exert similar influence to which it wages in Iraq. Also has strong support in the unstable countries of Syria and Lebanon (i.e. potential sattelites?) Further sees itself as presenting the one true Islamist doctrine (thus continued scope for conflict with other Muslim countries - esp. Saudi Arabia who a. controls the Hejaz and b. are just as supportive of the Sunni Wahhabi Islamist doctrine).

The divisions through the Muslim world only increase the otherwise rouge Iranian opportunities for ideological imperialism in the Middle East and wider Islamic world.

Iran's definitely not a country I'd trust or defend, but their threat is overblown. They won't arm terrorists - to do that would incite a war, if not a nuclear one, easily.

Citation, please?

 

[bombshoo]

Giving or selling nukes to terrorists basically makes no sense. For one thing, there isn't much of a guarantee that any terrorist organization would use a gifted nuke as intended, for another thing there is always the potential of CIA/IAEA sting operations, and perhaps most importantly, there is such a thing as nuclear forensics. If a mysterious nuke went off, it wouldn't be that difficult to trace where the materials came from.

 

[cav scout]

We have both read Princeps post, but we have comprehended it differently.

My interpretation was that the Gulf War showed that US forces were vulnerable to missiles, but that Princeps made no claims about the overall effectiveness of Iraqi missiles.

Fair enough. We can agree to disagree about what he was trying to say. Would be great if he could clarify for us...

As a general statement I would say that theater ballistic missiles have very limited tactical value with conventional warheads and claiming this is the reason why Iran fields them is either wishful thinking or a bit of apologism for the regime in Tehran.

 

[kochman]

Giving or selling nukes to terrorists basically makes no sense. For one thing, there isn't much of a guarantee that any terrorist organization would use a gifted nuke as intended, for another thing there is always the potential of CIA/IAEA sting operations, and perhaps most importantly, there is such a thing as nuclear forensics. If a mysterious nuke went off, it wouldn't be that difficult to trace where the materials came from.

This is true, but we must realize that Iran is the number 1 funder of terrorist organizations around the world.
However, that being said... just their funding alone could potentially finance the purchase or creation of a dirty bomb... the dreaded "stolen in Russia, sold to _________ (fill in the blank)" sort of situation...
In other words, they don't need the bomb to personally sponsor the use of the bomb.

I do believe they would likely sell the technology to other nations such as Syria, etc... to the point where if enough hostile to Israel neighbors get ahold of it, it would become a MAD situation in the Middle East...

 

[bombshoo]

This is true, but we must realize that Iran is the number 1 funder of terrorist organizations around the world.
However, that being said... just their funding alone could potentially finance the purchase or creation of a dirty bomb... the dreaded "stolen in Russia, sold to _________ (fill in the blank)" sort of situation...
In other words, they don't need the bomb to personally sponsor the use of the bomb.

It certainly is plausible that funding from Iran (or really any nation that funds terrorism) could finance the acquisition of the materials to make a dirty bomb. In fact, with nuclear material available in so many countries (the Nuclear Suppliers Group is 46 countries), I don't even think it would have to come from Russia. What's wrong there is that a dirty bomb is anything like a real atomic weapon. It certainly would be messy if a dirty bomb went off in a major metropolitan area, but the death toll would be a fraction of what it would be if a real atomic bomb were detonated. It would basically explode like a conventional bomb, leave behind some radioactive material that may or may not kill some people, force people downwind of the area to take precautions to prevent radiation poisoning and leave the area of detonation unusable for a period of time.

 

[metatron]

Destabilization = bad
Iran with bomb = destabilization

Also the whole proliferation thing.

It's not about the actual use, no country would ever dare use them nowadays. It's more about the whole power thing, Iran getting the bomb means they just knocked themselves up a notch in the region, and are more likely to bully the smaller states around into doing what they want. That's pretty destabilizing to the region.

Ah, I see: If Iran projects power in the region instead of the US and US puppets projecting power in the region that is called "destabilization".

These guys make American Fundamentalist Christians look like a Gay-Pride parade. To allow them to have nukes is inconcievable. They don't think or negotiate like Western leaders. God's holy vengence for past injustice - real or imagined - is high on their to-do list.

"Past injustice - real or imagined"?
You really want to put it like that?

How many times did the US, the UK, US and UK puppets invade Iran over the course of the 20th century, again?
This is not a rhetorical question. Cause i've lost count...

As for evidence, there would seem enough of it to create an unlikely coalition of states (China, France, Germany, Russia, UK, USA) working together to try and stop Iran.

The evidence includes but is not limited to;

Irans' violation of UN Resolution 1696 to suspend all enrichment and processing activities.

The frequent removal of IAEA seals and cameras at Iranian nuclear facilities.

The general secrecy and hiding of facilities underground, and lack of cooperation with international inspectors.

The development of the Shahab and other intermediate range ballistic missiles - a standard nuclear weapon delivery system.

The November IAEA's report that Iran is about to make a nuclear warhead small enough to fit on a ballistic missile.

Iran's recent announcement that it had achieved 20% enrichment - the threshold for atom bomb construction.

There's quite a bit more, but this is, afterall, just a game site.

Two points:
a) What you are proposing is nothing short of a "war of aggression" - a war crime. Unless you'd get a UN resolution to authorise such an intervention... which you will never get. The US allready commited that war crime this century and this would be ten times worse in terms of diplomatic repercussions.
b) Everything you said is just as true for Israel, only that they don't have to put up with controls and such nonsense cause they refused to sign the treaty to begin with. And i fail to see how the Israeli leaders are any different in terms of religious zeal or aggressive rhetorics.
Oh, plus there is a pretty good chance that Israel violated UN Resolution 418 in the worst possible way, which would be roughly the worst transgression in terms of nuclear proliferation any nation has ever commited since the early 50s.

So i guess you want to bomb Israel into submission, too?

They are cranky old men. Intolerant and hateful. Incompassionate and vengeful. Religious hard liners who see Satan everywhere they look. They're not rational like Western leaders. They're unpredictable. Dangerous. The world would be a lot safer if these guys didn't have nuclear weapons.

Bush and Cheney are building the Iranian bomb?


Re: Would the Nazis have used the bomb?
a) Yes, probably but only against Russia.
b) You guys are seriously obsessed...