Why shouldn't Iran have Nukes?

[Sh3kel]

Why is the answer to anyone not consenting to the "popular view" like sheeple is go to country "X or country Y." It's just sad and pathetic.

And remarkably correct. I assure you, after your first trip to a land where things really are as ****ed up as they're made to be, you're gonna have a whole new perspective on how things are where you live. Trust me, I've been to the occupied territories.

 

[REDY]

I am not sure if you recommending it to right person, if he know Czechoslovakian pre-1989 era. And this state saved your asses in 1st war

 

[Princeps]

And they would be wrong as well. The USA is simply not an empire.

So you admit you were incorrect in stating that Iran was ringed by troops and besieged.

No. I used the word besieged as a relative word, though it really is not. More or less besieged. However, practically, United States does besiege Iran.

Also, those troops located east and west are not in numbers that would be a threat to Iran in any way, shape or form. You fully realize this.

Actually, combined with the arsenal US can easily move to the Gulf, and the amount of support-points (see the map) and wide ground for assault in the ME, I think, with reasonable stragetic merit, US could easily cripple and gradually conquer Iran.

When have our 'allies' the Turks done anything with us in the region? Never.

It has done plenty. Regardless, it is pretty much a US ally, thus worry for Iran.

As for Israel....do you realize how many hostile nations Israeli jets have to fly over in order to reach Iran? Think about it.

Hah. They've done it before, remember? Iraq had a nuclear project too, it was bombed by an Israeli air strike. There's only a short flight to glide through Syria or Jordan, and you're safely in coalition airspace.

Ah...Saudi Arabia doesnt border Iran. Nuff said.

Yes it does. There's only one little puddle between them.

Then why all the rhetoric?

Maybe I should've rethought that. When US first said it would attack Afghanistan, I thought it was still in justifiable limits, considering what Afghanistan was during the rule of Taliban. But I'm afraid it was only a part of a bigger operation, more aggressive and imperial in nature.

 

[MobBoss]

Actually, combined with the arsenal US can easily move to the Gulf, and the amount of support-points (see the map) and wide ground for assault in the ME, I think, with reasonable stragetic merit, US could easily cripple and gradually conquer Iran.

While I agree that the USA could easily defeat Iran in an conventional conflict, I beg to differ with your opinion that the USA could 'easily' move into the gult at the current moment in time. You seem to forget that getting the equipment/men/material over for both gulf wars was a titanic effort in logistics. This effort took months and months of planning and movement - it was not accomplished 'easily' in any way, shape or form.

Not to mention expense. With out being engaged already in Afghanistan and Iraq and overwatching issues in Africa, exactly how are we going to afford such an effort? The money is simply not there.

Bottom line, you make many, many incorrect assumptions.

It has done plenty. Regardless, it is pretty much a US ally, thus worry for Iran.

Again, pleast illuminate me on how you define 'plenty' as regards to Turkeys support as an ally? Please explain in a little more depth.

Hah. They've done it before, remember? Iraq had a nuclear project too, it was bombed by an Israeli air strike. There's only a short flight to glide through Syria or Jordan, and you're safely in coalition airspace.

The sites in Iran are much further away than the sites that were bombed in Iraq. Exactly how are the fighter/bombers supposed to get there and back? There is this little matter of 'operational range' you may want to consider......

But I'm afraid it was only a part of a bigger operation, more aggressive and imperial in nature.

Again, you imaginaton is just way too hyper-active for your own good.

 

[theimmortal1]

Princeps I am glad I finally have seen another poster here than recognizes what this war is. It is a war against Iran. Plain and simple. The actual hope was surrounding them and implementing neighboring democracies would turn Iran into a democracy. Therefore, we wouldn't have to invade them. However, if they kept on ruling with an Iron Fist we will have them completly surrounded.

Iran is the hub of Islamic extremism. Islamic extremism must be wiped off the map to quote our favorite little extremist.

 

[Imaginos]

So the Iranian regime is willing to allow the entire nation of Lebanon to be held accountable for the acts of Hezzbollah, and the southern part of that country to suffer the consequences of a massive Air-Raid bombing from the Israelis after giving the green light for the Hezzbollah to fire rockets into Israel, but they're not willing to sacrifice the same people they've already written off as acceptable losses by using a nuke? For god's sake, how many more wake-up calls do you need to understand the Iranian rulers don't really care about who they take out as collateral as long as the Israelis go away?

Sorry for not replying earlier, have problems logging in every now and then.

Starting a proxy war by using the Hizbullah is different from actually dropping a nuke bomb on Israel.
Politically, they can/did deny their influence with Hizbullah or any connection with what happened in Lebanon. And they would be able to get away with it, politically and militarily.
And that's what happening.
But, If they dropped a nuke bomb, many countries will be crying out for Iranian blood, and support a military action against Iran itself, and it would be destroyed.

Political leaders whether from Iran or the 'good guys', always never care about 'collateral damage'. That is why it's called 'collateral damge'. That is why they go to war. If leaders did actually think or care about the death and suffering that comes with war, then wars wouldn't happen.

by the way, I am not for Iran having nuke weapons, in case you are wondering. This is just my opinion.

 

[Sh3kel]

But still, if the Lebanese are damaged as direct collateral or indirect collateral - where in that equation do we learn that the Iranian regime cares about Lebanon? They've already shown utter disregard for the lives of any unfortunate Arab who happens to be around an Israeli when he gets shot at with rockets, why should we expect different treatment with unconventional weapons? Because of quantity? The Hezzbollah fired over 3,000 rockets!

 

[Old Spice]

Yes against small countries like Iran almost all the nukes will be rendered harmless by a bombing campaign. However if one, just one gets through (and the risk is very high, especially when the silos are hidden and/or close range) then the explosion will be devestating

My only fear would be then that one of those nukes could make it into the US on something other then a missle. The only people who have to worry are in that one country with all the Jews in it, I can't seem to remember the name of it.

Anyway I don't think Iran has a ICBM project so I don't feel any threat from them having one. And a small one in a suit case would be of very limited power.

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

The sites in Iran are much further away than the sites that were bombed in Iraq. Exactly how are the fighter/bombers supposed to get there and back? There is this little matter of 'operational range' you may want to consider......stupid rolleyes smiley

Tanker planes.

And do you have direct evidence that Iran is attempting to develop nuclear weapons? I mean cold hard facts instead of mistranslated rhetoric from a politicians speech or misguided opinions?

 

[MobBoss]

Tanker planes.

Now tell me oh wise one. Exactly how are Israeli tanker aircraft supposed to survive in enemy controlled airspace? Do you really think a large, slow refueler is going to fly over Jordan, Syria, or Saudia Arabia safe and unopposed?

Hell no.

Do you even know if Israel has this capability? In fact it does, but it is extremely limited. They have two (maybe 4) planes of older models capable of in-flight refueling operations.

Nice try, but such aircraft would never be within 40-80 miles of hostile airspace. They are simply too vulnerable.

And do you have direct evidence that Iran is attempting to develop nuclear weapons? I mean cold hard facts instead of mistranslated rhetoric from a politicians speech or misguided opinions?

Apparently the evidence given the rest of the world convinces them that Iran is developing weapons grade development. Or is the UN all wrong in giving Iran deadlines to comply?

 

[CenturionV]

And do you have direct evidence that Iran is attempting to develop nuclear weapons? I mean cold hard facts instead of mistranslated rhetoric from a politicians speech or misguided opinions?

Who cares? Better to be safe than sorry.

Its simply a matter of using the supperior israeli-supported air and missile power to wipe out irans air defense and largely out of date air force, and then bomb there industry, production and nuclear facilites and ground forces at our leisure.

There is no need to even use ground forces, US air power could literaly destroy iran without ever touching the ground, the most important thing would be to totally mash there infrastructure, both civilian and military, they can't build nukes if they can't even turn on a light or run there hospital equipment, or use there roads to transport food. Cut them up and let there nation die on the vine. Of course few american are likely to have the stomache for a plan like that

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

Now tell me oh wise one. Exactly how are Israeli tanker aircraft supposed to survive in enemy controlled airspace? Do you really think a large, slow refueler is going to fly over Jordan, Syria, or Saudia Arabia safe and unopposed?

Hell no.

Do you even know if Israel has this capability? In fact it does, but it is extremely limited. They have two (maybe 4) planes of older models capable of in-flight refueling operations.

Nice try, but such aircraft would never be within 40-80 miles of hostile airspace. They are simply too vulnerable.

Granted.

There's no need to be sassy, it was just an idea.

I don't think Jordan would dare to shoot down Israeli aircraft, and the Americans would give them free passage over Iraq, but not Syria or Saudi.

Apparently the evidence given the rest of the world convinces them that Iran is developing weapons grade development. Or is the UN all wrong in giving Iran deadlines to comply?

So, no then?

Aren't you of the opinion that the UN is "useless" and "fundamentally flawed" anyways? When did you start putting such vehement faith in such supposed UN beliefs?

 

[amadeus]

A stopped clock is still right twice a day.

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

A stopped clock is still right twice a day.

Thank you for your marvelous contribution to this thread.

 

[amadeus]

I'm saying that even despite their stupifying incompetence, the UN is still sometimes (though not often) capable of seeing things that are as clear as the nose on your face.

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

Well, then present to me the cold hard evidence that makes you and your beloved UN so certain that the current democratically elected Iranian administration is pursuing nuclear weapons.

 

[amadeus]

The Iranians told us they were.

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

Citations?

 

[Ramius75]

im actually against IRAN having nuke. but then im sure there is no stopping them and its their right to acquire 1 anyway.

In any case of another "preemptive" strike attempt by the USA or Israel. these 2 countries have no right and business to attack anyone based on their paranoid. The MAD works both way and if Iran decided to attack anyone with nuke. they will probably be attacked back and hence suffer a worse consequences.

History has already proven that the USA only dares to attack anyone they seem to be an easy target. Perhaps its in Iran very own benefits to really acquire a nuke just like north korea.

 

[MobBoss]

I don't think Jordan would dare to shoot down Israeli aircraft, and the Americans would give them free passage over Iraq, but not Syria or Saudi.

I bet Jordan sure as hell would shoot at any unidentified military aircraft in their airspace.

I also disagree that its the Americans call to let them fly over Iraq. Its Iraq's call. Dont kid yourself otherwise - even if it were the Americans call, they wouldnt allow it. It would piss off the natives even more that you thought possible.

you of the opinion that the UN is "useless" and "fundamentally flawed" anyways? When did you start putting such vehement faith in such supposed UN beliefs?

I still think they are useless and funamentally flawed. Reason: They know full well Iran is pursuing nuclear development not just for energy means, and they will give Iran their deadlines and such.....and never, ever do anything to enforce the resolutions they put out.

They are probably right about Iran....but that doesnt mean they will ever do anything meaningful about it.