old europe wrote:That nutjob Ahmadingsbums was, after all, elected in the most democratic election in Iran's recent history.
I don't know how this election compares with past Iranian elections, but I remember that they prevented all the moderate and progressive candidates from running for office.
Cycloptichorn wrote:I think you probably intended to say 'you think it's wise to allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons.'
To which the answer is obviously, 'it isn't in our best interests, but they haven't acted aggressively towards us and
They haven't???
I seem to remember a bunch of terrorist attacks and kidnappings over the years.
Wolf_ODonnell wrote:oralloy wrote:What backlash?
Amongst the Muslim world. You see, there are many non-democracies in the Middle East. The Muslims will be persuaded that the American invasion is solely because of oil or that its some Christian crusade against Islam.
The backlash from the Middle East will be very powerful.
I'm not sure what they can do to us.
I can see Iran shelling Baghdad and Tel Aviv, and their anti-ship missiles are a big concern if they have Sunburns or Sizzlers, but I don't see the threat outside from that.
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:>Armchair generals who find it "interesting" to contemplate the battle between supersonic anti ship missles and various countermeasures should be offered a seat on the foredeck of a destroyer.
Destroyers are not likely to be a prime target. What they want to do is sink a carrier.
That would be easier said than done, but if they do have Sunburns or Sizzlers, and the missiles can overcome our defenses, they could blow open the side of a carrier (like what happened to the Cole but on a larger scale).
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:>the only way to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons is to convince them they dont need them. Sanctions, threats, or military strikes are completely counter productive in that regard.
I don't think this is a case of them thinking they need them. It is more a case that they want them, to aid in their international aggression.
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:>There is a lot to talk about. Its time for some serious jaw jaw not war war.
>Here's what should be on the agenda for starters
>Nuclear disarmament in the middle east
>Security of trade through the straights of Hormuz
>State sponsorship of terrorism
>Oil
>Israel and Palestine
Israel disarming is as bad as Iran arming. The goal should be to keep Israel secure from Islamic aggression.
And it looks to me like the Israel/Palestine thing has already been solved. They'll build their wall, and then make it their permanent border, giving the Palestinians what is left.
It is ludicrous to think that the Persians would be so stupid as to attack Americans without direct provocation. Political or religious fanaticism does not axiomatically entail suicidal stupidity. France and England are reported to be preparing resolutions for introduction to the Security Council to impose sanctions on Iran if they do not open their nuclear program to inspections, and desist immediately from any efforts to develop nuclear weapons. The only threat that Iran could make with nuclear weapons would be an attack on American military forces, or an attack on a neighbor or on Israel. In the former case, we have reference to a suicidal move on the part of the Mullahs, who are the real power in Iran, let the Persian President rattle his sabre never so loudly. In the latter cases (attacks on neighbors or on Israel), Iran once again risks a devastating response on the part of the United States. Attacking Iran would endager the United States far more than would the mere possession of nuclear weapons by the Persians--what little respect the United States retains in the world community, thanks to our current inept, rogue regime, would be destroyed, and the number of suicidal, fanatical Muslims willing to attempt to attack the United States, or Americans elsewhere in the world would only increase. The simple possibility of an attack on Israel does not warrant any such action on our part--there is no value in our relationship with Israel which warrants illegal military action.
Sanctions won't satisfy the cowboys among us who want to form a posse and ride in to get a Persian regime whom they dislike. That's really too bad. Far too many Americans are self-deluded into believing we have a right to act unilaterally if we merely suggest that there were a threat to us, or to Israel. Sanctions are a slow method which won't appeal to the cowboys, but that's a problem of the cowboys, and not the nation as a whole. As i have stated elsewhere, Americans may be obliged to accept that they cannot control the actions of every other nation in the world. The sabre rattling is disgusting, the more so when the only reason is a putative threat to Israel--we have no brief to defend Israel to the extent of endangering ourselves in a manner which would not otherwise occur. It is entirely possible that there is nothing we can, by ourselves, do about this. The war-mongering conservative jerks among us need to get over it.
oralloy wrote:I'm not sure what they can do to us. I can see Iran shelling Baghdad and Tel Aviv, and their anti-ship missiles are a big concern if they have Sunburns or Sizzlers, but I don't see the threat outside from that.
Whatever Iran's current intentions towards nuclear weapons, if the US strikes, they WILL in time acquire them, even if they have to buy them from A Q Khan's network. Iran brought down PanAm 104 over Scotland in revenge for the Vincenes shooting down their Airbus. They have quite literally an army of willing martyrs. It only takes one with a smuggled mini nuclear weapon to destroy a mid sized city in the US and you would never know who did it or why.
I don't think your thesis is sound. It would entail smuggling the necessary materials into the United States. Certainly what passes for security at our ports is a joke. Nevertheless, i don't think it is reasonable to assert that any fantatic of any stripe could smuggle a nuclear device into the United States (or a European nation, for that matter), nor the necessary materials to be assembled in situ.
According to most experts going to war with Iran will set off a chain of terror attacks from Muslims around the world. Not only that but our troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan will be at risk.
Experts Speak: No Good Military Options in Iran
Strikes on Iran too risky, says US general
Setanta wrote:I don't think your thesis is sound. It would entail smuggling the necessary materials into the United States. Certainly what passes for security at our ports is a joke. Nevertheless, i don't think it is reasonable to assert that any fantatic of any stripe could smuggle a nuclear device into the United States (or a European nation, for that matter), nor the necessary materials to be assembled in situ.
Well of course I hope you are right and it did occur to me that plutonium gives off a gamma ray signature which is probably detectable from space. Nevertheless its nuclear terrorism which really frightens me. And it would take sponsorship from some truly wryled nuclear country to pull it off.
The core thesis of those who are ranting for military action against Iran is that the Persians are a threat. They usually don't bother to articulate the threat. Oralloy, at least, has done so. The probability of Iran threatening the United States or Europe is, i think, low. The biggest threat they would pose would be to American or English military already in the middle east, or to Israel. I've already given notice that i don't consider Isreal worth fighting for--let them look to their own defense. If they attack the American or English military in the middle east with nukes, they greatly increase the odds that Iran will be translated by Divine Vengeance into a parking lot.
I realize that among a lot of the pro Iraq war crowd (for lack of a better phrase) France is hardly a nation to care about their opinions, however, France is one of the western nations who are concerned about Iran's nuclear power.
France says military action won't solve Iran
Quote:PARIS (Reuters) - Military action is not a "magic wand" that can be used to resolve the international community's standoff with Iran over its nuclear programme, French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin said on Thursday.
He said the international community must look at what tools can be used to put pressure on Iran but said military action in Iraq and the Middle East showed that it was not a solution.
"My conviction is that military action is certainly no solution," Villepin told a monthly news conference.
"You know as I do the situation in the Middle East, in Iraq and the Near East, the idea that by waving the magic wand for a military shortcut we are going to solve the Iranian problem doesn't seem to me today to be something to talk about."
oralloy wrote:I'm not sure what they can do to us.
I can see Iran shelling Baghdad and Tel Aviv, and their anti-ship missiles are a big concern if they have Sunburns or Sizzlers, but I don't see the threat outside from that.
Yeah, I doubt Iran would be doing that, because I said the backlash would be in response to a military operation. Think Iraq. American Troops will be in Iran, don't you know? You think the Iranians will welcome them with open arms? Yes, some will, but others will be blowing them up to Kingdom come.
Setanta wrote:Sanctions won't satisfy the cowboys among us who want to form a posse and ride in to get a Persian regime whom they dislike. That's really too bad. Far too many Americans are self-deluded into believing we have a right to act unilaterally if we merely suggest that there were a threat to us, or to Israel. Sanctions are a slow method which won't appeal to the cowboys, but that's a problem of the cowboys, and not the nation as a whole. As i have stated elsewhere, Americans may be obliged to accept that they cannot control the actions of every other nation in the world. The sabre rattling is disgusting, the more so when the only reason is a putative threat to Israel--we have no brief to defend Israel to the extent of endangering ourselves in a manner which would not otherwise occur. It is entirely possible that there is nothing we can, by ourselves, do about this. The war-mongering conservative jerks among us need to get over it.
I can accept sanctions, if they are possible.
But it looks to me like China and Russia plan to prevent any sanctions from taking place.
Regarding Israel, if the world fails to prevent Iran from gaining nukes, we should ditch the NPT and give direct aid to Israel's nuclear program, to make sure Iran has a strong deterrent against attacking Israel.
Isreal's nuclear program doesn't need any help from us at all; they have more than enough ordinance to keep Iran in check if Nuking was the way they decided to go.
Cycloptichorn
Wolf_ODonnell wrote:oralloy wrote:I'm not sure what they can do to us.
I can see Iran shelling Baghdad and Tel Aviv, and their anti-ship missiles are a big concern if they have Sunburns or Sizzlers, but I don't see the threat outside from that.
Yeah, I doubt Iran would be doing that, because I said the backlash would be in response to a military operation.
You don't think they would retaliate by attacking our ships, and attacking Baghdad and Tel Aviv? Why not?
Do you think they have the anti-ship missiles?
Wolf_ODonnell wrote:Think Iraq. American Troops will be in Iran, don't you know? You think the Iranians will welcome them with open arms? Yes, some will, but others will be blowing them up to Kingdom come.
Bombing Iran does not involve sending troops into the country.
Although one alternative to using a nuke on that bunker is to make a large ground invasion to capture the bunker, blow it up from the inside, and then withdraw from the country once the bunker is destroyed.
Cycloptichorn wrote:Isreal's nuclear program doesn't need any help from us at all; they have more than enough ordinance to keep Iran in check if Nuking was the way they decided to go.
Cycloptichorn
There are some significant upgrades that could be made. We could swap their atomic warheads for some nice little thermonuclear warheads, for instance.
And whatever nuclear cruise missiles they currently use on their submarines could be replaced with Tomahawk missiles. (And in much grater numbers than they currently deploy.)
And we could pay for them to have a bunch more subs made, for more nuclear platforms. As I recall, they were going to buy two more from Germany, but couldn't manage the funding.
oralloy wrote:You don't think they would retaliate by attacking our ships, and attacking Baghdad and Tel Aviv? Why not?
Do you think they have the anti-ship missiles?
I was talking about after Terhan falls. I'm sorry I didn't make that clear that I was talking about the after effects.
Quote:Wolf_ODonnell wrote:Think Iraq. American Troops will be in Iran, don't you know? You think the Iranians will welcome them with open arms? Yes, some will, but others will be blowing them up to Kingdom come.
Bombing Iran does not involve sending troops into the country.
For some strange reason I was thinking you had advocated a full scale invasion. Upon reading your previous posts, which you couldn't possibly have edited, it would appear that you weren't. How bizarre...
And in that respect, yes, they would attack Baghdad and Tel Aviv, so therefore a bombing run on Iran would be a bad idea. It's the retaliation, you see.
There exists a huge amount of doubt that any sort of bombing attack would have the effects we wished, even if we did use tactical nukes on the sites.
Cycloptichorn
