Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Dec 31, 2008. USAF nukes several iranian nuclear facilities - what then?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Redwolf View Post
    I don't think there would be that much fallout from a U.S. attack on specific small targets. Not enough fuel in there and the efficiency (the amount of nuclear fission fuel actually converted to energy and not just splattered into the air) is very high these days.

    Of course that wouldn't keep people from complaining to Washington
    Possible consequences...

    Its likely that such a US action would seriously affect the availability of crude oil to America. This may have been mentioned before, but not in the context of electrical power generation for which oil accounts for (I believe) at least 20% of electrical energy produced. Now if we assume that oil shortages will affect the USA, then its citizens will have an interesting choice. Either walk to work, school or the mall or have upto 20% of the country without light, heat and the ability to cook or store food.

    If the above extended over any significant time period, just what would the American peoples reaction be?

    Regards

    Gaz

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by allsirgarnet View Post
      Possible consequences...

      Its likely that such a US action would seriously affect the availability of crude oil to America. This may have been mentioned before, but not in the context of electrical power generation for which oil accounts for (I believe) at least 20% of electrical energy produced. Now if we assume that oil shortages will affect the USA, then its citizens will have an interesting choice. Either walk to work, school or the mall or have upto 20% of the country without light, heat and the ability to cook or store food.

      If the above extended over any significant time period, just what would the American peoples reaction be?

      Regards

      Gaz
      It will, as it is now, be three reactions. 1. Take control of oil sources. 2. alter energy use (effciency) in response to energy available. 3. Invest in other energy sources. Exactly which has priority in the shorter term depends on the variables of US & global politics. In the longer term both Two & Three are indicated by underlying trends of the past three decades.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by redcoat View Post
        If that was true you might have a point, but it isn't, so you don't.
        Oh brother! So Iran is just kidding when they call us the great Satan! And all of their funding of Islamic terrorism is just a big misunderstanding, is that it? All the warnings of war and woe as long as we support Israel is just a private joke that no one takes seriously?
        A new life awaits you in the off world colonies; the chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure!

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by pirateship1982 View Post
          Oh brother! So Iran is just kidding when they call us the great Satan! And all of their funding of Islamic terrorism is just a big misunderstanding, is that it? All the warnings of war and woe as long as we support Israel is just a private joke that no one takes seriously?
          What you wrote was " How exactly is it satanic to nuke a civilization that wants to kill every man woman and child of your civilization?".
          While I'm aware that Iran is totally opposed to Israel and US involvement in the middle east it has never has, as far as I'm aware, expressed any desire to wipe out the population of the USA as you claimed.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by redcoat View Post
            What you wrote was " How exactly is it satanic to nuke a civilization that wants to kill every man woman and child of your civilization?".
            While I'm aware that Iran is totally opposed to Israel and US involvement in the middle east it has never has, as far as I'm aware, expressed any desire to wipe out the population of the USA as you claimed.
            They may never have put that thought to official paper but when they fund people who shout Death to America and don suicide vests I think we can infer that they agree with said ideology. If they didn't desire the fall of the west they wouldn't be funding those who do. It would be kind of like saying the fact that the Soviet Union funded communist guerillas is no indicator that they wish to spread communism.

            Plenty of Iranians were cheering when 9/11 happened.
            A new life awaits you in the off world colonies; the chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure!

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by pirateship1982 View Post
              Plenty of Iranians were cheering when 9/11 happened.
              At the time of 9/11 the Iranians were the only nation supporting the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan fighting against the Taliban and al-Qaeda.

              Iran is an enemy of al-Qaeda.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by redcoat View Post
                At the time of 9/11 the Iranians were the only nation supporting the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan fighting against the Taliban and al-Qaeda.

                Iran is an enemy of al-Qaeda.
                And yet according to the CIA Factbook:

                In December 2006 and March 2007, the international community passed resolutions 1737 and 1747 respectively after Iran failed to comply with UN demands to halt the enrichment of uranium or to agree to full IAEA oversight of its nuclear program. In October 2007, Iranian entities were also subject to US sanctions under EO 13382 designations for proliferation activities and EO 13224 designations for providing material support to the Taliban and other terrorist organizations.

                Incidentally the Northern Alliance fought the Taliban, not the Al-Qaida. Iran's differences in that conflict were entirely political. When it comes to anti-US extremism they are kindred spirits.

                The problem here is that you are citing Iran's stated paper policies and I am stating what they actually do. The citizens did cheer on 9/11, the country does fund terrorism. They can say they won't fire a nuke at us all they want but their actual behavior doesn't make that argument any more convincing then a guy with MS-13 tatoos and a switchblade telling me I can trust him standing behind me in a dark alley. You can't take stated official policy at face value, you have to judge behavior patterns as well. Otherwise you're just asking to be a victim of subterfuge.
                A new life awaits you in the off world colonies; the chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure!

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by pirateship1982 View Post

                  Incidentally the Northern Alliance fought the Taliban, not the Al-Qaida. Iran's differences in that conflict were entirely political.
                  No, it far deeper than that, the differences are religious ones. Iran is a Shi'a Muslim nation and Al-Qaida is a Sunni Muslim terrorist organisation.
                  To Al-Qaida Iran is a nation of heretics who should be wiped of the face of the earth
                  When it comes to anti-US extremism they are kindred spirits.
                  While they both dislike US involvement in the middle east, Iran has never been linked with any terror attacks in the USA

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by redcoat View Post
                    No, it far deeper than that, the differences are religious ones. Iran is a Shi'a Muslim nation and Al-Qaida is a Sunni Muslim terrorist organisation.
                    To Al-Qaida Iran is a nation of heretics who should be wiped of the face of the earth

                    While they both dislike US involvement in the middle east, Iran has never been linked with any terror attacks in the USA
                    That's because the only terror attack on US Soil these past few years was 9/11. THEY ARE CURRENTLY FUNDING ANTI-US TERRORIST GROUPS. Why do you keep glazing over that issue? Who cares if they weren't funding terrorism before 9/11. They are now e.g. they are a threat. And if they are funding them they approve of their behavior and just because there have been no attacks on US soil doesn't mean the enemy isn't trying. And if they approve of their behavior there is no reason not to suspect they wouldn't hand these terrorists a nuke or take a shot at Israel; which happens to be a US ally BTW so bombing Iran on Israel's behalf is just as justified as bombing them on our's.
                    A new life awaits you in the off world colonies; the chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure!

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      probably not but it would be interesting to see on cnn or something
                      Oh Sure The Old Man's Off His Rocker If Grampa Says He's Dead He Must Be Alive
                      Grampa Simpson

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by pirateship1982 View Post
                        That's because the only terror attack on US Soil these past few years was 9/11. THEY ARE CURRENTLY FUNDING ANTI-US TERRORIST GROUPS. Why do you keep glazing over that issue? Who cares if they weren't funding terrorism before 9/11. They are now e.g. they are a threat. And if they are funding them they approve of their behavior and just because there have been no attacks on US soil doesn't mean the enemy isn't trying. And if they approve of their behavior there is no reason not to suspect they wouldn't hand these terrorists a nuke or take a shot at Israel; which happens to be a US ally BTW so bombing Iran on Israel's behalf is just as justified as bombing them on our's.

                        One thing I think is kinda skewed is how people think the Irainians will give terrorists a nuke.

                        Now, if they did that, they might take out a city, but we will trace the bomb and turn Iran into a well done chili dog.

                        I think if terroists smuggle nukes into the U.S., they prob. won't get over half a megaton, on the other hand, we could drop over 50+ megatons on Iran with just 1 submarine.


                        Now, if the Iranian leaders have any sense at all, for you see, they cannot be fanatical lunatics if they run a country, they will not nuke the U.S. as teh U.S. counter strike will likely wipe out Iran and most of the Shi'a moslem population off the planet. Now, who will carry out the Jihad against the jews and the crusaders.

                        You must recognize that get to rule a non-democratic country like Iran, and live through the Shahs regime and the revolution, you must be a pretty clever S.O.B. Now, I think the Iranian leaders are smart enough recognize that attacking the U.S. would mean the end of them, their country, and most of there religion

                        So, I think a nuclear Iran would not be a bad thing.

                        Now the Israelis got nukes, and they were and are ready to use them more than anyone else, and they haven't made Damascus disappear under a mushroom cloud.

                        If we had some thing like MAD in the middle east, that might bring a little bit of stability to the region.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Ace_General View Post
                          One thing I think is kinda skewed is how people think the Irainians will give terrorists a nuke.

                          Now, if they did that, they might take out a city, but we will trace the bomb and turn Iran into a well done chili dog.
                          I would have two problems with this. One - I am not sure it is as easy to trace nukes as it seems in The Sum of All Fears. Even if we traced it back to Iranian funded terrorists the Iranians would pull plausible deniability and claim it stolen and most of the world, out of stupidity or hatred for the US, would buy it and insist we not retaliate and I doubt if our leader to be has the brass ones required to say no to world opinion.

                          Two - I am not willing to sacrifice the millions of people in one US big city in the interests of not hitting Iran first. They have made their intentions plain and I won't sacrifice one US life to wait for them to make the first move.

                          Originally posted by Ace_General View Post
                          I think if terroists smuggle nukes into the U.S., they prob. won't get over half a megaton, on the other hand, we could drop over 50+ megatons on Iran with just 1 submarine.
                          I don't care how many megatons are involved. I'm not generous with the expenditure of my countrymen's lives. If the only projected casualty was a geriatric smoker not expected to live two days I wouldn't tolerate it. Our lives are not for sale.

                          Originally posted by Ace_General View Post
                          Now, if the Iranian leaders have any sense at all, for you see, they cannot be fanatical lunatics if they run a country, they will not nuke the U.S. as teh U.S. counter strike will likely wipe out Iran and most of the Shi'a moslem population off the planet. Now, who will carry out the Jihad against the jews and the crusaders.
                          Au contraire, fanatical lunatics are notorious for getting into the country running biz. Hitler anyone? Stalin, Kim Jong Il, Pol Pot, Jimmy Carter. Country destroying nutcases abound.

                          The whole reason I fear Iran with one nuke more than Russia with 10,000 is that Muslim extremists don't care whether they die as long as they get their target. And I think that these guys think (rightly so) that they can keep anti-US world opinion on their side and keep Obama politically pinned down.

                          Originally posted by Ace_General View Post
                          You must recognize that get to rule a non-democratic country like Iran, and live through the Shahs regime and the revolution, you must be a pretty clever S.O.B. Now, I think the Iranian leaders are smart enough recognize that attacking the U.S. would mean the end of them, their country, and most of there religion
                          Hitler was clever enough to get command of all of Germany and that didn't stop him from ruining his country by running it to extinction in a two front war. Russian politics are every bit as bloody as Iranian when Stalin came to power and he wasn't too healthy for his country either. People can be crafty in the art of getting power and absolute fools on foreign policy. Being good at one thing doesn't make you good at everything.

                          Originally posted by Ace_General View Post
                          Now the Israelis got nukes, and they were and are ready to use them more than anyone else, and they haven't made Damascus disappear under a mushroom cloud.
                          They haven't been threatening to either. Iran has been threatening Israel.

                          Originally posted by Ace_General View Post
                          If we had some thing like MAD in the middle east, that might bring a little bit of stability to the region.
                          The US believed that life was sacred enough that it shouldn't be destroyed without neccessity. The Soviets wanted an earthly empire and didn't want theirs to be blown off of the face of the earth.

                          Militant Muslims possess neither the care of human life nor the instinct of self-preservation required to make MAD work. Besides, what does Iran need nukes to defend against other than an angry US and Israel that they have wronged. So what does it benefit us to let them have the nukes? Better we hit them before they can level cities in return. They haven't demonstrated the cultural maturity neccessary to manage nukes nor the inclination to be peaceful in keeping them so I see no reason to let them have any.
                          A new life awaits you in the off world colonies; the chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure!

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Why do I hear the dulcet tones of Vera Lynn singing 'We'll meet again'? And a man in a wheelchair giving an involuntary Nazi salute.....
                            ‘Tis said his form is tiny, yet
                            All human ills he can subdue,
                            Or with a bauble or medal
                            Can win mans heart for you;
                            And many a blessing know to stew
                            To make a megloamaniac bright;
                            Give honour to the dainty Corse,
                            The Pixie is a little shite.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Gentleman stop fighting. This is the war room!

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by pirateship1982 View Post
                                I would have two problems with this. One - I am not sure it is as easy to trace nukes as it seems in The Sum of All Fears. Even if we traced it back to Iranian funded terrorists the Iranians would pull plausible deniability and claim it stolen and most of the world, out of stupidity or hatred for the US, would buy it and insist we not retaliate and I doubt if our leader to be has the brass ones required to say no to world opinion.

                                Two - I am not willing to sacrifice the millions of people in one US big city in the interests of not hitting Iran first. They have made their intentions plain and I won't sacrifice one US life to wait for them to make the first move.



                                I don't care how many megatons are involved. I'm not generous with the expenditure of my countrymen's lives. If the only projected casualty was a geriatric smoker not expected to live two days I wouldn't tolerate it. Our lives are not for sale.



                                Au contraire, fanatical lunatics are notorious for getting into the country running biz. Hitler anyone? Stalin, Kim Jong Il, Pol Pot, Jimmy Carter. Country destroying nutcases abound.

                                The whole reason I fear Iran with one nuke more than Russia with 10,000 is that Muslim extremists don't care whether they die as long as they get their target. And I think that these guys think (rightly so) that they can keep anti-US world opinion on their side and keep Obama politically pinned down.



                                Hitler was clever enough to get command of all of Germany and that didn't stop him from ruining his country by running it to extinction in a two front war. Russian politics are every bit as bloody as Iranian when Stalin came to power and he wasn't too healthy for his country either. People can be crafty in the art of getting power and absolute fools on foreign policy. Being good at one thing doesn't make you good at everything.



                                They haven't been threatening to either. Iran has been threatening Israel.



                                The US believed that life was sacred enough that it shouldn't be destroyed without neccessity. The Soviets wanted an earthly empire and didn't want theirs to be blown off of the face of the earth.

                                Militant Muslims possess neither the care of human life nor the instinct of self-preservation required to make MAD work. Besides, what does Iran need nukes to defend against other than an angry US and Israel that they have wronged. So what does it benefit us to let them have the nukes? Better we hit them before they can level cities in return. They haven't demonstrated the cultural maturity neccessary to manage nukes nor the inclination to be peaceful in keeping them so I see no reason to let them have any.

                                Well, if we go in a conventional war with iran, it will be just as bad, and, call me a bastard, but if we use nukes, we can pretty much end the war quick, now it won't be pretty, but it would be quicker than fighting a ground war and isrugency in iran and fighting most of the Sh'ia moslem population.

                                And if we get nuked by Iran and Obama dosn't nuke back, me and a good 100,000 angry americans packing heat will show up at the white house and central navel command , secret service be damned.


                                I think thou that the Israelis will try to hit Irans nuke production and fail, (they got advanced ruskie air defense and all there facilities are hardened)

                                Then we get dragged into a war we don't want and ****** oil traders will drive oil to like $400 a barrel

                                This is a messed up situation all around


                                Lt. Ace_General

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X