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

  • Bwaha
    replied
    Iranian Nuke

    Have any of you done research on the type of bomb Iran is building? It's the Little Boy bomb. Very expensive and very dirty. That's why we went with plutonium bomb systems. My problem with such devices is you can make them man portable. It seems to me that if we let them have these bombs we will rue it.

    Leave a comment:


  • USS Wyoming
    replied
    A pretty good discussion here, although the original question posed was asking what the result would in a "what-if". I don't think there is any chance at all of a tactical nuclear strike at Iran installations. Plenty of historical precedence to reflect on that leads me to that conclusion.
    Do I think that Iran would hand off a nuclear device to a terror group bent on attacking the US, if they had that capability? Yes. I just don't think they would risk it because one or two devices would kill a lot of people, but politically in the US it would ensure that hawks sweep out the doves and a retaliatory strike of at least equal proportions be delivered.

    Although, I am attempting to apply sensible reactions to leaders who appear devoted to a theology. Western cultures are nearly incapable of assessing their reactions because the most secular of christians are still pragmatic. The same isn't true among muslims committed to Jihad.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pirateship1982
    replied
    Originally posted by Bwaha View Post
    I think Israel will be the one that solves this problem. I just hope that it is with conventional weapons. I just wish we could get the people who follow Islam to play nice with people that don't agree with them. I mean look at the Sunni vs Shia conflict. Both are Muslim factions who cheerfully blow each others mosques up. Religion of peace my arse. Sorry if I offended anyone, but I really am worried about these people possessing nukes.
    Indeed. And welcome aboard Bwaha!

    Is that your evil laugh? We once had a debate over whether Bwaha or Mwaha was the proper evil laugh.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bwaha
    replied
    I think Israel will be the one that solves this problem. I just hope that it is with conventional weapons. I just wish we could get the people who follow Islam to play nice with people that don't agree with them. I mean look at the Sunni vs Shia conflict. Both are Muslim factions who cheerfully blow each others mosques up. Religion of peace my arse. Sorry if I offended anyone, but I really am worried about these people possessing nukes.

    Leave a comment:


  • King Arthur
    replied
    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.
    Saying that have America? How many wars are they in and how many is Iran in? In the last 80ish years America has bombed 40 countries and is the only country to use nukes?

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • copenhagen
    replied
    Gentleman stop fighting. This is the war room!

    Leave a comment:


  • Dibble201Bty
    replied
    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.....

    Leave a comment:


  • Pirateship1982
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • killemall
    replied
    probably not but it would be interesting to see on cnn or something

    Leave a comment:


  • Pirateship1982
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • redcoat
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Pirateship1982
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • redcoat
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X