America is rearing up to attack Iran... (1 Viewer)

[The Brucemaster]

There's a "crazy" person with a gun in the street!!! What about the other guy who already has shot a few dead??? Which one is more dangerous? The proven assassin or the one who just has a gun?

Guns in themselves are not wrong, The ones who use them wrongly are wrong..... (Vice president of USA ) hahaha

Who has already bombed a country with 2 nukes? Was it Iran, Was it North Korea?
Or was it USA?

Well first of all i really dont think we should be taking the advice of the VP of the USA but thats your prerogative.

Secondly, it is not the past that is the issue here it is the present (Please no-one go philosophical here, technically, yes, everything is in the past).
Currently what is happening is that a fundamentalist leader is demonstrating hostilities to the US and Israel and is simultaneously pursuing a nuclear weapons program.

If you can't figure that one out then you're doing worse than most people.

 

[Analyst]

First of all, your first statement implies you don't know what an assassin is.

second, look at world war II, and the circumstances of Japan. The country was going to fight to the end, and with the respect held for the Emperor, invading Japan would have meant the entire Japanese populace opposing any invasion, so another way had to be found to force their surrender.
Theres a difference between using a nuke to end a war and using it to begin a war.

Well, please elaborate on assassin then??

Also is there any difference between someone who has Killed millions, and who is capable of killing millions?

I think even a 2 year old can tell you the difference...

 

[Analyst]

Well first of all i really dont think we should be taking the advice of the VP of the USA but thats your prerogative.

Secondly, it is not the past that is the issue here it is the present (Please no-one go philosophical here, technically, yes, everything is in the past).
Currently what is happening is that a fundamentalist leader is demonstrating hostilities to the US and Israel and is simultaneously pursuing a nuclear weapons program.

If you can't figure that one out then you're doing worse than most people.

Brave fundamentalist..... so why are we freaking out here in Australia. let America and Israel sort em out (If they can)

 

[davin]

so, you've got no problem if America does nuke, cuz its between America and Israel and Iran? cool deal

 

[The Brucemaster]

Further to that i take it you support a full scale military invasion of Iran aswell?

 

[Analyst]

so, you've got no problem if America does nuke, cuz its between America and Israel and Iran? cool deal

If they can....

 

[Analyst]

Further to that i take it you support a full scale military invasion of Iran aswell?

same response....if they can.... Iran having a weapon is a guarantee they cant be taken over like Iraq was.

 

[The Brucemaster]

I think you're making a dangerous assumption here in that you seem to think nuclear weapons are, at least in this case, defensive in some way.
This is absolutely not the case, nuclear weapons are used to fuck shit up in serious ways and any one who thinks otherwise is naive.

The consequences of a military invasion of Iraq could be enormous.

As I've said, fundamentalist leader + nuclear weapons = problem.
Fundamentalist leader + plus invasion = possible deployment of nuclear weapon.
Deployment of nuclear weapon = shit getting fucked up.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

First sensible thing you've ever posted?

 

[Analyst]

America which is collectivily owned, is more responsible with a nuclear missile than an islamic dictatorship would be.

In recent years we have seen the damage that one muslim with a few kilos of TNT can do. What will one do if they have a nuclear weapon and they hear voices in their head from god telling them that their people have suffered a great injustice at the hands of some infidels?

BOOM.

Pakistan has them, but they are responsible. When you get a country like Iran which is filled with crackpots and no safe guards, AND a leader who wants to flatten Israel, than it's too dangerous.

USA had nukes in 1945....were they responsible? I know nukes are dangerous and I agree to all here on that. If there are no nukes with any country its all gonna be so good. But here, some one having weapons and others not having them is a serious imbalance in power, so I believe the time of the Cold war was better in that way that both the USSR and USA were strong enough to actually deter each other from attacking. that is my whole idea.

 

[Serius]

technically it wasnt a nuke as we know it today, it was a crude 13 kiloton atomic weopon designed to badly damage a city. Basically a firecracker when compared to the standard nuclear weopon armourment of 10 megatones

The bomb was used to destroy two cities [ had to be 2, PM me if you want to know why they couldnt have just used 1] Which effectively savedmillionsof lives[yes millions, this is not a hyperbole]. Why? because at that time Japan was a small, heavily fortified countries with hills, bunkers, hidey holes galore that would make an invasion a very bloody, costly affair. Truth be told i really dont think America could have finished off Japan without bombing it, too many casualties would have been made, every able Japanese citizen would have fought to the death and Japan would end up being a bloodbath.
roughly 150 000 people lost their lives due to the a- bomb

This is vastly different to the Iran scenario
where they either
a) do a first launch and send a weopon to Israel, killing millions and milions of people, Israel would retaliate, creating a 2 big fucking craters in the middle east

b) Should America invade[ highly unlikely] a tactical nuke would be used against the invading force, killing maybe 500 000 people, effectively destroying Americas land dominance and forcing them to retaliate, Tehran would be leveled

c) Either Iran[fixed for davin] directly launches a nuke or hands it over to terrorists to attack America, this would be really fucking bad for Australia

These 3 scenarios are pretty damn bad, which is why i beleive America would prefer to do a bombing run or even a full blown invasion to prevent shit getting blown up

 

[davin]

Serius, with point c, did you mean to say Israel? doesn't seem right in context. Otherwise, I completely agree

 

[Serius]

Yeah i was tired last night, i meant to say Iran

 

[loquasagacious]

his is vastly different to the Iran scenario
where they either
a) do a first launch and send a weopon to Israel, killing millions and milions of people, Israel would retaliate, creating a 2 big fucking craters in the middle east

Iran is not going to launch a nuclear first strike, this is not rational. It may be a theocracy however its behaviour can still be predicted under a general realist paradigm. There is no motivation for a snap nuclear first strike and no potential trigger eg a tense face-to-face territorial dispute eg N.Korea v. S.Korea or Taiwan.

b) Should America invade[ highly unlikely] a tactical nuke would be used against the invading force, killing maybe 500 000 people, effectively destroying Americas land dominance and forcing them to retaliate, Tehran would be leveled

This is the beauty though, if Iran can succede in getting nuclear weapons then America's chances of invading go drastically down, this is a brilliant motivation to get nukes.

As far as killing 500,000 this is a highy unlikely figure for several reasons:
*The invading force is unlikely to be 500,000 strong,
*However strong it is it would be dispersed and thus multiple nuclear strikes would be needed to even approach destroying large chunks of them (the best way to do this being to target the force prior to invasion which is politically untenable and practically impossible due to patriot batteries and aegis cruisers protecting the staging positions.

If however Iran did use a nuke it is unlikley US retaliation would be nuclear (or if it was it would be tactical nukes), the reason again being Irans nuke shortage - were they to posses a nuke stockpile or continue to present a credible threat then yes the US would nuke them right back however it would be more cost-effective and play better in the press for the US to use conventional weaponary and own the fuck out of them.

c) Either Iran[fixed for davin] directly launches a nuke or hands it over to terrorists to attack America, this would be really fucking bad for Australia.

Terrorists might ask Iran for nukes, but Iran has no real motivation to provide them. They are quite expensive and it is hardly in Irans interest to have terrorist nukes going off because Iran would be retaliated against. Also see reasons why they wouldn't first strike.

These 3 scenarios are pretty damn bad, which is why i beleive America would prefer to do a bombing run or even a full blown invasion to prevent shit getting blown up

It is certaily a tense time however the US is going to be wary of a first strike, conventional or otherwise, against Iran because it would do several things not in their interest:
*Isolate Iran and make 'her' more unpredictable
*Force others to redouble their efforts to attain nukes
*Iran would strike back with any nukes that were missed
*Iran would strike back via terrorist proxies
*It would provoke shia insurgents in Iraq
*Iran could even invade Iraq in retaliation which would put already over stretched US forces in a precarious position they would face a well trained and equipped highly motivated force supported by the existing insurgency and elements of the Iraqi govt would certainly sympathise.

 

[The Brucemaster]

Iran is not going to launch a nuclear first strike, this is not rational. It may be a theocracy however its behaviour can still be predicted under a general realist paradigm

I think its a rather dangerous thing to view a nation that denies The Holocaust and the State of Israel under a realist paradigm.

This is the beauty though, if Iran can succede in getting nuclear weapons then America's chances of invading go drastically down, this is a brilliant motivation to get nukes.

Bullshit. If a nation openly hostile to the USA develops nuclear weapons capabilities then the chance of an invasion dramatically increases as Iran would pose a serious threat to US interests in the Middle East a la Israel.

As far as killing 500,000 this is a highy unlikely figure for several reasons:
*The invading force is unlikely to be 500,000 strong,
*However strong it is it would be dispersed and thus multiple nuclear strikes would be needed to even approach destroying large chunks of them (the best way to do this being to target the force prior to invasion which is politically untenable and practically impossible due to patriot batteries and aegis cruisers protecting the staging positions.

Im quite sure the figure was only a rough estimate and not based in reality at all but the point is that a retaliatory nuclear strike against a US invasion would cause a severe loss of life. Furthermore, one cannot simply shoot down a nuclear missile, once its been launched it is in fact less damaging to let it reach its target because destroying it mid-air still causes the nuclear payload to explode (i think, may want to seek clarification) and thus the fallout effect is greatly increased.
In any event, a nuclear strike from Iran on US forces is likely to result in a retaliatory strike from the US.

If however Iran did use a nuke it is unlikley US retaliation would be nuclear (or if it was it would be tactical nukes), the reason again being Irans nuke shortage - were they to posses a nuke stockpile or continue to present a credible threat then yes the US would nuke them right back however it would be more cost-effective and play better in the press for the US to use conventional weaponary and own the fuck out of them.

See above, but also look at what happened in Iraq where the USA used conventional weaponry to "own the fuck out of them"
I think its highly unlikely that the US is going to follow up a nuclear strike on its military with a conventional assault.

 

[HotShot]

This is vastly different to the Iran scenario
where they either
a) do a first launch and send a weopon to Israel, killing millions and milions of people, Israel would retaliate, creating a 2 big fucking craters in the middle east

i dont think iran would nuke israel, simply cos of the surroundings -lol a lot of arab states wont be happy with them -esp the palestinians. That wont happen. what iran could laucnch some small missiles and then get their asses kicked by israel. militarily iran stands no chance against israel.

they simply like to say 'fuck israel', like lot of us do.

 

[loquasagacious]

I think its a rather dangerous thing to view a nation that denies The Holocaust and the State of Israel under a realist paradigm.

Have you heard of marketing/PR? Iranian leaders win easy points/kudos by saying these things, it doesn't mean it governs their behaviour. And even given this a realist paradigm can be used as long as Iran is considered a rational actor.

Bullshit. If a nation openly hostile to the USA develops nuclear weapons capabilities then the chance of an invasion dramatically increases as Iran would pose a serious threat to US interests in the Middle East a la Israel.

You don't understand do you? Once a country has nuclear arms the risk is too high to invade. To invade a nuclearily armed state is to say "i accept the possibility - nay probability, that you will nuke me". And nobody wants to be nuked.

In this was nukes are a deterrant, you may note a nuclearily armed state has never been invaded or even seriously provoked.

Im quite sure the figure was only a rough estimate and not based in reality at all

Perhaps this sums up your argument? You made a bold sensationalist statement and then admit when pressed that you pulled it out of your arse and it is not based in reality at all.

but the point is that a retaliatory nuclear strike against a US invasion would cause a severe loss of life.

Claps hands and gives a gold star. Congratulations for stating the obvious and if you will forgive me I will do the same because you seem to have missed it: Because of the severe loss of life involved in invading Iran the US will not invade.

Furthermore, one cannot simply shoot down a nuclear missile, once its been launched it is in fact less damaging to let it reach its target because destroying it mid-air still causes the nuclear payload to explode (i think, may want to seek clarification) and thus the fallout effect is greatly increased.

So a bold statement and then you say it needs clarification - talk about a cop out. I'll clarify it for you: Nuclear weapons are suprisingly inert because unless detonated (collapsed to creat a fissionable mass) very precisely they will not explode. Yes the radioactive material that would otherwise be trigged and explode mushroom cloud style would get spread around abit by this.

However one simply can and one simply does shoot down a nuclear missile because it is infinately preferable to spread a little radiation similar even to a dirty bomb and cause some radiation poisoning deaths than for a nuclear bomb to be detonated over a city (or a fleet, though numbers differ)and kill instantly several million people and shortly after several million more from burns, poisoning etc. In addition to immense material damage.

This is why Moscow and St Petersburg are ringed by missile batteries specifically designed to take down an incoming nuke and why the US continues to investigate a 'missile shield'.

In any event, a nuclear strike from Iran on US forces is likely to result in a retaliatory strike from the US.

Why? Explain why. The american public would demand a response however given the strategic impetuous of occupying the area (and the original reason to invade and occupy) it does not make much sense to turn Iran into a nuclear wasteland.

Furthermore it invalidates any claim to moral high ground which could be milked for all manner of benefits.

 

[HotShot]

loquasagacious pretty much sums the situtation between iran and america. that is as is see it:

• America will not invade
• Iran will not nuke israel
• america may use bunker buster nukes
• iran will not invade israel
• a slight chance of israel invading iran (unlikely)
• israel may nuke iran -against america's will

why? iran has no militaric power to invade or destroy israel. no chance. iran invadin iraq i find will be biggest mistake that the iranian general would makes, its like asking the world to go againt iran. WW3 only that iran and north korea vs rest of the world.

only ally i can see to iran, is maybe syria and nrth korea. i dont think hamas will endanger their country of palestince simply to overthrow israel or destroy western values.

 

[davin]

In this was nukes are a deterrant, you may note a nuclearily armed state has never been invaded or even seriously provoked.

How do you define seriously provoked?
I'd think the U.S. has been fairly well provoked with things like 9/11, and England by its own attack. Russia has been provoked by attacks from Chechens. If we just want to use the term 'provoked' thats rather vague
Also, Israel is thought to have had nukes in the 60s, but Israel was attacked in 1973 in the Yom Kippur War

 

[loquasagacious]

* a slight chance of israel invading iran (unlikely)
* israel may nuke iran -against america's will

Israel can not invade Iran, they do not have the manpower, more importantly they have no way of getting there - unless you assume they will invade and occupy Syria and part of Iraq and then invade Iran. Which would incidently provoke a response from: Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Turkey and Iraq.

Israel will not engage in a nuclear first strike they can not afford the political fallout. Israels nukes will only ever be used in a last ditch measure to stave off being over-run.

iran invadin iraq i find will be biggest mistake that the iranian general would makes, its like asking the world to go againt iran. WW3 only that iran and north korea vs rest of the world.

This is not true as were they attacked by a US first strike Iran would have a legitimate Casus Belli to invade iraq. Also the world's armies are not in a position to fight Iran.

There is potential for limited NATO involvement via afghanistan and Turkey however western forces bar US would largely be uninvolved.

It would serve to islamicise the conflict a theocratic muslim Iranian state goes to war against a godless/christian agressor, the US, and in defence of muslim brothers under attack in Iraq.

Syria would logically align with Iran, it would flame tensions in Saudi Arabia enough to bring down the regime and possibly the new rulers would align with Iran which would surround the US.

It would place pressure on Jordan and Engypt to turn away from the US.

It would inflame tensions in Turkey however turkey would align with the west and likely attack northern iraq to deny a kurdish state and to combat Iran.

How do you define seriously provoked?
I'd think the U.S. has been fairly well provoked with things like 9/11, and England by its own attack. Russia has been provoked by attacks from Chechens. If we just want to use the term 'provoked' thats rather vague.

These are not serious provocations a serious provocation would be a direct attack from a defined enemy who can be struck back at or seriously inflammed border tension with invasion looming.

Also, Israel is thought to have had nukes in the 60s, but Israel was attacked in 1973 in the Yom Kippur War

The question is whether Israel had operational nukes or not, which in the 60s I doubt my limited understanding being that their programme got underway in the 70s with the help of apartheid South Africa.

And even if Israel did, were her attackers aware.

I have since thought of one altercation which did almost go nuclear and that was between China and Russia and centred on a border dispute.

Though I will point out that nukes have never been used since 1945 despite conflicts involving nuclear powers which indicates how loathe people are to use them.