Iran's Nuclear Plans

[Rhianne]

To be clear - do we think the Iranians have no right to defend themselves?

[xoxoxoBruce]

I think we've expended too much blood and treasure on Israel already. Netanyahu reminds me of a playground instigator, it's about time to bitch slap him and tell him he's not calling the shots. Don't forget Israel is a military ally not a friend.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

I think we've expended too much blood and treasure on Israel already. Netanyahu reminds me of a playground instigator, it's about time to bitch slap him and tell him he's not calling the shots. Don't forget Israel is a military ally not a friend.

Agreed. We made an obligation to help protect Israel from attack, not support if they are going on the offensive.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Agreed. We made an obligation to help protect Israel from attack, not support if they are going on the offensive.

Although there are improved Minuteman anit-missile missiles in Israel, I believe there is no proven defense currently, against a nuclear attack. Could be aerial bombs or missiles, or even trucks, used for delivery of the nuclear bomb.

You either remove the threat of such an attack, or you risk receiving it - period. At some point, you take the offensive, because it's your only defense.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Adak

You either remove the threat of such an attack, or you risk receiving it - period. At some point, you take the offensive, because it's your only defense.

First, you are making the assumption that Iran will use the nuclear weapon on Israel. While there is a chance, both the intelligence agencies of the US and Israel do not believe they will.

Second, you are assuming we can eliminate Iran's nuclear program. We can't without a ground war.

Third, you are not addressing the consequences of attacking Iran. What will they, and the international community, do in response. If we attack on a highly speculative reason, we will get blamed for Iran's response. This is not good for US interests.

Because the Iranians have shown that they favor supporting terrorism, over several decades, now.

What about Pakistan?

We've seen that spending trillions of dollars on Green energy, has gotten us next to nothing for an adequate power supply. Truth is, wind and solar just don't have the "oomph!" that we need for our power supply. Windmills may look quite impressive, but their actual power output per windmill, averaged over a year, is much too small to serve our needs.

Same with solar. It's nice on a sunny day, but just not adequate by a long shot. And no, adding them together is not NEARLY enough. A drop in the bucket x 2 is not near enough.

The same thing was said about shale gas/oil extraction ten years ago. Technology improves rapidly and can completely change the energy scenario in a short amount of time. I know people researching on both and the fields are moving very quickly.

Realistically, wind and solar are not good macro-energy sources. They take up too much space compared to coal, oil, gas, and nuclear. However, they are very good micro-energy sources. This is the future I see with wind and solar.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

What about Pakistan?

And Ireland?

[Adak]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

First, you are making the assumption that Iran will use the nuclear weapon on Israel. While there is a chance, both the intelligence agencies of the US and Israel do not believe they will.

Second, you are assuming we can eliminate Iran's nuclear program. We can't without a ground war.

Third, you are not addressing the consequences of attacking Iran. What will they, and the international community, do in response. If we attack on a highly speculative reason, we will get blamed for Iran's response. This is not good for US interests.

1) When Iran says that they'll sweep Israel off the map, I never ACTUALLY thought they'd use a broom to do it.

I don't believe anyone can say just WHAT Iran might do with nuclear weapons. We aren't even sure that they WILL make them.

2) Obviously, there would be a substantial ground component to a war with Iran. The enrichment facilities are below ground, and our "bunker buster" bombs may not be enough to destroy them. I'm sure they will have added military security around and at those sites, to help fend off any attack, and protect their big investment in those sites.

3) From history, we can be certain that the Iranian leadership would propagandize any attack on their country. All political leaders will do that - and set the stage for more hatred for whomever the attackers are.

Since the real (their dollar), lost a lot of value today on the monetary markets, it's possible that the sanctions will, at last, have the effect we wanted.

What about Pakistan?

Let's stick with Iran in this thread. Yak about Pakistan in another thread.

The same thing was said about shale gas/oil extraction ten years ago. Technology improves rapidly and can completely change the energy scenario in a short amount of time. I know people researching on both and the fields are moving very quickly.

Realistically, wind and solar are not good macro-energy sources. They take up too much space compared to coal, oil, gas, and nuclear. However, they are very good micro-energy sources. This is the future I see with wind and solar.

Unfortunately, generators are a well-researched piece of equipment. We've improved them, (and windmills for sure), but not nearly enough to bring them into the forefront of our nation's energy supply.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Adak

1) When Iran says that they'll sweep Israel off the map, I never ACTUALLY thought they'd use a broom to do it.

I don't believe anyone can say just WHAT Iran might do with nuclear weapons. We aren't even sure that they WILL make them.

I purposely didn't make an absolute statement about Iranian intentions. We don't know what they are thinking but we can infer it through how they act on other issues.

) Obviously, there would be a substantial ground component to a war with Iran. The enrichment facilities are below ground, and our "bunker buster" bombs may not be enough to destroy them. I'm sure they will have added military security around and at those sites, to help fend off any attack, and protect their big investment in those sites.

After Afghanistan and Iran? I really don't think there is a ground plan to our (possible) attack against Iran. Foreign policy circles seem to believe it would be limited to bombing, computer viruses, and containment. I don't think any US politician could convince the US of a ground attack against Iran. We would certainly lose too many soldiers.

3) From history, we can be certain that the Iranian leadership would propagandize any attack on their country. All political leaders will do that - and set the stage for more hatred for whomever the attackers are.

This is true but not what I was getting at. We don't know the Iranian response but they could possibly attack oil lanes and step up their support of terrorism against Israel and the US. We need to take these consequences into consideration before attacking a country solely on speculation.

Since the real (their dollar), lost a lot of value today on the monetary markets, it's possible that the sanctions will, at last, have the effect we wanted.

That is my hope. The country is really hurting and it seems that many Iranians are blaming their regime.

Let's stick with Iran in this thread. Yak about Pakistan in another thread.

I disagree. You initially stated that we should care about Iran getting the bomb because of their support of terrorism. Iran does support terrorism but so does Pakistan, arguably to an even greater degree. However, Pakistan would never gives their nuclear weapons to the terrorists the ISI trains. I don't see any reason that Iran would act any differently. It isn't in their interests.

However, it should be noted that Pakistan's nuclear weapon gives them an umbrella for their support of terrorism and there have been cases where Pakistani nuclear scientists were selling information to other countries (Libya). This is one reason why it is against US interests for Iran to get the bomb.

Unfortunately, generators are a well-researched piece of equipment. We've improved them, (and windmills for sure), but not nearly enough to bring them into the forefront of our nation's energy supply.

You are arguing against a delusional belief that wind and solar are silver bullets for our energy problem, not the reality of its potential. I don't believe that wind and solar will ever make up more than 50% of our energy sector but I do see a very positive use for them. Solar power is currently being used on the microscale with a decent degree of success. This will expand exponentially as technology improves.

To summarize, just because wind and solar will not completely solve our energy problem doesn't mean they can't be effective tools in a larger, multi-pronged solution for our energy problem.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Adak

snip--

You either remove the threat of such an attack, or you risk receiving it - period. At some point, you take the offensive, because it's your only defense.

This is by far the scariest idea in this thread.

If you believe it, and I think you do based on the context of your other statements, then by this logic, war is inevitable. Do you also believe this is true for other countries, say, Israel or Iran? Then war is inevitable, since the *removal of the threat of such an attack* will not come from the holders of such weapons.

The ONLY time voluntary disarmament has happened has been in the framework of the START treaties. And still, unimaginable destructive power still exists. If your position listed above is true, then how can we avoid war? Do you think Iran can be persuaded to stop their work that some find threatening? Where is the path to peace?

[henry quirk]

As I've posted before: *If you know someone is coming to kill you, get up early in the morning and kill them first.

I'd say 'their' intention (to kill 'us') is clear.

So: get up early...*shrug*










*not original to me...this is an old Hebrew saying, applicable pretty much all the time, in any circumstance.

[tw]

Originally Posted by henry quirk

I'd say 'their' intention (to kill 'us') is clear.

Total nonsense. George Jr said we would unilaterally attak them. The Axis of Evil. So N Korea and Iran desperately need nuclear weapons programs. Which any country should do when overtly threatened by an irresponsible nuclear power. Especially when the US said it would and did attack Iraq (Axis of Evil) for the same bogus reasons.

We 'Pearl Harbored' Iraq using your reasoning. Causing massive harm to our economy. And now you recommend doing same to Iran and North Korea? Iraq was the easy one. How much more damage do you want to do to America?

At what point do you learn from mistakes in history? At what point do you finally learn why 'big dic' thinking is not found where intelligent leaders make decisions?

Your logic is why you would be arrested and executed because a neighbor threatened you. And why everyone and their unborn offspring would remember you as despictable. Described was a "fool's errand" that demonstrates your bogus logic. And still you would recommend the same 'big dic' thinking that got us into this mess?

At what point will you learn from the massive mistake called Mission Accomplish? Or simply learn a well understood concept called "Deja Vue Nam"?

The world is not "liberal vs. conservative". The world is "wacko extremists vs moderates". Only wacko extremists see solution in military boondoggles. How many times must we foolishly refight the Crusades because the 'wacko extremists' will not learn from history? Because Netanyahu is that dumb, then that makes 'big dic' thinking acceptable?

Please. Stop listening to hate so routinely promoted by 'wacko extremist' talk radio.

[Griff]

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is term limited. I think it is surpassing strange that we take every nonsensical threat the lame duck President of Iran makes as absolute truth, ignoring that he is playing to his audience when here in the States Romney is campaigning for an economic agenda we all know he doesn't believe in, taking it for granted that he is lying to maintain his base but would actually get real after he's sworn in. I wonder where he really stands on being Israel's bitch? We don't help the peace process one bit by stepin fetchin for Netanyahu.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by BigV

This is by far the scariest idea in this thread.

If you believe it, and I think you do based on the context of your other statements, then by this logic, war is inevitable. Do you also believe this is true for other countries, say, Israel or Iran? Then war is inevitable, since the *removal of the threat of such an attack* will not come from the holders of such weapons.

The ONLY time voluntary disarmament has happened has been in the framework of the START treaties. And still, unimaginable destructive power still exists. If your position listed above is true, then how can we avoid war? Do you think Iran can be persuaded to stop their work that some find threatening? Where is the path to peace?

That is the Israeli position, I believe. I don't believe war is inevitable, but you know the old expression:

"Only the dead know peace"

We have known a long period of peace, only because we are one of the reigning super powers, and we are not trying to take over anyone's country. Also, we will go to war with those who try to take over another country, if we can, for example {Korea, Vietnam, Kuwait}. In other words, it would be very risky for another country to start a war, that might involve us.

War is inevitable in the Middle East, as long as the Muslims are intent on starting one - yes. The Jews can't run, they have to fight - that's clear.

The only thing in the long run, that will stop the drive to yet another war in the Middle East, is when the people of these aggressor countries, rise up, and tell their leaders:

NO WAR!

There is simply NO solution possible, except a degree of tolerance and acceptance of all your neighbors -- not just the one's you like the most.

If the Iranian rial continues falling in value, the resulting economic crisis may help force a shift in opinion, away from the nuclear effort. Finally, Iran may be forced to negotiate, and allow inspections of it's nuclear plants.

The Iranian leaders have proven so unwilling to negotiate, it's unimaginable that they would ever agree to a START type treaty, unless their economy collapsed very harshly.

The problem with nuclear weapons proliferation, is that it can get out of hand, entirely by accident, very quickly - and lead to a war. If it involved nuclear weapons, it would be incredibly disastrous.

Until the media, the mosques, and the leaders, are talking tolerance instead of sweeping the Jews into the sea, there will be no peace in the Middle East.

That's based on historical fact, not an opinion of support for either the Jews or the Muslims. I don't believe it's a question of right or wrong, it's a matter of either choosing tolerance and peace, or sliding towards war, by default.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by Rhianne

To be clear - do we think the Iranians have no right to defend themselves?

No one is threatening Iran, beyond their nuclear program. Iraq won't be going to war with them anytime soon, for sure. Iran has huge influence there. Israel, the US, and Saudi Arabia, will not attack Iran either, EXCEPT over the nuclear enrichment program.

If the Iranians weren't so bellicose and threatening to wipe out <some nation>, then I don't believe Iran would have any problems going nuclear - including weaponry.

Lots of other countries have gone nuclear, and while we don't like the spread of nuclear weapons, we haven't gone to war over it.

I think we've expended too much blood and treasure on Israel already. Netanyahu reminds me of a playground instigator, it's about time to bitch slap him and tell him he's not calling the shots. Don't forget Israel is a military ally not a friend.

I'd have to say that Netanyahu is *responding* to the playground instigator - which is Iran. Being repeatedly told that you will be "wiped off the face of the earth, and oh by the way - we're enriching uranium", by Muslims, is bound to have that effect on anyone. Especially Israeli's, who have borne the brunt of years of Iranian sponsored terrorism.

The ONLY thing that REALLY irritates me about the Israeli's, is their insistence upon using spy's on us. I know it's common as a cloudy day for nations to spy on each other, but I'd dock them a million dollars of foreign aid for every spying incident against us - permanently. That is such a "biting the hand that feeds you" kind of thing, and a damn insult.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Adak

No one is threatening Iran, beyond their nuclear program. Iraq won't be going to war with them anytime soon, for sure. Iran has huge influence there. Israel, the US, and Saudi Arabia, will not attack Iran either, EXCEPT over the nuclear enrichment program.

And we need them because of those damn Canadians?

The ONLY thing that REALLY irritates me about the Israeli's, is their insistence upon using spy's on us. I know it's common as a cloudy day for nations to spy on each other, but I'd dock them a million dollars of foreign aid for every spying incident against us - permanently. That is such a "biting the hand that feeds you" kind of thing, and a damn insult.

Well that, and sinking the USS Liberty, killing 8 of our sailors.