Iran Admits It Could Pull Nuke Trigger on US, Israel

[DogOnPorch]

But Canada does not have any nuclear weapons, unless that is all off the records and off the books. Which would not surprise me.

The Bomarc and the Genie were both nuclear weapons meant for knocking down large formations of bombers. The Genie was carried on the F-101 Voodoo.

[GostHacked]

The Bomarc and the Genie were both nuclear weapons meant for knocking down large formations of bombers. The Genie was carried on the F-101 Voodoo.

Yes, that is true. However, do we have nukes now? If so where and how did we get them and where did they come from? And are we in fact violating some aspect of the NPT if we do have nukes?

[DogOnPorch]

Yes, that is true. However, do we have nukes now? If so where and how did we get them and where did they come from? And are we in fact violating some aspect of the NPT if we do have nukes?

We also had nuclear armed Honest John missiles that carried the W31 warhead for a short period (20kt). Canada hasn't had nuclear weapons since 1984. All warheads were US property. Re: the NPT...not sure.

[bush_cheney2004]

We also had nuclear armed Honest John missiles that carried the W31 warhead for a short period (20kt). Canada hasn't had nuclear weapons since 1984. All warheads were US property. Re: the NPT...not sure.

Correct....Canada and other NATO partners side stepped NPT provisions by maintaining them with US control on designated military bases. Several hundred US nuclear weapons are still deployed to NATO partners today.

[DogOnPorch]

Correct....Canada and other NATO partners side stepped NPT provisions by maintaining them with US control on designated military bases. Several hundred US nuclear weapons are still deployed to NATO partners today.

PET put the final kybosh on nuclear weapons in Canada, if I recall.

[GostHacked]

Correct....Canada and other NATO partners side stepped NPT provisions by maintaining them with US control on designated military bases. Several hundred US nuclear weapons are still deployed to NATO partners today.

Claim the land as USA, then there is no violation. So this is how the US gets around it?

[ToadBrother]

What would be another example of Israel dragging us all into a war that they started with an act of naked aggression?

I think wiping out Iran's nuclear capacity, whatever it is, would be a rather good thing.

Edited October 19, 2010 by ToadBrother

[DogOnPorch]

I think wiping out Iran's nuclear capacity, whatever it is, would be a rather good thing.

Sounds indiscriminate. Hydrogen bombs are a bit of a white-elephant these days as dropping one not only solves the Iranian mullah problem, but it also takes-out millions of Nedas as well.

Edited October 19, 2010 by DogOnPorch

[ToadBrother]

Sounds indiscriminate. Hydrogen bombs are a bit of a white-elephant these days as dropping one not only solves the Iranian mullah problem, but it also takes-out millions of Nedas as well.

It is indiscriminate, like war so often is.

[dre]

I think wiping out Iran's nuclear capacity, whatever it is, would be a rather good thing.

The only way you can wipe out Irans nuclear capacity is with full on regime change. Not with air strikes. And certainly not with Israeli air strikes.

And A shitload of Iranians and Israelis dead, the strengthening of Islamic rule in Iran, record high oil prices, and an ongoing regional conflict isnt exactly my idea of a good thing but to each his own.

[dre]

This is starting to sound just like the runup to Iraq. Same flimsy justifications. Even worse really because intelligence agents are saying Iran doesnt even have a nuclear weapons program. Same giddy gerbil faced optimism about how easy and effective it will be. Same tragic underestimation of the task at hand.

This moronic act would start a war... lots of Israelis and Iranians would be needlessly killed, and at the end of it all Iran would still have a nuclear program. If there wasnt major problems with this course of action it would have happened 5 years ago.

And if they dont have a Nuclear Weapons program NOW, then theyre sure as hell gonna start one up once their neighbor(s) start attacking them.

[jbg]

I think wiping out Iran's nuclear capacity, whatever it is, would be a rather good thing.

We agree heartily.

[ToadBrother]

The only way you can wipe out Irans nuclear capacity is with full on regime change. Not with air strikes. And certainly not with Israeli air strikes.

And A shitload of Iranians and Israelis dead, the strengthening of Islamic rule in Iran, record high oil prices, and an ongoing regional conflict isnt exactly my idea of a good thing but to each his own.

I'm not sure you have to go that far. Strategic strikes, particularly at facilities where the development of nuclear technology is ongoing, may not wipe out their program, but when they're spending more time rebuilding than building, you basically can keep them in that development loop. Sure you'll piss off the Russians, but not enough for them to get all hot like the Chinese would if someone turned Pyongyang into a radioactive crater.

As much as it sucks, Iran isn't even itself the same enemy it was five or ten years ago. It's pretty obvious that the Ayatollahs have become little more than puppets for the Basij and the Revolutionary Guard. That incompetent half-wit Khamenei didn't even have the smarts of his predecessor to keep the regular Iranian army in a position to hold back the Basij. Quite frankly, if I was in charge, I'd turn Qom into a radioactive cinder. Sure they'd hate us, but I'm betting the regular army would finally do what it should have done all along, and put bullets in every member of the Basij and the Revolutionary Guard. Then we'd make peace with them.

[dre]

I'm not sure you have to go that far. Strategic strikes, particularly at facilities where the development of nuclear technology is ongoing, may not wipe out their program, but when they're spending more time rebuilding than building, you basically can keep them in that development loop. Sure you'll piss off the Russians, but not enough for them to get all hot like the Chinese would if someone turned Pyongyang into a radioactive crater.

The problem is stategic strikes will escalate into more than that. Iran has all kinds of ways to retaliate both militarily and covert, and they could close the straits of hormuz and choke of 40% of the worlds seaborne oil delivery.

Youll start a major conflict... over a nuclear weapons program that intelligence agencies say probably doesnt exist.

And all this to slow their program down a bit?

[ToadBrother]

The problem is stategic strikes will escalate into more than that. Iran has all kinds of ways to retaliate both militarily and covert, and they could close the straits of hormuz and choke of 40% of the worlds seaborne oil delivery.

Youll start a major conflict... over a nuclear weapons program that intelligence agencies say probably doesnt exist.

And all this to slow their program down a bit?

I haven't heard of any intelligence agency that said it doesn't exist, merely that it hasn't progressed as far as the Iranian government would love everyone to believe.

AS to blocking anything, I can assure you, the Iranian naval assets are fairly laughable.

[dre]

I haven't heard of any intelligence agency that said it doesn't exist, merely that it hasn't progressed as far as the Iranian government would love everyone to believe.

AS to blocking anything, I can assure you, the Iranian naval assets are fairly laughable.

Both recent national intelligence estimates say Iran has no weaponization program.

AS to blocking anything, I can assure you, the Iranian naval assets are fairly laughable.

Thats not at ALL what the pentagon says. They may not have a lot of large or expensive ships but they have developed a tactic called swarming where they send hundreds of small lightly armed speedboats at 100km at larger ships, and overwhelm electronic defenses.

In 2002. The pentagon ran an simulation of a hostile encounter between Irans Hormuz fleet and a US battle group, and the blue team (The US group) lost 16 major ships in less than 10 minutes, including an aircraft carrier.

WASHINGTON -- It was a classified, $250 million war game in which small, agile speedboats swarmed a U.S. Navy convoy and left 16 major warships -- an aircraft carrier, cruisers and amphibious vessels -- sunk on the bottom of the Persian Gulf.

But that August 2002 war game has given reason for U.S. military officers to express grim concern over last weekend's encounter between several U.S. ships and five Iranian patrol boats.

In the days since the incident in the Strait of Hormuz, U.S. officers acknowledged they have been studying anew the lessons from the startling war game.

The sheer numbers of attackers overloaded the ability of the ships and their crews, "both mentally and electronically, to handle the attack," said Lt. Gen. Paul Van Riper, a retired Marine Corps officer who served in the war game as commander of a Red Team force simulating an unnamed Persian Gulf military. "The whole thing was over in five, maybe 10 minutes."

Even if a naval escort COULD guarantee the safety of the roughly 20 huge oil tankers that go throught he strait every single day (which it cant) the need for those escorts would still bottleneck shipping and effect oil prices. Whats more likely is that as soon as the first tanker was sunk ship owners and insurance companies would refuse to send any more through for the duration of the conflict.

[Bonam]

Both recent national intelligence estimates say Iran has no weaponization program.

\

I've seen the opposite.

Thats not at ALL what the pentagon says. They may not have a lot of large or expensive ships but they have developed a tactic called swarming where they send hundreds of small lightly armed speedboats at 100km at larger ships, and overwhelm electronic defenses.

In 2002. The pentagon ran an simulation of a hostile encounter between Irans Hormuz fleet and a US battle group, and the blue team (The US group) lost 16 major ships in less than 10 minutes, including an aircraft carrier.

Wanna bet the US has since developed military doctrine to deal with precisely this scenario? The US military doesn't just look at a simulation like that and say, "gee, neato, let's not do anything about it". By the way, computers are a lot faster in 2010 than they were in 2002. If something was gonna "overwhelm electronics" in 2002, it'd hardly strain a processor in 2010.

Even if a naval escort COULD guarantee the safety of the roughly 20 huge oil tankers that go throught he strait every single day (which it cant) the need for those escorts would still bottleneck shipping and effect oil prices. Whats more likely is that as soon as the first tanker was sunk ship owners and insurance companies would refuse to send any more through for the duration of the conflict.

If Iran's navy went so far as to actually sink a civilian ship, an appropriate response of destroying their naval facilities (with air strikes) could be carried out and they would no longer be a problem.

When you talk about people underestimating difficulty as in Iraq, you are talking about something else. Regime change, as you call it, is hard. You have to occupy the country, eradicate loyalists of the old regime, safeguard the population from terrorism, provide enough stability for a newly installed and powerless government to function, alter the fundamental culture of the people to accept a different form of government, etc. These are all very hard tasks, and I fully agree, should not be attempted in Iran. But just blowing up Iraq's military? That was every bit as easy as it was predicted to be, and the same would be the case for Iran, if it came to it.

[dre]

\

I've seen the opposite.

Wanna bet the US has since developed military doctrine to deal with precisely this scenario? The US military doesn't just look at a simulation like that and say, "gee, neato, let's not do anything about it". By the way, computers are a lot faster in 2010 than they were in 2002. If something was gonna "overwhelm electronics" in 2002, it'd hardly strain a processor in 2010.

If Iran's navy went so far as to actually sink a civilian ship, an appropriate response of destroying their naval facilities (with air strikes) could be carried out and they would no longer be a problem.

When you talk about people underestimating difficulty as in Iraq, you are talking about something else. Regime change, as you call it, is hard. You have to occupy the country, eradicate loyalists of the old regime, safeguard the population from terrorism, provide enough stability for a newly installed and powerless government to function, alter the fundamental culture of the people to accept a different form of government, etc. These are all very hard tasks, and I fully agree, should not be attempted in Iran. But just blowing up Iraq's military? That was every bit as easy as it was predicted to be, and the same would be the case for Iran, if it came to it.

When you talk about people underestimating difficulty as in Iraq, you are talking about something else. Regime change, as you call it, is hard.

No Im talking about the exact same kind of miscalcuation coming from the exact same people. Message board hawks that are already dusting off their mission accomplished banners but have absolutely no idea what the challenges and risks are, for a relatively minor reward. They dont know that Iran has about 3 different kinds of missiles that can reach telaviv, they underestimate Irans ability to cause a whole shit load of trouble in the straits (like you did but the pentagon sure doesnt), and they apparently dont know that Iran has influence by proxy in places like Iraq.

This is really just Iraq all over again... People are talking about attacking Iran over weapons that we dont even know are there, and they think its gonna be easy and cheap. Good luck with that.

Significantly setting back Irans nuclear program without a lot of casualties in both Iran and Israel, and quite possibly elsewhere, and without creating instability that effects energy prices is also hard.

If Iran's navy went so far as to actually sink a civilian ship, an appropriate response of destroying their naval facilities (with air strikes) could be carried out and they would no longer be a problem.

If Iran sinks a large oil tanker in the straits the price of oil will skyrocket and companies will order their ships not use the strait. The rising price of oil will benefit who? You guessed it. Iran, who will have a glut of extra capital to spend on what? You guessed it. Their nuclear program.

[jbg]

If Iran sinks a large oil tanker in the straits the price of oil will skyrocket and companies will order their ships not use the strait. The rising price of oil will benefit who? You guessed it. Iran, who will have a glut of extra capital to spend on what? You guessed it. Their nuclear program.

So you're saying there's nothing the West can do other than be bossed around by a bunch of despots and insane people?

[dre]

So you're saying there's nothing the West can do other than be bossed around by a bunch of despots and insane people?

How is Iran trying to boss the west around exactly? Are other countries that enrich uranium "bossing the west around" too?

Also who exactly is insane?

[Moonlight Graham]

I don`t think you`ve been paying attention to this guy. Some of the things he says would get him banned on the average political forum and he`s a world leader.

There is a huge difference in saying things and doing things. What actions has Ahmadinejad done on the international scene that is so "irrational"? Has he shot missiles into any countries lately?

And does he show signs of wanting to kill himself, as would be his fate if he launched any nukes? Does he drive on the wrong side of the road? Slash his jugular while he shaves in the morning?

He says some controversial things, like denying the Holocaust and other possibly anti-Semitic remarks. Big deal. Him saying that Israel should "vanish from the pages of time" isn't exactly a call for war or any kind of logical means to think Iran is going to launch nukes at them, or any kind of military attack against them.

Besides, he is only part of the political power structure of that country.

[bush_cheney2004]

...He says some controversial things, like denying the Holocaust and other possibly anti-Semitic remarks. Big deal. Him saying that Israel should "vanish from the pages of time" isn't exactly a call for war or any kind of logical means to think Iran is going to launch nukes at them, or any kind of military attack against them.

So you would be comfortable with the American Sec'y of State saying that "Canada should be wiped off the face of the earth"?

[Oleg Bach]

Either they all have nukes or no one has nukes..Much like guns...all should be armed or all should be armless..unless you are law enforcement..If America or Iran want to consider the job of policing the world then what makes America or Israel the superiour moral force? It looks like who ever has the biggest gun with the best delivery system...is the GOOD guy and those with little nukes or no nukes are the bad guys...

It reminds me of a question of genetics...For instance if you take the old Scotish tribes that had internal feuds 200 years ago ---the victors became international bankers and the losers created groups like the Hells Angels..over all they are the same family..one becomes establishement and the other takes on the role of crimminal - The truth is both are crimminals..The only reason America and it's puppet Israel are not viewed as crimminal empires is because anyone that dares mention the truth will be vaporized...Hence the biggest bad guy can annoint themselves as saints.

[jbg]

How is Iran trying to boss the west around exactly? Are other countries that enrich uranium "bossing the west around" too?

Also who exactly is insane?

For one, I consider that Iran's having nuclear weapons would chill the West's ardor to support Israel.

[dre]

For one, I consider that Iran's having nuclear weapons would chill the West's ardor to support Israel.

Thats not an example of anybody "bossing the west around". And our unconditional support for one side has made things worse over there anyhow. If we are going to involve ourselves it should be as agents of international law, and we should condemn transgressions by both sides when they occur and put heavy pressure on both sides to improve their behavior. If we cant do that, then I suggest we disengage and let the cards fall where they may.