Iran Admits It Could Pull Nuke Trigger on US, Israel

[dre]

I agree with this assessment. However, i think another primary reason for Iran wanting nukes is for self-defense against western aggression. The west has invaded the 2 states flanking Iran (Iraq and Afghanistan), so why wouldn't Iran want to protect itself against future aggression? It also sees its regional enemy Israel having nukes, and thus a nuke deterrent is also favourable to even the power-game.

As you stated, a nuclear first strike against Israel would be suicide, as would providing nukes to a terrorist organization if said nukes were to ever be traced back to Iran. Those that control Iran are not irrational, suicidal, martyring idiots.

Yup thats a good post and all true.

Edited October 17, 2010 by dre

[grainfedprairieboy]

Those that control Iran are not irrational, suicidal, martyring idiots.

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.

I think that if there were ever a country to have nukes and irrational, suicidal and martyring idiots Iran is definitely in the top 3.

[eyeball]

What the world doesn't need is more countries with nuclear weapons or any types of weapons of mass destruction. We need to ban the research and production of such things and not base their acceptability on whom is doing the stockpiling.

I'm afraid that ship sailed a long long time ago.

Every country could use them for that matter. Hey, remember when the Spanish were fishing our territorial waters years ago? Instead of warships and bow shots we could've saved a great deal of effort and threatened to nuke them.

I was kind of busy trying to deal with Ottawa's destruction of our fishery on the west coast to pay much attention. The Spanish were the least of our problems when it comes to fisheries management in Canada.

So if I agree with you and evil western political and corporate interests created these dictators then I should have to suck it up that they deserve nukes?

No, you don't have to agree with me.

I really disagree with your thinking here.

I disagree with gravity, but there's not much I can do about it is there?

[August1991]

I don't like any country possessing nuclear weapons so the addition of each new country to the nuclear club is a step in the wrong direction in my opinion. If we as a species are ever going to evolve beyond our capabilities to destroy ourselves we need to draw a line in the sand and say no more.

I strongly disagree.

I see a difference between the RCMP and the Hell's Angels. I am happy that the RCMP have guns. I do not want the Hell's Angels to have them.

Grainfedprairieboy, what do you eat in the West? I drink Eastern milk.

[jbg]

anything verifiable... from other than the heavily slanted right-wing/Conservative mouthpiece, 'Newsmax.org'... and the article's very suspect author, 'Ken Timmerman'... of course, his article now spread across a brazillion sites?

Do you really want to take a chance on that? Imagine how much AGW a nuke attack would cause. Edited October 18, 2010 by jbg

[dre]

Do you really want to take a chance on that? Imagine how much AGW a nuke attack would cause.

Do you really want to take a chance on that?

We already took a chance on that, when we decided to sack random middle eastern countries and slaughter hundreds of thousands of people. Were supposed to act suprised now that countries are scrambling to make sure they arent the next Iraq?

In any case... it wouldnt suprise me if a nuclear standoff actually makes the middle east - that god forsaken rectum of humanity - a better place to live.

Edited October 18, 2010 by dre

[Bonam]

We already took a chance on that, when we decided to sack random middle eastern countries and slaughter hundreds of thousands of people. Were supposed to act suprised now that countries are scrambling to make sure they arent the next Iraq?

A couple primitive nuclear warheads and haphazard means of delivery would hardly be a deterrent against a full scale military invasion by the US, should it choose to carry one out. The only use of the kind of nuclear weapons that Iran could hope to develop and produce in the near term would be for illicit use by terrorist groups like Hamas or Hezbollah, against Israel.

In any case... it wouldnt suprise me if a nuclear standoff actually makes the middle east - that god forsaken rectum of humanity - a better place to live.

Unfortunately the middle-east lacks the kind of dynamics that make mutual assured destruction work. Specifically, peace through MAD requires two sides that are sane and hold, as a paramount consideration, the continued existence of themselves and their societies. This is not something that can be said of terrorist groups that hold so much sway in Palestine, Lebanon, and other areas of the middle east.

[bush_cheney2004]

A couple primitive nuclear warheads and haphazard means of delivery would hardly be a deterrent against a full scale military invasion by the US, should it choose to carry one out.....

Agreed...a true nuclear deterrent must be credible, reliable, and survivable. Iran has not demonstrated any of these capabilities.

[GostHacked]

Do you really want to take a chance on that? Imagine how much AGW a nuke attack would cause.

If there is a nuke attack AGW will be the absolute last of your concerns. Provided you survive a nuclear attack.

[dre]

A couple primitive nuclear warheads and haphazard means of delivery would hardly be a deterrent against a full scale military invasion by the US, should it choose to carry one out. The only use of the kind of nuclear weapons that Iran could hope to develop and produce in the near term would be for illicit use by terrorist groups like Hamas or Hezbollah, against Israel.

Unfortunately the middle-east lacks the kind of dynamics that make mutual assured destruction work. Specifically, peace through MAD requires two sides that are sane and hold, as a paramount consideration, the continued existence of themselves and their societies. This is not something that can be said of terrorist groups that hold so much sway in Palestine, Lebanon, and other areas of the middle east.

Nobody is suggesting that those terrorist groups should have nuclear weapons. We are talking about Iran and Iran fits your criteria fairly well.

A couple primitive nuclear warheads and haphazard means of delivery would hardly be a deterrent against a full scale military invasion by the US, should it choose to carry one out. The only use of the kind of nuclear weapons that Iran could hope to develop and produce in the near term would be for illicit use by terrorist groups like Hamas or Hezbollah, against Israel.

I dont buy the "nuclear terrorists" argument.

Edited October 18, 2010 by dre

[jbg]

We already took a chance on that, when we decided to sack random middle eastern countries and slaughter hundreds of thousands of people. Were supposed to act suprised now that countries are scrambling to make sure they arent the next Iraq?

We slaughtered "hundreds of thousands of people" in Iran when?

[jbg]

If there is a nuke attack AGW will be the absolute last of your concerns. Provided you survive a nuclear attack.

That was directed at a particular "one trick pony" poster.

[jbg]

I dont buy the "nuclear terrorists" argument.

Why not? And again why risk it?

[bush_cheney2004]

We slaughtered "hundreds of thousands of people" in Iran when?

Yea...and what is this "we" stuff?

[dre]

Why not?

Because a government that has invested billions of dollars in its nuclear program is going to want to control it. They arent going to turn the technology over to an unsophisticated proxy that they only have a small measure of control over, if that.

And again why risk it?

Because the options on the table to prevent it dont survive a cost benefit analysis. An aerial campaign will merely set the program back a little bit...it wont stop it. Iran has the knowledge now at least to enrich. Plus that option has a good chance of sparking a regional conflict, and creating a lot of instability. The other option would be an Iraq style invasion + regime change, and judging from the Iran VS Iraq war that probably wouldnt go very well either. Coalition troops would likely find themselves mostly fighting hoards of civilians armed with rocks and sticks, casualties would be very high, and the cost would probably be in the trillions.

Either of these options would also cause a lot of energy volatility, and probably throw western economies into another tail spin.

[dre]

We slaughtered "hundreds of thousands of people" in Iran when?

Is that meant to be a reply to me? If it is... I didnt say that. But we (the west) sacked two of their neighbors, and named them to an "axis of evil" making it pretty clear they might next.

It would be reckless and irrational for Iran not to try and build some kind of firewall against invasion by the same coalition that sacked Iraq.

[DogOnPorch]

Because a government that has invested billions of dollars in its nuclear program is going to want to control it. They arent going to turn the technology over to an unsophisticated proxy that they only have a small measure of control over, if that.

Oh wait...we're talking about Iran, right???

[jbg]

Because a government that has invested billions of dollars in its nuclear program is going to want to control it. They arent going to turn the technology over to an unsophisticated proxy that they only have a small measure of control over, if that.

The very fact that an oil-producing country invested so much is evidence of violent intent.

Because the options on the table to prevent it dont survive a cost benefit analysis. An aerial campaign will merely set the program back a little bit...it wont stop it.

The Israeli attack on Osirik did a lot more damage than a few years.

Iran has the knowledge now at least to enrich. Plus that option has a good chance of sparking a regional conflict, and creating a lot of instability. The other option would be an Iraq style invasion + regime change, and judging from the Iran VS Iraq war that probably wouldnt go very well either. Coalition troops would likely find themselves mostly fighting hoards of civilians armed with rocks and sticks, casualties would be very high, and the cost would probably be in the trillions.

First of all, the U.S. succeeded swimmingly in ousting Saddam Hussein. They weren't that skillful at managing a restive country. Still things are better than if Saddam were still in power. And I don't see "hoards of civilians armed with rocks and sticks" in Iraq fighting the Americans; mostly Sunnis who lost a position of privilege, of being able to loot oil wealth.

Either of these options would also cause a lot of energy volatility, and probably throw western economies into another tail spin.

If anything prices would go down. It's time the West show who's boss.

[DogOnPorch]

Yea...and what is this "we" stuff?

My apologies for my...errr...fellow countrymen/women that can't tell an Anzio from an ant hill.

Edited October 18, 2010 by DogOnPorch

[bush_cheney2004]

... Coalition troops would likely find themselves mostly fighting hoards of civilians armed with rocks and sticks, casualties would be very high, and the cost would probably be in the trillions.....

That's what detractors said about Iraq too. KIAs from rocks and sticks not a major factor.

[bush_cheney2004]

....If anything prices would go down. It's time the West show who's boss.

Time to get with the "program"...resistance is futile!

[bud]

If anything prices would go down. It's time the West show who's boss.

i really need you to surprise me for once and say something that's actually true. it's not healthy to just say whatever that pops into your uneducated mind. price of oil since the gulf war:

http://www.epomm.eu/newsletter/bilder/OilChart.gif

[dre]

The very fact that an oil-producing country invested so much is evidence of violent intent.

The Israeli attack on Osirik did a lot more damage than a few years.

First of all, the U.S. succeeded swimmingly in ousting Saddam Hussein. They weren't that skillful at managing a restive country. Still things are better than if Saddam were still in power. And I don't see "hoards of civilians armed with rocks and sticks" in Iraq fighting the Americans; mostly Sunnis who lost a position of privilege, of being able to loot oil wealth.

If anything prices would go down. It's time the West show who's boss.

The very fact that an oil-producing country invested so much is evidence of violent intent.

No it isnt. That logic is utterly bogus and flawed. Iran could just want a deterent to invasion like other countries that aquired nuclear weapons.

If anything prices would go down. It's time the West show who's boss.

Sorry thats just fantasy. You should spend 30 seconds of your own time researching the effect that conflicts in the ME have on oil prices, then try again.

The west has been "showing whos boss" in the middle east for a 100 years.

[GostHacked]

The very fact that an oil-producing country invested so much is evidence of violent intent.

Iran has not been an aggressor in the last 100 years.

The Israeli attack on Osirik did a lot more damage than a few years.

It completely killed their ability to resume their nuclear program. And yet we were told nuclear WMDs were being produced after the fact.

If anything prices would go down. It's time the West show who's boss.

Take a look at the price of oil for the last 20 years. It has gone way up and way down. Taking over Iraq did not drive down prices of oil and gas, so what makes you think taking over Iran will produce those results?

Maybe we should worry about cleaning up two other problems (Iraq and Afghanistan) before creating another one.

[bush_cheney2004]

Iran has not been an aggressor in the last 100 years.

This is patently false....see occupation of islands claimed by UAE and border clashes over the past 100 years.