jbg Posted December 1, 2013 Report Posted December 1, 2013 Under the current diplomatic agreement, Iran will have to be able to do this within six months...and under the eyes of independent inspectors. In other words....not. The "independent inspectors" faced routine interference in Iraq by Hussein. I expect worse from the mullahs; plus the risk that these inspectors could be killed. An attack on a Iran today and a Iran with a rudimentary nuclear arsenal are near same with the after effects…. I doubt it.......Such an initial test for a very new nuclear nation could lead to a fizzle and a nuclear response…….None the less, like North Korea, I fully expect when the ability affords them, the mullahs in Iran with fully utilise a test detonation within their own territory for not only the benefit of their neighbours, but domestic consumption. I am just not so sanguine and there is no reason to let them move any closer. This issue should be non-negotiable; no WMD development for unstable countries. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
bleeding heart Posted December 1, 2013 Report Posted December 1, 2013 I am just not so sanguine and there is no reason to let them move any closer. This issue should be non-negotiable; no WMD development for unstable countries. WMD development is not on the table, so it's a moot point. Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
DogOnPorch Posted December 1, 2013 Report Posted December 1, 2013 WMD development is not on the table, so it's a moot point. Why should there be, after all? Iran has no interest in nuclear weapons. None. Zip. Nada. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
bleeding heart Posted December 1, 2013 Report Posted December 1, 2013 Why should there be, after all? Iran has no interest in nuclear weapons. None. Zip. Nada. The current agreement is for six months. Let's see how much scary nuclear devastation they visit upon the Earth in that period. Such a miracle would only prove that Allah is real, rather than the cold, austere fantasy I have always assumed. Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
DogOnPorch Posted December 2, 2013 Report Posted December 2, 2013 I'd think a tramp freighter with a one megaton warhead aboard off the coast of Tel Aviv should do the trick. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Peter F Posted December 2, 2013 Report Posted December 2, 2013 (edited) Why should there be, after all? Iran has no interest in nuclear weapons. None. Zip. Nada. I don't believe they are interested in nukes. I do believe they're interested in depleted uranium munitions to defeat US armor. Edited December 2, 2013 by Peter F Quote A bayonet is a tool with a worker at both ends
Guest Derek L Posted December 2, 2013 Report Posted December 2, 2013 I am just not so sanguine and there is no reason to let them move any closer. This issue should be non-negotiable; no WMD development for unstable countries. And who says they are? If the 6 month agreement proves effective……great……If not, we deal with them then, or once they actually pose a threat. But when/if we reach that point, are you prepared for either the Israelis or Americans to launch a first strike with nuclear weapons? Quote
Guest Derek L Posted December 2, 2013 Report Posted December 2, 2013 (edited) I'd think a tramp freighter with a one megaton warhead aboard off the coast of Tel Aviv should do the trick. And in the last several decades preceding, the Iranians have had the ability to manufacture and deploy chemical and biological weapons if the need to attack Israel was/is so great………As such, their use of such weapons would be many magnitudes more effective then a rudimentary atomic device, detonated at sea level. Edited December 2, 2013 by Derek L Quote
jbg Posted December 2, 2013 Report Posted December 2, 2013 But when/if we reach that point, are you prepared for either the Israelis or Americans to launch a first strike with nuclear weapons?Yes. In retrospect the world would be a better place if the U.S. had done so with the USSR and the PRC before they went nuclear. Imagine a nuclearized Japan under Tojo? Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
DogOnPorch Posted December 2, 2013 Report Posted December 2, 2013 And in the last several decades preceding, the Iranians have had the ability to manufacture and deploy chemical and biological weapons if the need to attack Israel was/is so great………As such, their use of such weapons would be many magnitudes more effective then a rudimentary atomic device, detonated at sea level. Who says Iranians are capable of only rudimentary atomic devices? We helped train those guys... I'm talking about a boosted tritium wrapped device not constrained by the size of a Shahab ballistic missile. Big bang. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
GostHacked Posted December 2, 2013 Report Posted December 2, 2013 Why wait when an attack can be mounted with far less danger against a pre-nuclear Iran? What if their "test" is against Sunni Muslims in SA or against Israel? So you rather punish a country for what many others have already one? Who has the right to tell Iran they cannot have a nuclear weapon? A pre-emtive strike is an act of war. If your nose gets bloody in the process don't run off to the UN crying foul. Quote
bleeding heart Posted December 2, 2013 Report Posted December 2, 2013 So you rather punish a country for what many others have already one? Who has the right to tell Iran they cannot have a nuclear weapon? A pre-emtive strike is an act of war. If your nose gets bloody in the process don't run off to the UN crying foul. If only the discussion really were about a pre-emptive strike, it might at least enter into the realm of reason. We're actually talking about a PREVENTIVE strike....which is far worse....and which leaves action open to whims and wild interpretations. Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
DogOnPorch Posted December 2, 2013 Report Posted December 2, 2013 The trouble with letting all these rogue states that are unfriendly to us have nuclear weapons SHOULD be self evident. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
GostHacked Posted December 2, 2013 Report Posted December 2, 2013 The trouble with letting all these rogue states that are unfriendly to us have nuclear weapons SHOULD be self evident. Not worried about the rogue ones, but the ones who have been projecting their forces around the world for the past few decades. Quote
DogOnPorch Posted December 2, 2013 Report Posted December 2, 2013 Not worried about the rogue ones, but the ones who have been projecting their forces around the world for the past few decades. Pretty much sums up the problem. People have everything backwards in order to have a hate-on for the US and Israel. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
dre Posted December 3, 2013 Report Posted December 3, 2013 If only the discussion really were about a pre-emptive strike, it might at least enter into the realm of reason. We're actually talking about a PREVENTIVE strike....which is far worse....and which leaves action open to whims and wild interpretations. And we are talking about a POLITICAL strike. Intelligence and military leaders in places like Israel and the US are basically saying "Calm the hell down". But some politicians see Irans nuclear program as a political opportunity to do something they have wanted to do for 30 years. Iran is bloody lucky that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan went so bad and cost so much or they would already have been bombed into the stone age. Fact is... theres zero evidence Iran has a nuclear weapons program, and zero evidence that even if they had nuclear weapons that they would commit suicide on behalf of the entire persian race by using weapons on Israel. This is just Iraq all over again. A political excuse for dirtbags to start a fight they have wanted for a long time. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
bleeding heart Posted December 8, 2013 Report Posted December 8, 2013 Yes it is. And it's interesting, if not too pleasurable, to watch all the sycophantic excitement over the prospect of another disastrous and counterproductive war. Some people are actively opposed to learning anything, even from the very recent past.. Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
kactus Posted June 9, 2016 Report Posted June 9, 2016 (edited) All these speculations and warmongering words from the usual suspects DOP, JBG et al...And guess what in favour of which country? Israel...Hoorrroray... and nothing came out of this from this bunch of warmongers. Hmmmm! Typical... Now go blow up your noses Edited June 29, 2016 by kactus Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.