That's one way to change the subject I suppose.

[Shady]

4 hours ago, John Johnston said:

I don't think it is very high either, but when you take one fifth of the worlds oil off the table, it tends go up, and the Americans will not be impressed. 

True.  But their oil won’t be off the table.  If anything there will be more oil available as sanctions against Iran will likely be dropped.

[Nationalist]

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

There are many ways, the US is modeled many of them in the past.  There are measures in place to try to prevent a country from sneaking a nuclear bomb into the USA but they can all be defeated fairly easily with  a bit of work.

I mean you can build nukes as small as 51 kg. most illegal immigrants are more than that and we see millions of those smuggled across the border  . So obviously it's not hard to build specific nukes that are designed to avoid detection and can be shipped in or smuggled in a variety of different ways. You could put a pretty good sized one on a commercial airline and fly it in and detonate it over a city, only a few people on board would have to know and be willing to sacrifice their lives. 

Ok I suppose that's true.  But they apparently do not have intercontinental. 

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

As far as europe goes iran already has missiles in it's inventory that can reach to england, passing over germany and france and all those european countries on the way.  So all of our european partners would be at risk 

To what end? Why would Iran attack Europe? Iran's religious leaders seem to hate Isreal but...I doubt all Iranians feel that way.

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

it's absolutely true and indisputable that nothing good comes of them having them and many bad things could come from them having them.

True. But would Iran threaten Europe or America? I just dont see it.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

Ok I suppose that's true.  But they apparently do not have intercontinental. 

Well, not 'intercontinental' in the sense of reaching the US, no.  Europe for sure but that's kind of sort of in the same ball park so maybe technially 'intercontinental' but not really the way we normally mean it. 

However their missile tech is pretty advanced. They've always claimed they "deliberately" limit their current missile's range and that's probably true.  It would take time for an icbm to be up and running but no where in europe would be safe for long and that's pretty bad. 

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

To what end? Why would Iran attack Europe? Iran's religious leaders seem to hate Isreal but...I doubt all Iranians feel that way.

There are many reasons. And again its impossible to anticipate 'crazy', if nothing else. A religious zeolot gets control and decides to send everyone to hell because of some perceived slight from europe, what's to stop him?

I mean russia has nukes pointed at europe, why  would THEY shoot them? Yet is universally accepted they would if they felt sufficiently threatened. 

If they would never use them, why have them?

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

True. But would Iran threaten Europe or America? I just dont see it.

They would instantly be a threat whether you see it or not. Currently they could not be that kind of threat. If they had nukes they could absolutely be that kind of threat. There is absolutely no way to guess what kind of issues might happen down the road so you wouldn't know until it was too late.

Like I said, if a guy is pointing a gun at your head he's a threat regardless of whether or not you think he's going to pull the trigger

[Nationalist]

8 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Well, not 'intercontinental' in the sense of reaching the US, no.  Europe for sure but that's kind of sort of in the same ball park so maybe technially 'intercontinental' but not really the way we normally mean it. 

However their missile tech is pretty advanced. They've always claimed they "deliberately" limit their current missile's range and that's probably true.  It would take time for an icbm to be up and running but no where in europe would be safe for long and that's pretty bad. 

There are many reasons. And again its impossible to anticipate 'crazy', if nothing else. A religious zeolot gets control and decides to send everyone to hell because of some perceived slight from europe, what's to stop him?

I mean russia has nukes pointed at europe, why  would THEY shoot them? Yet is universally accepted they would if they felt sufficiently threatened. 

If they would never use them, why have them?

They would instantly be a threat whether you see it or not. Currently they could not be that kind of threat. If they had nukes they could absolutely be that kind of threat. There is absolutely no way to guess what kind of issues might happen down the road so you wouldn't know until it was too late.

Like I said, if a guy is pointing a gun at your head he's a threat regardless of whether or not you think he's going to pull the trigger

Doesn't all this make Israel a nuclear threat to Europe? I trust them about as much as I trust Iran. Maybe even less.