[Kerrigan]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...001053_pf.html

The Pentagon has drafted a revised doctrine for the use of nuclear weapons that envisions commanders requesting presidential approval to use them to preempt an attack by a nation or a terrorist group using weapons of mass destruction. The draft also includes the option of using nuclear arms to destroy known enemy stockpiles of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.

At a White House briefing that year, a spokesman said the United States would "respond with overwhelming force" to the use of weapons of mass destruction against the United States, its forces or allies, and said "all options" would be available to the president.

Is Bush going insane? After the massive intelligence failure in Iraq, does he really think people want him to nuke countries dubiously suspected of building WMD?

Or is this nothing but talk, intended to frighten the Iranian government?

[Moderator]

No..but that would be pretty ironic.

[Cold Warrior]

I doubt it. The pentagon is a big animal, and it's likely just revising nuke doctrine as part of a yearly/periodic reflex by its policy wonks.

[Spliffdaddy]

Well, the US has smaller nukes - besides the standard issue city-melters.

Sometimes reinforced concrete can't be penetrated by traditional bombs.

So, yeah, I think the US would nuke the enrichment facilities in Iran and North Korea.

It's just a bomb. It ain't the end of the world. It's likely that nobody would know or care what form of energy the bomb used.

You have a better plan?

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Well, the US has smaller nukes - besides the standard issue city-melters.

Sometimes reinforced concrete can't be penetrated by traditional bombs.

So, yeah, I think the US would nuke the enrichment facilities in Iran and North Korea.

It's just a bomb. It ain't the end of the world. It's likely that nobody would know or care what form of energy the bomb used.

You have a better plan?

A nuclear bomb, of any yield, would be the end of the world for those it fell on.
I can't believe you could espouse such indifference to the prospects of the US using a nuclear bomb again.

If we ever dropped a nuclear bomb in the Middle East, unprovoked, it would lead to WWIII and the end of the world. And quite frankly, I don't think that would be such a bad thing.

We (the human race) have seen what the horrors of nuclear weapons can do and if we (the human race) do not learn our lesson and put them out of reach forever then it would be a good thing if we did wipe ourselves off the planet. The planet will keep spinning whether or not we are here to notice it.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

We (the human race) have seen what the horrors of nuclear weapons can do and if we (the human race) do not learn our lesson and put them out of reach forever then it would be a good thing if we did wipe ourselves off the planet.

I think you then should agree that Iran should not acquire the atomic bomb.

[Spliffdaddy]

Geez. It's just a bomb. Ain't like it'll wipe out a city. Hell, it'll probably save some cities in the long run.

The word "nuclear" just has a bad reputation, I reckon.

OK, so we'll use a hydrogen bomb. Hydrogen is a friendly word. All the tree-huggers think our cars should have hydrogen fuel cells.

Don't fear the low-yield nukes, folks. It's far better than having to break out the megaton gargantuan city-melters.

Besides, nobody threw a fit when we baby-nuked some mountainsides in Afghanistan.

edited: Yes, a small nuke will be the end of the world for those it falls on. If you're employed in or near a uranium enrichment facility in Iran or North Korea - you probably expect it to happen already.

[Millennium]

The Pentagon is reputed to have plans for every possible scenario. Obviously they can't actually have plans for every scenario; I would have hoped they'd have lent out the one they had filed away under "Floods, Low-Lying Cities, and Land-Based Vehicular Transport" a few weeks ago if they had. But they do cover many situations, and fortunately many of those plans are never used. It does not surprise me, therefore, that they would similarly explore the possibility of using nuclear weapons against terrorists. I doubt anyone there has any desire to see that plan go anywhere beyond the realm of speculation, any more than anyone here wants to see it go there. But they plan for it anyway, because planning is what they do.

By the way, Iran should not acquire the atomic bomb, for the simple reason that nobody should acquire the atomic bomb. The countries who have it shouldn't have it either, but the sad reality is that they do. Disarming is a very delicate process, and it has to be done slowly so that if anyone goes back on the deal they don't become instantly powerful enough to overwhelm everyone else. Consider: the last nation on Earth with any nuclear weapons will have essentially absolute military power over the rest of the world, and we have to be able to expect them to lay down that power voluntarily by disposing of the last weapons. You can't expect that to be easy or quick. If any of us here were to suddenly be granted absolute power, who among us can honestly say they would give it up without first using it for something? I don't think I could do that.

Every time another nation acquires nuclear weapons, the balance of power shifts, however subtly, and the whole process is set back. It is a shame that any nation has them, but they do, and that cannot be undone. Given that sad reality, getting rid of these weapons is going to require that new players don't enter the game.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

I think you then should agree that Iran should not acquire the atomic bomb.

Correct. Iran should not acquire the atomic bomb.
And the US should make Israel come clean on their nuclear weapons program.
And the US should continue working with the former Soviet Union to ensure their stockpile of nuclear weapons remains secure.
And the US should stop trying to develop NEW nuclear bombs and work with the other nuclear-nations (India and Pakistan especially) to reduce their stockpile of weapons with the eventual goal of eliminating them altogether . . . for US and them.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Geez. It's just a bomb. Ain't like it'll wipe out a city. Hell, it'll probably save some cities in the long run.

The word "nuclear" just has a bad reputation, I reckon.

OK, so we'll use a hydrogen bomb. Hydrogen is a friendly word. All the tree-huggers think our cars should have hydrogen fuel cells.

Don't fear the low-yield nukes, folks. It's far better than having to break out the megaton gargantuan city-melters.

Besides, nobody threw a fit when we baby-nuked some mountainsides in Afghanistan.

edited: Yes, a small nuke will be the end of the world for those it falls on. If you're employed in or near a uranium enrichment facility in Iran or North Korea - you probably expect it to happen already.

Hydrogen bombs ARE nuclear bombs, just employing nuclear fusion instead of nuclear fission. In fact, a hydrogen bomb would be the more desireable weapon as it just creates a massive fireball consuming everything in its wake as opposed to a traditional nuclear bomb which spews radiation everywhere. If you are going to die methinks it is much better to be instantly vaporized than have a lingering death from radiation sickness/poisoning. Unfortunately we don't have low-yield hydrogen bombs in our weapons arsenal--not that I am aware of anyway.

But still, the point is that WE need to put our nuclear weapons out of reach and do everything in our power to make sure those that have them do the same and those that don't have them don't get them. We can't be in the position of telling other nations they can't have nuclear weapons while we continue to keep our massive stockpile and develop new nuclear weapons technologies.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

In fact, a hydrogen bomb would be the more desireable weapon as it just creates a massive fireball consuming everything in its wake as opposed to a traditional nuclear bomb which spews radiation everywhere.

Read about depleted uranium ammunition. That's a real problem.

[von Wrangell]

The US won't attack Iran. It hasn't got the guts for it. They only possible scenario when the US would attack Iran would be after 10-20 years of sanctions and US (CIA) supported unrest in Iran. Until then nothing will happen.

Oh, and you guys can stop worrying about Iran and them getting nukes. They aren't and both the president and the Supreme Leader have said so. And if you doubt if the Supreme Leader would be telling the truth about this you haven't got the slightest clue about Iranian society.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/4180160.stm

Yet another "Oops" from the West........

[Athens]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

I think you then should agree that Iran should not acquire the atomic bomb.

Which is a good think Iran made it law not to acquire atomic bombs.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Well, the US has smaller nukes - besides the standard issue city-melters.

Sometimes reinforced concrete can't be penetrated by traditional bombs.

So, yeah, I think the US would nuke the enrichment facilities in Iran and North Korea.

It's just a bomb. It ain't the end of the world. It's likely that nobody would know or care what form of energy the bomb used.

You have a better plan?

Do you have suicidal tendencies or something? If you nuke something, I pretty much doubt the last thing that would be nuked is a nuclear facility. Ever heard of fallout? No matter what you'd drop, a fusion bomb or a nuclear weapon, all radioactive materials emanating from the remains of the facility would spread several thousand kilometers. Depending on the location, it could easily reach allies or even US soil. So next time you give one of your suggestions, think about all consequences.

[Athens]

If the US ever used a Nuc against some one else who did not attack them, lets say Iran, I would personal firebomb all US cars I see visiting here. Empty of course.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Hydrogen bombs ARE nuclear bombs, just employing nuclear fusion instead of nuclear fission. In fact, a hydrogen bomb would be the more desireable weapon as it just creates a massive fireball consuming everything in its wake as opposed to a traditional nuclear bomb which spews radiation everywhere. If you are going to die methinks it is much better to be instantly vaporized than have a lingering death from radiation sickness/poisoning. Unfortunately we don't have low-yield hydrogen bombs in our weapons arsenal--not that I am aware of anyway.

But still, the point is that WE need to put our nuclear weapons out of reach and do everything in our power to make sure those that have them do the same and those that don't have them don't get them. We can't be in the position of telling other nations they can't have nuclear weapons while we continue to keep our massive stockpile and develop new nuclear weapons technologies.

Actually, a hydrogen bomb also uses nuclear material to start the fusion process.

However, I don't think it would make a difference if a nuclear lab (e. g. a uranium enrichment facility) is attacked. Just the radioactive dust from the facility alone would contaminate large areas. In particular, neighboring countries would probably be contaminated as well, including friendly ones. I'm sure they wouldn't like that … 

[Macrobat]

I think we should just drop a Helium bomb and make everyone start talking like munchkins.

Please, the premise of this thread makes exactly as much sense as that. The US has NO first-strike nuclear policy, at all.


One poster said something about not making or developing new nuclear devices. NEWSFLASH!! The last NEW US missile was made in the 1980s, during the REAGAN ADMINISTRATION. We haven't been developing any new explosive devices for even longer than that. The US leads the world in the attempted DE-proliferation of nuclear weapons and we would be just as happy to put the nuclear cat back in the bag and NO ONE would have them.


Finally, despite Von Wrangell's kneejerk assertions, the US does not NEED to resort to nuclear weapons to sort out Iran rather properly, if the US became so inclined.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Macrobat

Finally, despite Von Wrangell's kneejerk assertions, the US does not NEED to resort to nuclear weapons to sort out Iran rather properly, if the US became so inclined.

I wasn't talking about nukes. The US just won't touch Iran unless they've been able to starve the Iranian population for 10-20 years. Sort of like with Iraq.

[Macrobat]

Move your knee out of your eye. The "US" didn't starve anyone, the UN's policies and Saddam's corruption thereof starved Iraqis. You are perfectly well aware of this, but your agenda forces you to post nonsensical bovine scatology.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by Athens

Which is a good think Iran made it law not to acquire atomic bombs.

[Y3a]

I think we should use Iran as a testing ground for the acoustic weapons, and the EMP type of weapons.

Heck, why not use them flyin' saucers we got hidden at area 51 to scare the poo out of 'em?? LOL

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Macrobat

Move your knee out of your eye. The "US" didn't starve anyone, the UN's policies and Saddam's corruption thereof starved Iraqis. You are perfectly well aware of this, but your agenda forces you to post nonsensical bovine scatology.

The UN starved the Iraqi people. That is true. But the UN is just an organisation run by the veto powers for their benefit. The US is a part of that.

So like I said. The US will never attack Iran unless they have been able to starve its people (through the UN) and demoralise its population (by the typical CIA operations as were so successful in Southern America). The last military operations the US had against Iran were all f*ck ups and they won't take the chance of that happening again.

[Kerrigan]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

And if you doubt if the Supreme Leader would be telling the truth about this you haven't got the slightest clue about Iranian society.

Yes, We, the Supreme Leader, have never lied to you about Our dodgy methods of acquiring energy, or anything else for that matter. We are always truthful about everything, otherwise how could We be the SUPREME Leader?

I don't honestly think Iran intends to build a nuclear bomb, the government there are just like little children who know that if they threaten to do something bad, their parents will give them what they want. The leaders of Iran get millions of dollars indirectly from US/EU incentives, and when they want some more attention, they start up their enrichment program again. It's touch and go for the most part, they will never complete the weapon building process.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

Yes, We, the Supreme Leader, have never lied to you about Our dodgy methods of acquiring energy, or anything else for that matter. We are always truthful about everything, otherwise how could We be the SUPREME Leader?

When the Supreme Leader says something is un-Islamic you can be pretty sure he won't allow it to happen. So on this, you can trust him.

I don't honestly think Iran intends to build a nuclear bomb, the government there are just like little children who know that if they threaten to do something bad, their parents will give them what they want. The leaders of Iran get millions of dollars indirectly from US/EU incentives, and when they want some more attention, they start up their enrichment program again. It's touch and go for the most part, they will never complete the weapon building process.

That could very well be.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Macrobat

The US has NO first-strike nuclear policy, at all.

It's fascinating that this is understood by more non-Americans than by Americans.

[AKcrab]

Originally Posted by Macrobat

Please, the premise of this thread makes exactly as much sense as that. The US has NO first-strike nuclear policy, at all.

Did you even read the article??

The first example for potential nuclear weapon use listed in the draft is against an enemy that is using "or intending to use WMD" against U.S. or allied, multinational military forces or civilian populations.

Another scenario for a possible nuclear preemptive strike is in case of an "imminent attack from adversary biological weapons that only effects from nuclear weapons can safely destroy."

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...001053_pf.html





Is Bush going insane? After the massive intelligence failure in Iraq, does he really think people want him to nuke countries dubiously suspected of building WMD?

Or is this nothing but talk, intended to frighten the Iranian government?

If the Iraq war can be taken as French cuisine, bombing Iran will be equivalent to a MacDonald lunch with lots of SuperFries.

[Spliffdaddy]

Trust me, I've lived here my entire life...

the US would, undoubtedly obliterate anything that posed a significant threat to our way of life.

And they damn well better.

Why is that so hard for foreigners to understand? I figured all countries felt the same way about their own country.

They should.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

They should.

Do you have 5 minutes to spare to pounder this again?

[Cold Warrior]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Oh, and you guys can stop worrying about Iran and them getting nukes. They aren't and both the president and the Supreme Leader have said so. And if you doubt if the Supreme Leader would be telling the truth about this you haven't got the slightest clue about Iranian society.

Riiigh. I am going to believe dictators put in power by undemocratic elections who abuse, torture, and oppress their own people. Iran is not a free society, and their leaders are not honest.

[Macrobat]

Originally Posted by AKcrab

Did you even read the article??

Yes, I read it. If you cannot recognize it as the modern version of the policy of MAD (Mutually-Assured Destruction), then perhaps you should get some historical remedials.

And VW, "Supreme Leader" also says that killing civilians is "un-Islamic," while he's writing the latest check for Hezbollah. So, that said, no - no one byut a dogmatic idologue would believe him.

[faragbre967]

Originally Posted by Pendergast

If the Iraq war can be taken as French cuisine, bombing Iran will be equivalent to a MacDonald lunch with lots of SuperFries.

That's freedom fries to you mr....

[AKcrab]

Originally Posted by Macrobat

Yes, I read it. If you cannot recognize it as the modern version of the policy of MAD (Mutually-Assured Destruction), then perhaps you should get some historical remedials.

I don't agree at ALL. We still have out MAD systems in place, this is using nuclear weapons preemptively. You're making WMD's? KaBoom. Where is the "mutual" in that destruction?

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Macrobat

And VW, "Supreme Leader" also says that killing civilians is "un-Islamic," while he's writing the latest check for Hezbollah. So, that said, no - no one byut a dogmatic idologue would believe him.

That discussion would probably be too complex for you to take part in without resorting to personal attacks but if you want to I'll give you a chance.

And I'll guess we'll see who of us is correct. I was correct about Iraq, something your "great" intelligence agencies weren't. And I'm confident I'm right about this as well. I mean why would the US do something that would force the whole mess of Iran Air Flight 655 up again? Or operation Eagle Claw?

The US will never have the guts to bring that up again nor will they have the guts to attack a fully functional nation. The US will be pressing for sanctions because they know that's their only chance and option when it comes to Iran.

[RIRedinPA]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

When the Supreme Leader says something is un-Islamic you can be pretty sure he won't allow it to happen. So on this, you can trust him.

As a signatory to the nuclear nonproliferation treaty Iran was obligated to disclose all activities related to the production of highly enriched uranium and separated plutonium, but for the past twenty years they conducted these activities in secret, without announcing them to the IAEA or any other international oversight body.

So, based on their deceptive action for the past twenty years, combined with their overt support for terroistic organizations such as Hezbollah and Hamas, we should, as you suggest, take the Supreme Leader's word and go about our business.

[Y3a]

As long as countries are run by Islamists they are NOT fully functional.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by RIRedinPA

As a signatory to the nuclear nonproliferation treaty Iran was obligated to disclose all activities related to the production of highly enriched uranium and separated plutonium, but for the past twenty years they conducted these activities in secret, without announcing them to the IAEA or any other international oversight body.

They have no "highly enriched uranium". And they have no "separated plutonium". Where did you get this stuff from?

They weren't completely open about the nuclear project which is understandable when there's the threat of a foreign invasion as soon as they try to become more independent. But now they are working with the IAEA and allowing them to monitor everything that they do.

So, based on their deceptive action for the past twenty years, combined with their overt support for terroistic organizations such as Hezbollah and Hamas, we should, as you suggest, take the Supreme Leader's word and go about our business.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Y3a

As long as countries are run by Islamists they are NOT fully functional.

What do you mean by "Islamist"?

[RIRedinPA]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

They have no "highly enriched uranium". And they have no "separated plutonium". Where did you get this stuff from?

I didn't say they had anything, I said they were trying to produce it covertly.

They weren't completely open about the nuclear project which is understandable when there's the threat of a foreign invasion as soon as they try to become more independent. But now they are working with the IAEA and allowing them to monitor everything that they do.

Please, the US or any other country could not invade Iran without at least six months of build-up in the area (and I am talking pre-Iraq war when much of the subterfuge took place). The likelihood of a bombing, rather than an invasion, is more plausible.

But Iran could have avoided these fears by going to the IAEA twenty years ago and being completely open about their desire to develop peaceful nuclear energy. Once again I reiterate, their covertness, their relationship with terror organizations, the fact that they were in communication with A.Q.Khan, the father of the Pakistani nuclear weapons program, who also passed on/sold nuclear weapons technology to North Korea pretty much, in my opinion, wipes the trust factor off the board.

They want the world to trust them then open their program to international inspectors (including the military bases) on a anytime/anywhere basis. Prove the world wrong rather then fuel our suspicions.

Personally I think the Iranians are going to come to the table eventually. They are trying to develop nukes but now that the jig is up they need to buy time. They also can't be seen as capitulating to Europe or the West, probably figure if it even goes to the security council Russia and China will probably soften that blow, plus how much more ostracized can they be? The current president sees Asia as rising and is probably looking to work with the East rather than the West.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by RIRedinPA

I didn't say they had anything, I said they were trying to produce it covertly.

Which is BS as the link I provided earlier in this thread showed.

Please, the US or any other country could not invade Iran without at least six months of build-up in the area (and I am talking pre-Iraq war when much of the subterfuge took place). The likelihood of a bombing, rather than an invasion, is more plausible.

Yes, it is more likely that a bombing would take place. But that is not going to happen while you have troops on the ground in Iraq. Even if the US intelligence apparatus has shown itself to be completely inept at understanding the area they will realise the result bombing Iran will give.

But Iran could have avoided these fears by going to the IAEA twenty years ago and being completely open about their desire to develop peaceful nuclear energy. Once again I reiterate, their covertness, their relationship with terror organizations, the fact that they were in communication with A.Q.Khan, the father of the Pakistani nuclear weapons program, who also passed on/sold nuclear weapons technology to North Korea pretty much, in my opinion, wipes the trust factor off the board.

Which again shows that you don't understand Iranian culture. If the Supreme Leader says something is un-Islamic you can be pretty damn sure Iran isn't going to pursue that.

They want the world to trust them then open their program to international inspectors (including the military bases) on a anytime/anywhere basis. Prove the world wrong rather then fuel our suspicions.

Why should they open up their military bases to organisations known to have been infiltrated by US spies? That would be suicide. They have on the other hand opened up their nuclear program to the IAEA and continue to work with them on a daily basis. You are just doing exactly what the West will always do. Add requirments until it is simply impossible for the other nation to accept them. And then you (the Western Governments) start the process of starving the people, the economy and the lives of the nation in question. There's nothing new about this tactic but that also makes it quite pathetic that you guys continue to fall for it.

Personally I think the Iranians are going to come to the table eventually. They are trying to develop nukes but now that the jig is up they need to buy time. They also can't be seen as capitulating to Europe or the West, probably figure if it even goes to the security council Russia and China will probably soften that blow, plus how much more ostracized can they be? The current president sees Asia as rising and is probably looking to work with the East rather than the West.

The Iranians have already come to the table and opened up their nuclear program to the IAEA.

And Iran has said that they will work with whatever nation that is willing to have a friendly relationship based on the equality of both nations. This the West will not (and never will) accept which means we will now in the next few years see the West continue to press for sanctions (which it in the end will accomplish) and the struggle for a normal life will be impossible. That is the goal of the West. Just wait and see.

And just like before, when the damage is already done the truth will come out about there being no danger or threat from Iran but that won't help the thousands that will already be dead nor will it change anything in the West because the population will never learn from its mistakes.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

What do you mean by "Islamist"?

Muslim religious extremist, I guess.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

Muslim religious extremist, I guess.

Then there are two follow up questions.

1. Would any nation be functional if it is ran by extremists?

2. What is a Muslim religious extremist?

[James L]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

the US would, undoubtedly obliterate anything that posed a significant threat to our way of life.

And they damn well better.

You do realize this is pretty much how many terrorist organizations think, don't you? If something, or someone, poses a threat to our way of life then it must be obliterated.

So, are you saying you support the very same behavior in your own government and people that you condemn in the terrorists?

Why is that so hard for foreigners to understand? I figured all countries felt the same way about their own country.

They should.

Actually, most "foreigners" realize that military might, and its use thereof, is a slippery slope with NO end in site. There has NEVER been an empire built on military might in history that has not fallen at some point, only to be replaced by another.

Push as hard as you want. Drop all the bombs you want. It is a never ended cycle that you cannot win. One would think history has proven this.

[Macrobat]

VW needs to get over himself. The US "wouldn't have the guts?" Please you know absolutely nothing. Iran's military would last - at most - 48 hours against the US forces that are currently in the region, and the Iranians (if not you) fully realize this. Not sure where this vision of Islamic supermen has arisen for you, but no client nation (defined as one that does NOT make its own tools of war, rather purchases them from another) has a chance against ANY supplier nation, much less the United States.

Personally, I would say the larger threat of action comes not from the US at all, but from Israel, who has shown demosntrably in the past what they are willing to do to keep Islamists (and what is meant by that, VW, is terrorist fanatics, and their supporters) from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Israel has them, but the difference is the obvious responsibility the Israelis have demonstrated in their stewardship of them.

No one attacked you, VW, if you feel that the shoe I put forth was worth trying on, it's your own business.


And AKCrab:

Where this is a modification of the MAD principle is the fact that it would seem to make a first strike plausible to those in such governments who think like VW does, that the US is a paper tiger.

It frees the Pentagon to have the threat on the books, so that it modifies MAD.

BTW, it's not "what Bush is thinking," this is the military. It was there before Bush came to office and it will be there after he leaves. It is a strategic policy proposal, made by professional military personnel, not the civilian leadership of the DoD. Your attempted further demonization of the president notwithstanding.


James L:

No one is building an empire here. The US and its allies have, historically,, managed to conquer most of the world at one time or another, yet have retained NONE of the gained lands.

The very FACT that there are people posting here from GERMANY and JAPAN prove that, but thanks for throwing up the strawman, we can burn it later to get warm.

[Spliffdaddy]

heh.

Iran and North Korea are toast.

It's just a matter of minutes.

Whine all you want after the deed is done - 'cause it ain't like there's a nation on Earth that'll do anything more than warm chairs and move lips.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

heh.

Iran and North Korea are toast.

It's just a matter of minutes.

Whine all you want after the deed is done - 'cause it ain't like there's a nation on Earth that'll do anything more than warm chairs and move lips.

You seem almost excited at the prospect of nuclear conflict with Iran and North Korea.
Is that true or am I reading too much into your post?

How would you feel if we used nuclear weapons (of whatever capacity) against one of these countries?

[:dragonflypro:]

Wait, I'm sorry…

People are actually bitching about having plans while in other threads bitching about not having plans?

...and the aliens continue to laugh.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Macrobat

VW needs to get over himself. The US "wouldn't have the guts?" Please you know absolutely nothing. Iran's military would last - at most - 48 hours against the US forces that are currently in the region, and the Iranians (if not you) fully realize this. Not sure where this vision of Islamic supermen has arisen for you, but no client nation (defined as one that does NOT make its own tools of war, rather purchases them from another) has a chance against ANY supplier nation, much less the United States.

They design their own fighters, their own UAV, their own light battle tanks, their own main battle tank, and their own missiles. And you claim I know nothing.

This is a much improved military from the days of the Iran-Iraq war. 48 hours show that you know absolutely nothing about them. But even if the US will win against the Iranian regular forces (which they probably will but it'll cost) the battle will not be done. What you see in Iraq is just a tiny example of what you'll see in Iran. Which is why the US will try to establish sanctions on Iran to demoralise the Iranian population for at least 10 years.

Personally, I would say the larger threat of action comes not from the US at all, but from Israel, who has shown demosntrably in the past what they are willing to do to keep Islamists (and what is meant by that, VW, is terrorist fanatics, and their supporters) from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Israel has them, but the difference is the obvious responsibility the Israelis have demonstrated in their stewardship of them.

Israel will not pose a threat for several reasons. First of all because the US will not allow it. Any attack on Iran by Israel means the Israeli fighters have to cross US controlled areas (Iraq and SA). Which will mean that an attack by Israel on Iran will be viewed as an attack by the US on Iran. And while your soldiers are stuck in Iraq you won't take the chance of giving Iran a reason to attack your troops. Another reason is because contrary to Iraq, Iran will be able to respond. Iran has missiles that can reach Israel (and farther) which will mean that Israel will not take the chance.

And again, this claim that Iran is going after nukes just shows how little you know about the Iranian culture and politics.

[Macrobat]

"Design" my left buttcheek. They modify existing Soviet designs.

As far as your claims of response, Iraq and Iran - both at their military peaks - fought each other to a stalemate. Iraq at the time of Desert Storm possessed the 4th largest military in the world - it lasted 100 hours against us. Same for Iran. There are no Islamic Supermen™ down there who can defy the laws of physics. With the troops in Afghanistan and Iraq alone (you know the ones on both sides of Iran already?) the United States already putnumbers and out-techs Iran. Guess what" We have 700,000 people in uniforms and more assets still underployed than are already deployed.

VW, you might have a future in advertising, with Taco Bell.

You know, all you have to do is say "I'm full!"

Truth in advertising.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Macrobat

"Design" my left buttcheek. They modify existing Soviet designs.

Some of it is reverse engineered Russian (Soviet doesn't exist if you had forgotten) techniques. And some of it is reverse engineered American technique. But then some of it is original from their own developments. But, as usual, now you are tracking back on your original statement. Why don't you just admit that you are wrong? Too proud?

As far as your claims of response, Iraq and Iran - both at their military peaks - fought each other to a stalemate. Iraq at the time of Desert Storm possessed the 4th largest military in the world - it lasted 100 hours against us. Same for Iran. There are no Islamic Supermen™ down there who can defy the laws of physics. With the troops in Afghanistan and Iraq alone (you know the ones on both sides of Iran already?) the United States already putnumbers and out-techs Iran. Guess what" We have 700,000 people in uniforms and more assets still underployed than are already deployed.

America, F*ck yeah!

Again you show how little you know about Iran. Iran was not at it's military peak when Iraq attacked. They had just gone through a revolution. Before the revolution they were like most proxy states of the US. They got obsolete, or near obsolete, material from the states. They have now developed their military quite much. Perhaps you should try to read up on it just a bit? And if you seriously believe you will outnumber the Iranians forces you are being misled by US propaganda. You might have more fighters, bombers etc in the area. But you will never outnumber the majority of the 68 million Iranians that will fight you.

So I honestly suggest you start reading up on Iranian history, culture or military before you post again and make a fool out of yourself again.