Did we really expect to have lasted this long?

KenSwee · 11-08-2012 5:00pm #1

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2012/0811/1224321995773.html

According to a report from an Israeli newspaper, the daily Yedioth Ahronoth, the Prime minister and defence minister of Israel would like to order an attack on Iran’s nuclear sites before the US election in November but lack crucial support within their cabinet and military.

Now we all have opinions of the little state in the Middle East but that's not the topic of this post. If they want to beat the crap out of each other over there, then they are welcome to go ahead as I'm sick of it going on since I've been on this earth. It's the new reason they are at each others throats and what they could use to fight with that bothers me.

My topic is about the amount of time we have survived without an actual nuclear attack happening somewhere in this world and how bloody lucky we have been so far.

At 8:15 A.M. on August 6, 1945, The cat was let out of the bag. We have been unbelievably lucky not to have perished yet as a result of a nuclear war. Do the powers that be and Israel really expect to have warheads hidden under their jumper then complain and threaten Iran because they are adopting a technology that has been available for over 60 years?

Are the big powers just codding themselves that they can prevent this from happening? Nuclear power is such a contentious issue on many different levels. Will a nation use it for good or evil? Nobody knows until it's too late. Does one nation have the right to have nuclear capabilities over another? Where is the rule of law employed? Most westerners would probably say that Iran has no right to have the nuclear capability, but do they feel the same about India? What makes India more capable of having the capability without doing some kind of craziness with it over Iran?

And what of the nations who are hiding the fact that they have them. Again, you could do an entirely new post on that but they must surely exist. It's easy to bash Israel with this stick but I'm sure there are a few more.

And if Israel do attack Iran, how dangerous would it be for the rest of the world if they did slug it our with a few warheads in their part of the world?

I think there is a huge danger that we are entering into another period where the possibility of a nuclear strike could happen from non conventional sources.

Putting aside the military use of nuclear power, as the chaos in Japan showed, nuclear power is a dangerous little devil. But again, is a 2nd or 3rd world country such as Mexico or Botswana entitled to have nuclear power?

paddy147 · 11-08-2012 5:02pm

We are overdue another World War at this stage.

seven_eleven · 11-08-2012 5:03pm

paddy147 wrote: »

We are due another World War at this stage.

No we're not. World wars arent set out regular occurences like a period :pac:

Duggy747 · 11-08-2012 5:05pm

Stanislav Yevgrafovich Petrov stopped a potential nuclear war back in 83.

a retired lieutenant colonel of the Soviet Air Defence Forces. On September 26, 1983 he was the duty officer at the command center for the Oko nuclear early warning system when the system reported a small launch from the United States. Petrov judged that the report was a false alarm.

This decision may have prevented an erroneous retaliatory nuclear attack on the United States and its Western allies. Investigation later confirmed that the satellite warning system had malfunctioned.

paddy147 · 11-08-2012 5:06pm

Someone just press a red button,and then blame it on a newbie,or a computer malfunction...(terminator)

TheBody · 11-08-2012 5:06pm

paddy147 wrote: »

We are overdue another World War at this stage.

I bet Hollywood would love another world war to give them some new material to make films about!! :pac:

paddy147 · 11-08-2012 5:08pm

TheBody wrote: »

I bet Hollywood would love another world war to give them some new material to make films about!! :pac:

Or antoher "Team America" puppet film.;)

Madam_X · 11-08-2012 5:11pm

I reckon it hasn't happened because the powers know it's beyond retarded to kill the whole world (i.e. their source of power) and even themselves, so it's just a threat: and material for ace films, TV shows, ads and songs/vids!

KenSwee · 11-08-2012 5:33pm

paddy147 wrote: »

We are overdue another World War at this stage.

seven_eleven wrote: »

No we're not. World wars arent set out regular occurences like a period :pac:

Yes I agree about world wars but are we overdue a nuclear attack or massive catastrophe?

KenSwee · 11-08-2012 5:35pm

Onixx wrote: »

I reckon it hasn't happened because the powers know it's beyond retarded to kill the whole world (i.e. their source of power) and even themselves, so it's just a threat: and material for ace films, TV shows, ads and songs/vids!

True about the superpowers but what about the smaller nations who have or will posses this technology? I could be wrong but I think a world wide nuclear war is unlikely but I don't feel the same about a regional nuclear attack or mis-management of the technology.

keith16 · 11-08-2012 5:36pm

Duggy747 wrote: »

Stanislav Yevgrafovich Petrov stopped a potential nuclear war back in 83.

The man who save the world. There is a brilliant documentary about the whole thing.

Sunnyisland · 11-08-2012 5:45pm

The threat of a full nuclear war has reciended dramatically since the cold war ended,But there is a chance of a smaller version happening in the middle east or even with NK,There is also more of a threat from a :terrorist: type nuclear attack with a small bomb planted in maybe london or any American cities.

Pottler · 11-08-2012 5:46pm

Is it just me, or is Israel a bit like the skanger family who have a few bob that live down the street -there's always one- always involved in some feckin drama or row, always throwing rubbish over peoples fences and their kids causing aggro on a daily basis. Like a feckin boil on your arse, always annoying and always threatening to erupt. Personally, they bore me and I wish they'd move, or get a disease, or a burning desire to move to Leitrim, or somthing. Can we not pursuade Israel to move to Leitrim? For the sake of world peace like? Would it fit there? Could we squeeze them in if we used a big squeezy thing?

kowloon · 11-08-2012 5:49pm

paddy147 wrote: »

Or antoher "Team America" puppet film.;)

That's good enough reason for me.

smcgiff · 11-08-2012 5:49pm

North korea have the bomb despite the west's wishes. The difference with iran is that they have publically stated they want israel wiped from the face of the planet. That's not western propoganda, just fact.

And, dont rely on the mutual destruction safeguard - it only takes a lunatic/functioning psychotic to be in charge of the red button again see Iran.

The Us / Russia may also strike first if they think it likely the other will strike first, to get a minimal advantage. Again, think a scenario escalating from Iran.

rubadubduba · 11-08-2012 5:50pm

i'd be more worried about what comes from outerspace tbh, i think we are on borrowed time.

smcgiff · 11-08-2012 5:55pm

rubadubduba wrote: »

i'd be more worried about what comes from outerspace tbh, i think we are on borrowed time.

We're okay until we invent faster than light travel

Wetbench4 · 11-08-2012 6:05pm

Never mind all that, what we are really due is a superflu. We havent had a good one in years.

Pottler · 11-08-2012 6:06pm

I thought this was another Saoirview thread to begin with, tbh.:D

Pure_Cork · 11-08-2012 6:15pm

smcgiff wrote: »

North korea have the bomb despite the west's wishes. The difference with iran is that they have publically stated they want israel wiped from the face of the planet. That's not western propoganda, just fact.

That is not fact, that is complete and utter bull.

Border-Rat · 11-08-2012 6:21pm

smcgiff wrote: »

North korea have the bomb despite the west's wishes. The difference with iran is that they have publically stated they want israel wiped from the face of the planet. That's not western propoganda, just fact.

And, dont rely on the mutual destruction safeguard - it only takes a lunatic/functioning psychotic to be in charge of the red button again see Iran.

The Us / Russia may also strike first if they think it likely the other will strike first, to get a minimal advantage. Again, think a scenario escalating from Iran.

Scary when you have people this naive. Israel admitted than Iran made no such threat earlier this year. Yet even beyond that, you have an unshakeable belief in it. Secondly, if Iran wanted to wipe Israel off the map, it could. One high explosive MRBM on Israels nuclear weapons development site and its goodnight Israel. Another for good measure on the biological weapons plant.

This is why Israel has not struck Iran.

Kirby · 11-08-2012 6:21pm

Pure_Cork wrote: »

That is not fact, that is complete and utter bull.

Actually, it's a fact that Ahmadinejad said it. He's the Iranian president.

Now you can argue of interpretation or what he actually meant when he said it, but the fact that he said it is not in dispute. It was reported worldwide.

Border-Rat · 11-08-2012 6:23pm

Kirby wrote: »

Actually, it's a fact that Ahmadinejad said it. He's the Iranian president.

Now you can argue of interpretation or what he actually meant when he said it, but the fact that he said it is not in dispute. It was reported worldwide.

http://www.ascertainthetruth.com/att/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=718:israeli-pm-admits-iran-never-called-to-wipe-out-israel&catid=56:international-war-on-terror&Itemid=109

rubadubduba · 11-08-2012 6:23pm

smcgiff wrote: »

We're okay until we invent faster than light travel

that wont be anytime soon.

( after all we are only a flash in the pan.)

Kirby · 11-08-2012 6:24pm

Border-Rat wrote: »

http://www.ascertainthetruth.com/att/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=718:israeli-pm-admits-iran-never-called-to-wipe-out-israel&catid=56:international-war-on-terror&Itemid=109

As I said, you can argue over interpretation, but not the fact that he said it. He later stated that he wanted to wipe out the regime, not the country, but thats not specifically what he said.

Pure_Cork · 11-08-2012 6:33pm

Kirby wrote: »

As I said, you can argue over interpretation, but not the fact that he said it. He later stated that he wanted to wipe out the regime, not the country, but thats not specifically what he said.

He DID NOT say that he wanted to wipe Israel off the map. The translation of his original speech by the media wasn't correct. Here is a correct transcript from the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/30/weekinreview/30iran.html?pagewanted=all

Our dear Imam said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. Is it possible to create a new front in the heart of an old front. This would be a defeat and whoever accepts the legitimacy of this regime [Israel] has in fact, signed the defeat of the Islamic world. Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world. But we must be aware of tricks.

****ing hell.

Border-Rat · 11-08-2012 6:35pm

Kirby wrote: »

As I said, you can argue over interpretation, but not the fact that he said it. He later stated that he wanted to wipe out the regime, not the country, but thats not specifically what he said.

Then, expert that you are, why don't you tell us what he 'specifically' said. I'm not too hot on Farsi myself. Secondly, why hasn't he done it? Iran's Shahab III MRBM system is capable of hitting Israels nuclear weapons facility. That would do the job.

Kirby · 11-08-2012 6:43pm

Border-Rat wrote: »

Then, expert that you are, why don't you tell us what he 'specifically' said. I'm not too hot on Farsi myself. Secondly, why hasn't he done it? Iran's Shahab III MRBM system is capable of hitting Israels nuclear weapons facility. That would do the job.

People say things all the time that they don't end up doing. So thats a bit of a silly argument.

Secondly, I never cited myself as an expert.

Thirdly, I have no dog in this fight and don't care what they do or don't do to each other. And as I also said twice already, people are free to discuss or guess what he meant by what he said. But not what he actually said. Because that's a fact and I don't believe in facts being twisted for your own political or religous beliefs which is what you are doing.

You are talking about missiles and nuclear weapons facilities and Shanab II MRBM systems as if that makes any difference to what the man said. It doesn't. It's just window dressing for your own political view. The backtracking regarding what he said was damage control. It's fairly common when an administration is afraid of something that their leader says.

Pure_Cork · 11-08-2012 6:47pm

Kirby wrote: »

People say things all the time that they don't end up doing. So thats a bit of a silly argument.

Secondly, I never cited myself as an expert.

Thirdly, I have no dog in this fight and don't care what they do or don't do to each other. And as I also said twice already, people are free to discuss or guess what he meant by what he said. But not what he actually said. Because that's a fact and I don't believe in facts being twisted for your own political or religous beliefs which is what you are doing.

You are talking about missiles and nuclear weapons facilities and Shanab II MRBM systems as if that makes any difference to what the man said. It doesn't. It's just window dressing for your own political view. The backtracking regarding what he said was damage control. It's fairly common when an administration is afraid of something that their leader says.

If you bother to read my post above you'll see that the man did not say that he wanted "to wipe Israel off the map".

Border-Rat · 11-08-2012 6:47pm

Kirby wrote: »

People say things all the time that they don't end up doing. So thats a bit of a silly argument.

Secondly, I never cited myself as an expert.

Thirdly, I have no dog in this fight and don't care what they do or don't do to each other. And as I also said twice already, people are free to discuss or guess what he meant by what he said. But not what he actually said. Because that's a fact and I don't believe in facts being twisted for your own political or religous beliefs which is what you are doing.

Its a fact that Ahmedinejad threatened to wipe Israel off the map? Where is your proof?

You are talking about missiles and nuclear weapons facilities and Shanab II MRBM systems as if that makes any difference to what the man said. It doesn't. It's just window dressing for your own political view. The backtracking regarding what he said was damage control. It's fairly common when an administration is afraid of something that their leader says.

He didn't say it. We've established that. Bolding the word 'fact' doesn't make fantasy a fact. The second thing we've established is that he doesn't have the intention of doing it.

Kirby · 11-08-2012 6:49pm

Pure_Cork wrote: »

If you bother to read my post above you'll see that the man did not say that he wanted "to wipe Israel off the map".

Oh I read it. But I recognise spin when I see it.

Did we really expect to have lasted this long?

Comments