Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Israel warned not to attack Iran until Obama Takes Office

Options
2

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Mahatma coat
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,869 ✭✭✭Mahatma coat


    France, the French came out and threatened to use their nukes recently.

    Yes I do think that 'Giving' the Iranians a few ICBM's would balance the scales or at least counter the massive imbalance that exists at the moment.

    Oh noes he talked to people who dont toe the line about the Holocaust and believe without question the Bull**** being foisted on them by the Jews.

    Damm, he must be evil so:rolleyes:

    I dont remember the Sanctions against India & Pakistan Crippling the countries quite to the same level as say Sanctions against Iraq/Serbia


  • Options
    #33
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Mahatma coat wrote: »
    France, the French came out and threatened to use their nukes recently.
    Backing this up any time soon?
    Mahatma coat wrote: »
    Yes I do think that 'Giving' the Iranians a few ICBM's would balance the scales or at least counter the massive imbalance that exists at the moment.
    No it won't. It'll only serve to destablise the region further.
    Mahatma coat wrote: »
    Oh noes he talked to people who dont toe the line about the Holocaust and believe without question the Bull**** being foisted on them by the Jews.

    Damm, he must be evil so:rolleyes:
    Cause that's how history works!

    Mahatma coat wrote: »
    I dont remember the Sanctions against India & Pakistan Crippling the countries quite to the same level as say Sanctions against Iraq/Serbia
    So there where sanctions. Why did you say there weren't? And so what if the sanctions weren't as bad? Iraq were massacring ethinic groups and Serbia was in a war.


  • Options
    #34
    Diogenes
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,701 ✭✭✭Diogenes


    Mahatma coat wrote: »
    France, the French came out and threatened to use their nukes recently.

    The previous french president didn't rule out using nukes as retaliation to a terrorist attack. Thats not the same a threat. IE do what we want or get nuked.
    Yes I do think that 'Giving' the Iranians a few ICBM's would balance the scales or at least counter the massive imbalance that exists at the moment.

    At best that would lead to the Iranians either nuking Tel Aiv, and Iran getting wiped out. Or Iran launching a missile in aggression, and getting wiped off the map, after killing a few million innocent people.

    Oh well those are two winning solutions.
    Oh noes he talked to people who dont toe the line about the Holocaust and believe without question the Bull**** being foisted on them by the Jews.

    No please Mahatma, keep it, up I'm adding this to my guessing game of "who said this a boards mod, or a stormfront mod" that I'm going to post onto AH sometime soon.
    Damm, he must be evil so:rolleyes:

    he's a reprehensible character.
    I dont remember the Sanctions against India & Pakistan Crippling the countries quite to the same level as say Sanctions against Iraq/Serbia

    Well they didn't last as long, and y'know Islamic countries didn't join into the sanctions on Pakistan, and India is one of the most populous countries on earth, so hey, why let the fact that situations are completely different, mean you shouldn't compare the sanctions between these four countries


  • Options
    #35
    toiletduck
    Registered Users Posts: 2,379 ✭✭✭toiletduck


    Mahatma coat wrote: »
    The NPT is a load of ****, tis OK for the Big Boys to have nukes and to threaten their use, but tis not OK to balance the scales?

    So nukes for all then? Wow, well done. I really thought that most reasonable people were against nuclear proliferation.
    What about India and Pakistan, Lots of sanctions imposed on them for breaking the NPT werent there.

    Yes.
    Yes I do think that 'Giving' the Iranians a few ICBM's would balance the scales or at least counter the massive imbalance that exists at the moment.

    Capable of striking anywhere on the planet... You want to give this ability (which I may add the Isrealis don't have) to that horrible regime in Tehran?

    Incredible. Is their any countries that you don't want the nukes to have? Did you support Isreal when they acquired the bomb, you know to "balance out the scales" in regard to the disproportionate amount of troops/weaponry their enemies had? Same for South Africa?


  • Options
    #36
    Mahatma coat
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,869 ✭✭✭Mahatma coat


    exactly why is Ahmadinijad a 'Reprehensible character' in charge of 'horrible regeime'

    what about Ehud Olmert, I suppose he's a shining light of hope leading an enlightened nation:rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    toiletduck
    Registered Users Posts: 2,379 ✭✭✭toiletduck


    Nice dodging. Any chance of answering the questions put forward?

    As for Iran being a horrible regime, imo it most certainly is. I could give links to all the human rights abuses, support of terrorism, stonings etc etc etc etc but I suspect your line of argument isn't focused on Iran.


  • Options
    #38
    Mahatma coat
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,869 ✭✭✭Mahatma coat


    Yeah, its either Nukes for all or total disarmament, and seeing as how total disarmament is out of the question then its Nukes for all.

    this comes back to the question n the other thread, what gives us the right to decide who should and shouldnt have Nukes? what gives us the right to dictate how another nation governs its affairs? what makes us so special?


  • Options
    #39
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Mahatma coat wrote: »
    Yeah, its either Nukes for all or total disarmament, and seeing as how total disarmament is out of the question then its Nukes for all.
    Only a Sith deals in absolutes!
    Also there are many situations around the world where introducing nuclear weapons would be downright retarded.
    Course you have to factor in the cost of maintaining the bombs and their delivery systems, there ain't many countries that can afford that.
    And I'm not even going to mention what would happen in a terrorist group got their hands on one.
    Mahatma coat wrote: »
    this comes back to the question n the other thread, what gives us the right to decide who should and shouldnt have Nukes? what gives us the right to dictate how another nation governs its affairs? what makes us so special?

    We didn't. Ireland has no say on who has and who should nukes.

    Second US, France, Russia, China, and England have seats on the UN security council. So I'd say they'd have a bit of sway.

    Oh yea and there was this little document about nuclear arms....


  • Options
    #40
    meglome
    Registered Users Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    Mahatma coat wrote: »
    Yeah, its either Nukes for all or total disarmament, and seeing as how total disarmament is out of the question then its Nukes for all.

    Sorry man that really is mental. It's bad enough the US could destroy us all many times over without adding more weapons.


  • Options
    #41
    Mahatma coat
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,869 ✭✭✭Mahatma coat


    why is it Mental, if Iraq had managed to get a nuclear program up and running the US would have thought twice about invading them, similarly Israel is posturing now against Iran because once they come out and declare that the HAVE the bomb then there can be no more hawkish posturing. the ones that have the Nukes at the moment are the ones that are destabilsing the region with their warmongering and blatent opression of the palestinians, yet they're not sanctioned, why?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Mahatma coat wrote: »
    why is it Mental, if Iraq had managed to get a nuclear program up and running the US would have thought twice about invading them, similarly Israel is posturing now against Iran because once they come out and declare that the HAVE the bomb then there can be no more hawkish posturing. the ones that have the Nukes at the moment are the ones that are destabilsing the region with their warmongering and blatent opression of the palestinians, yet they're not sanctioned, why?

    Because the world is a ****ed up complicated place, that won't be fixed by giving more people nukes.
    There is no way that Iran getting the bomb will be a good thing.


  • Options
    #43
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,263 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    They require fueling mid air. Up until recently Israel didnt even have that capability but they have now thanks to US assistance.

    You're talking out your hat, there. The Israeli raids on Entebbe (4,000km one way) and Tunis (2,100km one-way), both of which were over twenty years ago, should be evidence enough of the theoretical Israeli capability over time.

    NTM


  • Options
    #44
    Mahatma coat
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,869 ✭✭✭Mahatma coat


    Look The russians were sellin Nukes (not NuclearSecrets, actual Nuclear Warheads) on the black market ten years ago
    http://www.lubbockonline.com/news/090597/LA0759.htm

    you dont think some 'terrorists' went out and bought some,


  • Options
    #45
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Mahatma coat wrote: »
    Look The russians were sellin Nukes (not NuclearSecrets, actual Nuclear Warheads) on the black market ten years ago
    http://www.lubbockonline.com/news/090597/LA0759.htm

    you dont think some 'terrorists' went out and bought some,
    They might have, if these things actually are missing. However it seems unlikely that a terrorist group would have held on to them for 10 years and not do anything.

    But what has this to do with Iran having nukes?
    My skeptisence(tm) detects you are trying to throw in a red herring again.


  • Options
    #46
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,263 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    But what has this to do with Iran having nukes?

    Some estimates from a few years ago believed that Iran had acquired a couple of nukes which 'dropped off' the books after the Soviet breakup.

    NTM


  • Options
    #47
    Mahatma coat
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,869 ✭✭✭Mahatma coat


    what I'm saying is that is plausible that Iran may already have the capacity to launch a Nuclear ICBM, dosent mean that they are any more likely to launch a first strike than any other Government.

    on a Related note I have my suspicions that the North Korean 'Test' from a while back may have been the detonation of one of these black market Nukes, under the pretense that they had finaly managed to develop their own weapons program


  • Options
    #48
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Mahatma coat wrote: »
    what I'm saying is that is plausible that Iran may already have the capacity to launch a Nuclear ICBM, dosent mean that they are any more likely to launch a first strike than any other Government.
    No it's not plausible they can launch, have or can build nuclear ICBMs.
    They're not anymore likely to first strike true, however there is no reason to allow them to develop nuclear weapons.
    Mahatma coat wrote: »
    on a Related note I have my suspicions that the North Korean 'Test' from a while back may have been the detonation of one of these black market Nukes, under the pretense that they had finaly managed to develop their own weapons program
    So they faked all that nuclear power stuff when they nukes all along? That's not very likely.
    Also the suitcase nukes, if they exist, would be nowhere near the power of proper nukes available to other countries. Therefore they would be pretty worthless as a deterrent. Excellent however for terrorist attacks.


  • Options
    #49
    Mahatma coat
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,869 ✭✭✭Mahatma coat


    Nuclear power is relativley easy compared to nuclear Weapons, so while its entirely possible for a nation to have Nuclear Power, tis not a simple next step to nuclear weapons


  • Options
    #50
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,263 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    Which came first, nuclear electricity, or nuclear bombs?
    The technology for an A-Bomb is really pretty simple. Even the current US nuclear deterrent is based on vacuum tubes.

    NTM


  • Options
    #51
    Mahatma coat
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,869 ✭✭✭Mahatma coat


    Does anyone else remember a BBC report from around 96 about one of the reporters going to a Base in Northern Russia to buy a Black market Warhead, the Warhead had been yanked of the nose of a missile witha crowbar and was being stored in the cupboard under the stairs in a regular SemiD in 'suburban' Russia?

    50 Megaton yield IIRC


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Mahatma coat
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,869 ✭✭✭Mahatma coat


    Nuclear electricty I believe.

    they figured out how to boil water with it before they figured out how to make it explode


  • Options
    #53
    bonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    Diogenes wrote: »
    The previous french president didn't rule out using nukes as retaliation to a terrorist attack. Thats not the same a threat. IE do what we want or get nuked.

    I agree. Its not a threat.

    A threat would be more like what GWB was saying when he made comments to the effect of "do what we want, and we refuse to rule any option out in terms of how we'll respond if you don't"....and when asked directly if that included nuclear options, repeated the notion that the US would not rule out any option.

    I'm pretty sure (and I'm not being sarcastic) that was mostly just sabre-rattling, but then again I'm of the opinion that most of Iran's aggressive comments regarding Israel, the US and whoever else has pissed them off is also mostly just sabre-rattling.
    At best that would lead to the Iranians either nuking Tel Aiv, and Iran getting wiped out. Or Iran launching a missile in aggression, and getting wiped off the map, after killing a few million innocent people.

    Oh well those are two winning solutions.
    I disagree.

    At best, Iran having nukes would mean that they couldn't be bullied as much on the international stage as they are any more.

    The notion that Iran would engage in a nuclear first strike against anyone has one overriding priority - that those controlling Iran (From Ahmedinejad upwards) have a death-wish...that they want to die.

    Put simply, thats a convenient fiction backed by no evidence whatsoever. Martyrs abound at the bottom of such power-structures, not the top....for rather obvious reasons (i.e. its not a trait that's conducive to promotion).

    The perhaps-slightly-less-dictional worry is that Iran would supply terrorists with nukes. From my understanding of nuclear tech, the radiation signature of any bomb can be tracked to where the fissile material came from. If thats correct, then we're back to the same position...they need a death-wish at the top before they'd use this.

    Nuclear weapons in the hands of such nations are more a defensive "ace up the sleve" then anything else. Its no longer safe to invade. Its no longer safe to bomb strategic resources because you don't like them. Hell, with a nuclear nation, the overriding priority is to play ball with them so that they don't give the tech to others. Thats the reality of the NPT....there's SFA you can do once someone is "in the club", except give them every reason to make sure that they don't help increase membership.
    No please Mahatma, keep it, up I'm adding this to my guessing game of "who said this a boards mod, or a stormfront mod" that I'm going to post onto AH sometime soon.
    (mod hat on)
    Give it a rest, Diogenes. If you've a problem with what he's saying then report the post and/or take it to Feedback/Helpdesk. Either which way, it has no place here.
    (mod hat off)


  • Options
    #54
    bonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    Which came first, nuclear electricity, or nuclear bombs?

    You could read it either which way, I guess.

    Chicago Pile 1 (CP1), in 1942 was the first man-made nuclear reactor.
    Experimental Breeder Reactor 1 (EBR1), in 1951, was the first electricity-generating nuclear power plant.

    It would, however, be fair to say that the funding for the pioneering work in both areas really kicked off when Einstein wrote to FDR about the possibility/danger of nuclear weapons.


  • Options
    #55
    bonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    Mahatma coat wrote: »
    what I'm saying is that is plausible that Iran may already have the capacity to launch a Nuclear ICBM, ...

    I disagree.

    I'll concede that its plausible that Iran may have acquired a nuclear weapon. If so, its almost certainly for use as a learning tool. Easiest way to build nuclear weapons is to have a real-live working model to help you along.

    I'd give a "possible but not likely" that they've developed one of their own.

    I'd give a "very unlikely" that they've not only developed one, but managed to make it small and stable enough to put on top of a missile.

    I'd give a "bordering on the impossible" that they've developed ICBM capability.


  • Options
    #56
    Mahatma coat
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,869 ✭✭✭Mahatma coat


    What I was gettin at is that with all the blackmarket profitering in the 90's and Irans devil may care attitude at the time tis not completley unfeasible that they bought a few complete missiles, obviously not big enough to strike at America, but Israel?


  • Options
    #57
    bonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    So lets assume they have the missiles....and have kept them hidden and maintained over the past 10 years.

    So we've got an Iran who has had the capacity to strike Israel for over a decade, and haven't done so.

    All that does is reinforce the suggestion that Iran aren't led by a bunch of self-destructive lunatics who'll cause their own nation to be scorched to non-existence just in order to get in a few licks at Israel. I think thats the point you were trying to make, but the reality is that even if they don't have that capability, there's still nothing to suggest that these are the type of people leading Iran anyway.

    Skeptics of conspiracy theorists are always quick to ask for sources/evidence/reasoning. I put the same challenge to anyone who believes the leader's of Iran are suicidal. Show me the evidence.

    All we seem to have is the assumption that because of a bit of anti-Israeli rhetoric, we can assume they're complete nut-jobs who will stop at nothing. There's no shortage of anti-Israeli rhetoric on this forum or on boards in general. Does that imply that Ireland is full of anti-Israeli terrorists who would stop at nothing to see Israel gone?


  • Options
    #58
    Mahatma coat
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,869 ✭✭✭Mahatma coat


    yes, thats what I'm getin at, the other side of the coin would be, and this is the scary bit, they have deliberatley kept them quiet in the hope that Israel will launch a first strike offensive, thus giving them valid reason to obliterate the state of Israel, however as you said thats more unlikely as they currently dont seem to be led by Fanatical Jihadists, but they did have nutters in charge back then.


  • Options
    #59
    bonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    Mahatma coat wrote: »
    yes, thats what I'm getin at, the other side of the coin would be, and this is the scary bit, they have deliberatley kept them quiet in the hope that Israel will launch a first strike offensive, thus giving them valid reason to obliterate the state of Israel,
    That reasoning alls apart if one considers that Israel also have nukes....because legitimate reason or no, first-strike or no, attacking Israel with nukes will get you destroyed.
    however as you said thats more unlikely as they currently dont seem to be led by Fanatical Jihadists, but they did have nutters in charge back then.
    There is no evidence that Iran has ever been led by suicidal maniacs. It has been led by people willing to get into wars they believed they could win, sure. It has been led by people willing to let others suffer and die, no question. That is still a long, long, way from the notion that it has been led by people willing to have their country nuked back into the stone-age.


  • Options
    #60
    meglome
    Registered Users Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    I take your point Bonkey but... I know we get a particular view of Iran from western media, one that at least hints that fundamentalists would be getting their hands on the bomb if Iran does. I'm of the opinion that none of that matters, what matters to me is I personally don't want to see any other country with nuclear weapons. Would it stabilise the region? well maybe but it is also just possible that a fundamentalist who wants to die for his god could get his hands on said bomb and set it off killing huge numbers of people.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    toiletduck
    Registered Users Posts: 2,379 ✭✭✭toiletduck


    meglome wrote: »
    I'm of the opinion that none of that matters, what matters to me is I personally don't want to see any other country with nuclear weapons.

    My thoughts exactly.
    Manic Moran wrote:
    Some estimates from a few years ago believed that Iran had acquired a couple of nukes which 'dropped off' the books after the Soviet breakup.

    NTM

    Really? Interesting.


Advertisement