Akrasia wrote: Bush pretty much has announced that he wants to Use his nukes in a strike on Iran.
mike65 wrote: Isreal don't pose a threat to Iran so I dont follow your logic there. Iran on the other hand has frequently said Isreal should even be allowed to exist. Mike.
Pazaz 21 wrote: It's kinda ironic that the thing the Iranians are doing to deter an invasion may just give America the reason it needs to justify invading Iran.
meditraitor wrote: America never needed proper justification for invading other countries before, why would they now?
mike65 wrote: Pffft! Forget invasion they hav'nt got the manpower/tanks/guns/money or support from within the US to do that. Mike.
toiletduck wrote: no he hasn't. israel will never let iran develop a nuclear capability
There is a growing conviction among members of the United States military, and in the international community, that President Bush’s ultimate goal in the nuclear confrontation with Iran is regime change. Iran’s President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has challenged the reality of the Holocaust and said that Israel must be “wiped off the map.” Bush and others in the White House view him as a potential Adolf Hitler, a former senior intelligence official said. “That’s the name they’re using. They say, ‘Will Iran get a strategic weapon and threaten another world war?’ ” A government consultant with close ties to the civilian leadership in the Pentagon said that Bush was “absolutely convinced that Iran is going to get the bomb” if it is not stopped. He said that the President believes that he must do “what no Democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the courage to do,” and “that saving Iran is going to be his legacy.” ........................ ............ Some operations, apparently aimed in part at intimidating Iran, are already under way. American Naval tactical aircraft, operating from carriers in the Arabian Sea, have been flying simulated nuclear-weapons delivery missions—rapid ascending maneuvers known as “over the shoulder” bombing—since last summer, the former official said, within range of Iranian coastal radars. Last month, in a paper given at a conference on Middle East security in Berlin, Colonel Sam Gardiner, a military analyst who taught at the National War College before retiring from the Air Force, in 1987, provided an estimate of what would be needed to destroy Iran’s nuclear program. Working from satellite photographs of the known facilities, Gardiner estimated that at least four hundred targets would have to be hit. He added: I don’t think a U.S. military planner would want to stop there. Iran probably has two chemical-production plants. We would hit those. We would want to hit the medium-range ballistic missiles that have just recently been moved closer to Iraq. There are fourteen airfields with sheltered aircraft. . . . We’d want to get rid of that threat. We would want to hit the assets that could be used to threaten Gulf shipping. That means targeting the cruise-missile sites and the Iranian diesel submarines. . . . Some of the facilities may be too difficult to target even with penetrating weapons. The U.S. will have to use Special Operations units. One of the military’s initial option plans, as presented to the White House by the Pentagon this winter, calls for the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, against underground nuclear sites. One target is Iran’s main centrifuge plant, at Natanz, nearly two hundred miles south of Tehran. Natanz, which is no longer under I.A.E.A. safeguards, reportedly has underground floor space to hold fifty thousand centrifuges, and laboratories and workspaces buried approximately seventy-five feet beneath the surface. That number of centrifuges could provide enough enriched uranium for about twenty nuclear warheads a year. (Iran has acknowledged that it initially kept the existence of its enrichment program hidden from I.A.E.A. inspectors, but claims that none of its current activity is barred by the Non-Proliferation Treaty.) The elimination of Natanz would be a major setback for Iran’s nuclear ambitions, but the conventional weapons in the American arsenal could not insure the destruction of facilities under seventy-five feet of earth and rock, especially if they are reinforced with concrete.
silverharp wrote: I don't think Iran would use Nuclear weapons, but look how the US deals with North Korea V Iraq ...do the math. Now that the US has taken out Iraq, Iran now sees itself as the regional power, what better way to copper fasten this goal
Akrasia wrote: well, he hasn't announced it, it has been announced for him. http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact And just like in Iraq, the 'WMD' thing is just a precept for the war, Bush really wants 'regime change' in Iran.
Hobbes wrote: I get IEEE magazine monthly. Latest one there is a huge article on how Brazil of all places started producing weapons grade nuclear material earlier this year. Funny how they don't get slapped for it.
meditraitor wrote: I heard all this propoganda before, mmmm let me think, pakistan(Muslim) for instance,,,, I dont see them blowing up anyone!
jady88 wrote: Firstly to meditraitor what kind of insane freak are you spouting out nonsense about some form of zionist/american media plot? This is frightening, what parallel version of reality do you live in? The huge majority of media in this and most european countries are extremely sympathetic to middle eastern problems.
jady88 wrote: To be brutally honest I find some of the postings in this thread to be so outrageous its actually hard to believe someone would ever think along such lines. Firstly to meditraitor what kind of insane freak are you spouting out nonsense about some form of zionist/american media plot? This is frightening, what parallel version of reality do you live in? The huge majority of media in this and most european countries are extremely sympathetic to middle eastern problems. You stink of racist undertones dressed up as concern for palestinain problems etc. Secondly the reality, and I mean reality not zionist/american propaganda is that Iran is the most tyrannic regieme on the face of the planet. It is ruled by an exclusive club of religious elite who use their own twisted vision of Islam to oppress their people. They regularly execute homosexuals, religious deviants, women who seek freedom or anyone else they just don't like. Recently two boys aged 16 and 17 were excecuted for homosexual practises. And a teacher was killed for admitting to her pupils that contraception exsisted. The president regularly calls for the anhilation of the democratic state of Isreal. Women have no rights, not even the right to regect a sexual advance, if she is raped she is to marry her rapist or face excecution. Now tell me do honestly believe the rulers of such a nation can be trusted with the power to butcher further millions?
Akrasia wrote: The only peaceful way to solve this problem, is for America to lead a global Nuclear disarmament. Nobody else can do it, because whenever they have tried, America has refused to take part. If america is not part of a global disarmament, then it will never ever happen.
America have one clear way to act like the good guys. Everything else is just bullying, posturing and is going to end in nothing short of disaster. Who here thinks they'll even try the peaceful option? show of hands?
KerranJast wrote: You are seriously naive if you think that if the US tries to go down that path that Russia, China, North Korea, Pakistan, India etc would follow.
They don't have the money or troops to invade Iran so they will try the diplomatic path until there is no other option (Israel will probably intervene militarily anyway before that). There is no support for Iran from the other big nations. Russia and China would probably abstain if there was a UN vote for sanctions or air strikes. Russia has already offered to enrich Uranium for Iran if they really do need Nuclear Power but were refused.
The Iranian govt. are crazy anyway if they think they could ever overtly use nuclear weapons. The US has a second strike policy whereby if they or one of their allies is attacked with Nuclear weapons (or if they detect the launch of said weapons) they will eliminate the aggressor.
Until then there would never be enough public support in the US or internationally to use Nuclear Weapons in combat. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were extreme circumstances and thankfully there has been no need to repeat those tragedies.
The US aren't worried about Iran developing Nuclear weapons for use in combat. They are extremely worried (and rightly so) about Iran passing dirty bombs or full-blown nukes to terrorist groups which could be smuggled into the US or another allied nation.
growler wrote: I think Iran is a basket-case of a nation, if they do get nukes they will be a threat to Israel certainly. If they have it for long enough they might get around to buying the expertise for ICBMs and I doubt anyone wants that, whats to stop the theocracy deciding that they want to enter paradise in a mushroom cloud of glory and take the rest of us with them ? Besides, they don't actually need nuclear power for energy purposes, they have vast oil and gas resources. Also, a point made in the Observer ( I think) was that Iran has an appalling record on safety in general, tens of thousands die on their roads each year, hundreds in plane crashes, if they develop nuclear power there is an excellent chance they'll botch it.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w2.vanillicon.com/v2/24615175400ae675a1f589d8e5bd3285.svg)
