Iran has secret nuclear site...

[rasmasyean]

Obama: Iran has secret nuclear site

Iranian president says plant in compliance, but nuclear agency says not true

NBC News and news services
updated 36 minutes ago
PITTSBURGH - Bluntly confronting Iran, President Barack Obama and the leaders of France and Britain accused the Islamic republic Friday of clandestinely building an underground plant to make nuclear fuel that could be used to build an atomic bomb.
...more

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33016209/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33016209/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/)



Check this out... Nuke suspicion seems more and more intense.

What do you think? More War on the horizon? Think about is, Iraq has stabilized quite a bit. Not to mention having stocked up on $billions of new weapons from the US and other places as well. They always had beef with this country and prolly want some old land back and can use a motive to unify people to a cause. Not to mention easy air staging for their “allies” with unlimited fuel supply. Afghanistan is flanked right on the opposite side where many air bases already are, including ground access on a large front.

What are your thoughts on the situation and the coming future?

Truth or dare…conspiracy theories…military analysis…all thoughts welcome!

Dicusss... :)

[bamaworks]

My favorite part is watching Obama do what his criticizers said he wouldn't, and that's be tough and call out middle eastern countries getting out of line.

[skunk]

Iran does not hold any "old land" belonging to Iraq. Iraq is not going to get involved in a war with a fellow Shia power which is itself deeply enmeshed within the Iraqi hierarchy. 80% of Afghanistan is under Taleban control. The Israelis can't even do it because they will not get overflying permission from Iraq. In short, none of your fantasy scenarios is going to happen.

[Peterkro]

The Israelis can't even do it because they will not get overflying permission from Iraq. In short, none of your fantasy scenarios is going to happen.

I think that Turkey would not be adverse to Israel overflying,though I think it would involve in air refueling.

[rdowns]

Truth or dare…conspiracy theories…military analysis…all thoughts welcome!


More like a wet dream. :rolleyes:

[jav6454]

More like a wet dream. :rolleyes:

I was thinking this exactly.

[leekohler]

It won't really make much of a difference. Iran would be stupid to use nuclear weapons, and I'm sure they know it. It's just an insurance policy against invasion, nothing more.

[NC MacGuy]

It won't really make much of a difference. Iran would be stupid to use nuclear weapons, and I'm sure they know it. It's just an insurance policy against invasion, nothing more.

Very optimistic, naive & wishful thinking.

[leekohler]

Very optimistic, naive & wishful thinking.

Really? What country with nuclear weapons has ever used them as an act of war? Oh, I know...

[Chaszmyr]

It won't really make much of a difference. Iran would be stupid to use nuclear weapons, and I'm sure they know it. It's just an insurance policy against invasion, nothing more.

Iran would be stupid to use nuclear weapons in a preemptive strike and I'm sure they know it. However, they see war with the US or other countries as being distinctly possible, and if engaged in a war I don't think they would hesitate to use nuclear weapons. Most of the world already dislikes them, and most of the people who do like them would support their right to defend themselves, so I am betting they would see no reason not to take advantage of the tactical advantage nuclear weapon usage would provide.

[NC MacGuy]

Really? What country with nuclear weapons has ever used them as an act of war? Oh, I know...

The U.S. did not use them to start a war.

[leekohler]

The U.S. did not use them to start a war.

We certainly used them during a war. If you are going to be that nit picky, I don't know what to say.

[NC MacGuy]

We certainly used them during a war. If you are going to be that nit picky, I don't know what to say.

I'm not being nit picky. The argument for the use of "the bomb" to end The War is compelling. It was an exceptionally brutal war and those involved didn't always play by the rules. The U.S. was planning to invade Japan. Japan was going to execute and dispose upwards of 100,000 allied prisoners of war if attacked. There would have been many more lives lost since Japan was fairly well dug in and the conventional bombing was doing nothing to soften their stance. War is ugly and ugly decisions have to be made.

Iran is run by religious zealots. They don't hesitate to kill their own and blatantly lie and refuse to become a decent player in world relations.

[KingYaba]

I think it boils down to respect. Those with nukes are treated differently.

[leekohler]

I think it boils down to respect. Those with nukes are treated differently.

I agree.

I'm not being nit picky. The argument for the use of "the bomb" to end The War is compelling. It was an exceptionally brutal war and those involved didn't always play by the rules. The U.S. was planning to invade Japan. Japan was going to execute and dispose of upwards of 100,000 allied prisoners of war if attacked. There would have been many more lives lost since Japan was fairly well dug in and the conventional bombing was doing nothing to soften their stance. War is ugly and ugly decisions have to be made.

I'm not arguing why we used it. My point was that we are the only ones who have during a war.

Iran is run by religious zealots. They don't hesitate to kill their own and blatantly lie and refuse to become a decent player in world relations.

You really think they would use nuclear weapons? REALLY?

[BoyBach]

I see that our resident warmonger is salivating at the possibility of more war, more flashy-whizz-bang pyrotechnics, more meat for the grinder.

[Shivetya]

My favorite part is watching Obama do what his criticizers said he wouldn't, and that's be tough and call out middle eastern countries getting out of line.

ROFLMAO

Ooooh... did he wag his finger too... that would probably mean he meant it.


Seriously... called them out.... what he say 'Don't dis me?'

[.Andy]

Seriously... called them out.... what he say 'Don't dis me?'
It doesn't come as a surprise that you haven't read or watched anything about international politics recently.

[NC MacGuy]

You really think they would use nuclear weapons? REALLY?

I don't know. I do know that they are an unstable country with erratic leadership and a young populace that wants change. Should there be a true civil war or countrywide upheaval, what does the current leadership have to lose?
Who is really running the country? It's not Ahmadinejad. Are they eschatologists? If so, yes they may use them. If not, they would make enough threats where Israel may attack big and then they certainly would.

Using the same reasoning, I hide guns from my menopausal wife.

[DiamondMac]

So, we sure about it this time?

[MyDesktopBroke]

Usually the leaders are never prepared to sacrifice their own lives for their ideals, only their followers lives. Nukes would have to be launched with orders from the leaders of the country, who would be the main target for a retaliation.

If Ahmadinejad knows that if he even tries to use a nuke he will die in the process. Did you see how he hid from a bunch of angry kids in the street? Do you think he'd be brave enough to bring on an attack from the US, UK, Israel, etc.?

[opinioncircle]

I don't like what Iran is doing these days, but I feel that a country shouldn't be able to tell another country what they can or can't do.

I am seriously starting to think that the G20 is just a waste of time and money. The climate thing, let's wait until december, iran, let's talk next week in Geneva. Really what are they doing? There hasn't been a time in history where inequalities were that big, they should be thinking on how to better the system rather than walk around with nice suits...

[Peace]

The title of this topic should be changed since everybody in the world knows now.

[oscillatewildly]

Usually the leaders are never prepared to sacrifice their own lives for their ideals, only their followers lives. Nukes would have to be launched with orders from the leaders of the country, who would be the main target for a retaliation.

If Ahmadinejad knows that if he even tries to use a nuke he will die in the process. Did you see how he hid from a bunch of angry kids in the street? Do you think he'd be brave enough to bring on an attack from the US, UK, Israel, etc.?

Do you think the US, UK, Israel et al are brave enough to take on Russia, China and North Korea?

Would the USA be seeking nuclear weapons if it didn't have them?

[rasmasyean]

Hardball clip:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/33026738#33026264

[skunk]

what he say 'Don't dis me?'Borderline.

[bruinsrme]

how can it be a secret site if we are discussing it

[skunk]

It still isn't against the rules of the IAEA. I expect there are plenty of US and Russian facilities that they don't announce to all and sundry. Double standards are the bane of international politics.

[blackfox]

If true, i file under ok.

While I am certainly not a fan of nuclear proliferation, I also think Iran is a clever country and will use any nuclear capability merely as leverage for power in the region.

That is hardly out of the ordinary. Sure, Iran has internal problems, but that hardly affects the logic of positioning itself in the region.

[fivepoint]

It still isn't against the rules of the IAEA. I expect there are plenty of US and Russian facilities that they don't announce to all and sundry. Double standards are the bane of international politics.

I think it's hilarious how Skunk seems to want to put Iran on the same moral ground as the US. If you can't honestly draw a difference between the two and clearly explain why it's more safe for one to have nuclear bombs than the other... then discussion is virtually impossible. You're dealing so far outside the realm of logic that the odds of you being convinced of the truth is virtually impossible. Enjoy.

[Peterkro]

I think it's hilarious how Skunk seems to want to put Iran on the same moral ground as the US. If you can't honestly draw a difference between the two and clearly explain why it's more safe for one to have nuclear bombs than the other... then discussion is virtually impossible. You're dealing so far outside the realm of logic that the odds of you being convinced of the truth is virtually impossible. Enjoy.

Lets see one has used nuclear weapons (totally unnecessarily) ,has over seven hundred military bases in other countries, has supported repressive and violent dictatorships around the world, armed and trained Al-Qaeda, I could go on for pages but that will do. The other has supported to some extent terrorist groups in the middle east and represses it's own people,now while neither could be trusted to control nuclear weapons it seems to me, by far the more dangerous is the former.

[NC MacGuy]

Lets see one has used nuclear weapons (totally unnecessarily) ,has over seven hundred military bases in other countries, has supported repressive and violent dictatorships around the world, armed and trained Al-Qaeda, I could go on for pages but that will do. The other has supported to some extent terrorist groups in the middle east and represses it's own people,now while neither could be trusted to control nuclear weapons it seems to me, by far the more dangerous is the former.

I think that evil country that's had "the bomb" for 60+ years and used it once would have been better off killing the Marshall Plan, leaving Europe to its own means and really expanded when the expanding was for the taking. Then you wouldn't have to worry about bases in foreign lands because those lands would have been ours.

And that big bad evil U.S. does this all the time:
http://blog.taragana.com/n/friend-americans-missing-in-iran-were-hiking-in-wrong-place-family-asks-for-safe-return-129609/

I've seen references here to Bible thumping crazed Mericans but very few to Koran thumping beheading crazed Islamic extremists.

Iran, Pakistan, North Korea are all dangerous in their own ways and comparing the U.S. to any one of them is absurd. Our President is ready to abolish all nuclear weapons, he even said so. The others are going in the exact opposite direction with unstable governments ultimately in control of them and/or their use.

[rasmasyean]

Iran does not hold any "old land" belonging to Iraq. Iraq is not going to get involved in a war with a fellow Shia power which is itself deeply enmeshed within the Iraqi hierarchy. 80% of Afghanistan is under Taleban control. The Israelis can't even do it because they will not get overflying permission from Iraq. In short, none of your fantasy scenarios is going to happen.


Well…according to Wikipedia… :p

The war began when Iraq invaded Iran on 22 September 1980 following a long history of border disputes…

The objectives of Iraq's invasion of Iran were:
1. Control over the Shatt al-Arab waterway
2. Acquisition of the three islands of Abu Musa and the Greater and Lesser Tunbs, on behalf of the UAE.
3. Annexation of Khuzestan to Iraq
4. Overthrow of the revolutionary regime in Tehran[citation needed]
5. Prevent the spread of the Islamic Revolution in the region
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War

According to where you got your “80% Taleban Control” myth…

…the Taliban have a "permanent presence" in 80 percent of Afghanistan. "Permanent presence" in a province is defined as one or more insurgent attacks - lethal and non-lethal - per week.
http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-09-11-voa10.cfm
This doesn’t look much like they would be able to prevent a large invasion force marching through “their control” by doing an insurgent attack once per week… As a matter of fact, the smart ones would likely stay their distance to avoid being mowed down.

And Israel is irrelevant. They have their own problems and as a comparative military force, they might be decent for defending their own land, but you would be talking about a puny invasion army in terms of larger scale combat.

Whether or not my “fantasy scenario” happens or not, I don’t think your analysis gives it any less weight as you would have to brush up on your understanding of conquest and warfare a bit. ;)

[skunk]

Well…according to Wikipedia… <load of irrelevant crap>I do wish you would occasionally read the links you post: this has absolutely zilch to do with Iraqi land held by the Iranians, which was what you erroneously claimed. As for a "large invasion force", where the hell is that going to appear from? Try to take less obvious excitement from the prospect of thousands more deaths. It's rather unbecoming.

Must try harder.

[Macky-Mac]

there isn't going to be any war over this.

Iran is scampering to make sure it appears to be cooperating with the IAEA (despite the fact that for years the IAEA has been saying that Iran routinely violates the IAEA's rules :p)

[rasmasyean]

I do wish you would occasionally read the links you post: this has absolutely zilch to do with Iraqi land held by the Iranians, which was what you erroneously claimed. As for a "large invasion force", where the hell is that going to appear from? Try to take less obvious excitement from the prospect of thousands more deaths. It's rather unbecoming.

Must try harder.
Are you joking?

Well…(publically) the US alone should have like like 70,000 by now…
21K surge by Obama
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/05/07-0 (http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/05/07-0)

48K last there:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93present) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93present))

Then you have the UK 9K and other countries 64K.

I’m sure there’s a force you can make somewhere in there. Not to mention that there’s obviously a logistical capability to increase that at will. In this age, armies no longer need to march toward a rally point on foot you know? Lol

On your note…I’m not sure which idea is worse…if someone takes an “excitement” from the prospect of thousands of more deaths…or if someone cringes at the thought because they think no one else would die if we all hold hands and blindly trust each other. Hmmm…

[rasmasyean]

there isn't going to be any war over this.

Iran is scampering to make sure it appears to be cooperating with the IAEA (despite the fact that for years the IAEA has been saying that Iran routinely violates the IAEA's rules :p)

Perhaps, but it's not hard to imagine a deja-vu moment here. :eek:

[skunk]

Are you joking?No. And please note that making your text bigger does not serve to make your argument more cogent.

Well…(publically) the US alone should have like like 70,000 by now…
21K surge by Obama
48K last there
Then you have the UK 9K and other countries 64K.

I’m sure there’s a force you can make somewhere in there. Not to mention that there’s obviously a logistical capability to increase that at will. In this age, armies no longer need to march toward a rally point on foot you know? LolIs that armchair comfortable, General?
Why would any of the other NATO countries in Afghanistan want to take part in such a lunatic enterprise? What would happen to Afghanistan while everybiody marched off to Iran? Do you have any idea how far Teheran is from the Afghani border? How could the supply lines be maintained? Through Pakistan? Right. How many troops do you estimate (from your armchair) that it would take to realise this idiotic wet dream? 1,000,000? Where is the equipment for them? Does even the USA have enough? I don't think so. Would you have China and Russia on side? Would you be riding roughshod over any pretence of sovereignty left to Afghanistan in mounting your wet dream logistical nightmare from within their borders?

Your whole ridiculous scenario is just too half-witted to be worth even thinking about.

[rasmasyean]

No. And please note that making your text bigger does not serve to make your argument more cogent.

Is that armchair comfortable, General?
Why would any of the other NATO countries in Afghanistan want to take part in such a lunatic enterprise? What would happen to Afghanistan while everybiody marched off to Iran? Do you have any idea how far Teheran is from the Afghani border? How could the supply lines be maintained? Through Pakistan? Right. How many troops do you estimate (from your armchair) that it would take to realise this idiotic wet dream? 1,000,000? Where is the equipment for them? Does even the USA have enough? I don't think so. Would you have China and Russia on side? Would you be riding roughshod over any pretence of sovereignty left to Afghanistan in mounting your wet dream logistical nightmare from within their borders?

Your whole ridiculous scenario is just too half-witted to be worth even thinking about.

I guess you ARE joking. Or quite delusional.

I don’t see any bigger text? Maybe there’s something wrong with your computer...or eyes.

And yeah, I guess the distance to Tehran from the Afghani border is much farther than the distance from US, Hawaii, UK, etc. to Iraq and Afghanistan. I mean after all, those 1,000,000 knights have to drag all that plate mail and shields with them for such a long time.

[Eraserhead]

^^ You're not using the standard font, and the one you are using is harder to read and slightly larger.

[Peterkro]

And yeah, I guess the distance to Tehran from the Afghani border is much farther than the distance from US, Hawaii, UK, etc. to Iraq and Afghanistan.

Distance seemed to be a factor in the cock-up known as Operation Eagle Claw.

[Eraserhead]

And yeah, I guess the distance to Tehran from the Afghani border is much farther than the distance from US, Hawaii, UK, etc. to Iraq and Afghanistan. I mean after all, those 1,000,000 knights have to drag all that plate mail and shields with them for such a long time.

No what is important is the distance to the sea, and Afghanistan is landlocked. EDIT: I should clarify - its not just the distance to the sea, but the distance to a modern, deep-water port on the sea.

[skunk]

I guess you ARE joking. Or quite delusional.I suppose you find this kind of comment less demanding than actually answering any questions.
As for your text, my eyes are fine. Your use of tags is fairly obvious [QUOTE=rasmasyean;8554477][FONT=Calibri][SIZE=3]
How revealing that you are comparing your longed-for war to a Crusade... That'll go down well.

[Peterkro]

Meanwhile back in the real world:

"So when Obama announced that "Iran is breaking rules that all nations must follow", he is technically and legally wrong."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/sep/25/iran-secret-nuclear-plant-inspections

[rasmasyean]

No what is important is the distance to the sea, and Afghanistan is landlocked. EDIT: I should clarify - its not just the distance to the sea, but the distance to a modern, deep-water port on the sea.

The distance is not that much farther than from Kuwait to Bagdad, for example. And what does a deep water port have to do with it? There is a large coast on the whole south of Iran. I mean, unless you’re thinking of like a WWII style type of inching “trench-warfare” over months, I don’t see how it’s a problem. :confused:

[Eraserhead]

The distance is not that much farther than from Kuwait to Bagdad, for example.

Kuwait is a solid US ally that has a modern deep-water port and airport and has space for storing stuff too.

And what does a deep water port have to do with it?

...

There is a large coast on the whole south of Iran.

You need a deep water port so you can ship in supplies easily ;). Without one you basically have to fly everything in which is much more difficult, and even if you do that you need a base with a port quite close so you don't have to fly the supplies too far as that is expensive.

[Burnsey]

Introducing the 21st century method of identifying whether your country is good or evil. To begin, answer the following questions:

Does your country have stockpiles of nuclear weapons?
Does your country have a huge military budget?
Does your country regularly engage in military campaigns?
Does your country regularly threaten other countries militarily?

If you answered "yes" to all of the above, your country is good, and in no way a threat to world stability and security. If you answered "no" to all of the above, your country is evil, and a grave threat that must be dealt with immediately.

The "good" countries today have stockpiles of nuclear weapons (whether they keep it a secret or not), massive relative military budgets (it's big business) and regularly launch wars on other countries or people, leaving massive death and destruction. The "evil" countries have no nuclear weapons, tiny military budgets and haven't attacked another country in sometimes centuries.

When world politics looks like this, you know something is not right.

[BoyBach]

Introducing the 21st century method of identifying whether your country is good or evil...


You've overlooked one:

Does your country have massive amounts of natural resources that it blocks 'Western' companies from exploiting.

A true Axis of Evil™. (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601086&sid=aOFADJNxIdKo)

[Burnsey]

You've overlooked one:

Does your country have massive amounts of natural resources that it blocks 'Western' companies from exploiting.

A true Axis of Evil™. (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601086&sid=aOFADJNxIdKo)

How is this evil? It is common sense, why would any country blindly let foreign companies exploit its natural resources? And don't the sanctions already put in place not allow such dealings with western companies? "Sure you won't let us download Yahoo messenger because of sanctions, but we'll let you come in and take all of our oil."

[Eraserhead]

How is this evil? It is common sense, why would any country blindly let foreign companies exploit its natural resources?

I think he's being sarcastic ;).

[McGiord]

has anyone of you been in any of these countries?

[BoyBach]

I think he's being sarcastic ;).

Me? Sarcastic? Surely not! ;)


has anyone of you been in any of these countries?

Iran is on my list of countries that I really want to visit.

[Eraserhead]

has anyone of you been in any of these countries?

If China counts as "evil" I've been there.

[Dont Hurt Me]

there isn't going to be any war over this.

Iran is scampering to make sure it appears to be cooperating with the IAEA (despite the fact that for years the IAEA has been saying that Iran routinely violates the IAEA's rules :p)Lets just tell Israel to go ahead and take care of it. Maybe they can take out Shorty while they are at it, he wasnt reelected anyways as the whole world knows.

[skunk]

has anyone of you been in any of these countries?Any of which countries? Any of those randomly assigned "evil" status? Any predominantly Muslim countries? Why?

[obeygiant]

has anyone of you been in any of these countries?

Nope. We're all just armchair quarterbacks here. :)

[Burnsey]

Lets just tell Israel to go ahead and take care of it. Maybe they can take out Shorty while they are at it, he wasnt reelected anyways as the whole world knows.

Who would then be in charge of taking care of Israel? Considering such an attack would be appalling and a gross violation of international law, just like their not-so secret nuclear program that everyone pretends doesn't exist.

Israel is in no place to make any arguments or demands in this case. Not only do they have their own stock piles of nuclear weapons, but they're also not exactly a peaceful country or admirable when it comes to human rights, or corruption as far as their government officials are concerned.

[hulugu]

If true, i file under ok.

While I am certainly not a fan of nuclear proliferation, I also think Iran is a clever country and will use any nuclear capability merely as leverage for power in the region.

That is hardly out of the ordinary. Sure, Iran has internal problems, but that hardly affects the logic of positioning itself in the region.


I agree. Although Iranian nuclear capability makes me wary, I disagree with NC that Iran is likely to use such a weapon preemptively. I think the Iranians know that such a use would have dramatic international consequences, including opprobrium from the Chinese, French, and Russians who all support Iran in one way or another.

The other thing to consider is who would they launch such a weapon at? The Israelis? The IDF has quietly fielded a nuclear force for 30 years and their capability may include submarine launched cruise missiles capable of striking Iran with impunity. If you assume that the Iranian leadership is insane, then maybe this is a likely scenario, but if you assume that the Iranian leadership is, for all it's bluster, self-interested, then a nuclear strike against most countries doesn't make much sense.

However, a nuclear-armed Iran does get a better seat on the diplomatic table. And, this is Iran's goal, IMHO.

Kuwait is a solid US ally that has a modern deep-water port and airport and has space for storing stuff too.



You need a deep water port so you can ship in supplies easily ;). Without one you basically have to fly everything in which is much more difficult, and even if you do that you need a base with a port quite close so you don't have to fly the supplies too far as that is expensive.

Yep, you need a deep water port to bring in the armored brigades from Diego Garcia. I'd assume that a ground invasion of Iran would incorporate one of the U.S. Army's Armored Brigades such as the 3rd 1st, and the vehicles and support tracks are heavy. You can't airlift in the M-1A2 Abrams, and there aren't enough in the Saudi peninsula, Iraq, or Afghanistan to make a significant force to take a country as large as Iran.

has anyone of you been in any of these countries?

One or two.

[rasmasyean]

Yep, you need a deep water port to bring in the armored brigades from Diego Garcia. I'd assume that a ground invasion of Iran would incorporate one of the U.S. Army's Armored Brigades such as the 3rd, and the vehicles and support tracks are heavy. You can't airlift in the M-1A2 Abrams, and there aren't enough in the Saudi peninsula, Iraq, or Afghanistan to make a significant force to take a country as large as Iran.


Specifications (C-17)
Data from USAF fact sheet,[3] (http://forums.macrumors.com/#cite_note-AF_fact-2) Boeing,[99] (http://forums.macrumors.com/#cite_note-Boeing_bg-98)[100] (http://forums.macrumors.com/#cite_note-Boeing_specs-99) and AerospaceWeb[101] (http://forums.macrumors.com/#cite_note-asw-100)
General characteristics

Crew: 3: 2 pilots, 1 loadmaster
Capacity:
102 troops with standard centerline seats or
134 troops with palletized seats or
36 litter and 54 ambulatory patients or
Cargo, such as an M1 Abrams tank

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globemaster_III

I don't know why you think it's that heavy. It's just one car with a bunch of metal arround it. It's just a big one that has to fit.

Tanks aren't all that heavy. When they drop bombs near them, they go flying and flip over killing the crew with the shock. It's a Hollywood myth that you have to hit a tank dead on to destroy it.

[hulugu]

Specifications (C-17)...M1 Abrams tank

I don't know why you think it's that heavy. It's just one car with a bunch of metal arround it. It's just a big one that has to fit.

Tanks aren't all that heavy. When they drop bombs near them, they go flying and flip over killing the crew with the shock. It's a myth that you have to hit a tank dead on to destroy it.

Sure, it's a car that weighs 67.2 tons. Or about 32 cars. And, look at the data for the C-17, you can carry one.

Yes, an M-1A2 can be knocked out in several different ways, but they are heavy when we're talking about carrying one in an airplane and flying it somewhere, especially in theater. You cannot safely airdrop one, and thus you'd expose a large number of cargo aircraft while trying to deploy even a brigade. Even one of the combined arms teams would be difficult to deploy, as the relatively light Styker still weighs 12 tons.

And, remember, this is just to get the vehicles. What about support vehicles, wreckers, ammunition carriers, MLRS, CC&C tracks, and air defense. This would require the entire C-5 and C-17 fleet just to deploy a part of one armored division.

You need a deep water port. That's why in WWII the port of Antwerp was so important and modern warfare hasn't changed much since those days.

[rasmasyean]

Sure, it's a car that weighs 67.2 tons. Or about 32 cars. And, look at the data for the C-17, you can carry one.

Yes, an M-1A2 can be knocked out in several different ways, but they are heavy when we're talking about carrying one in an airplane and flying it somewhere, especially in theater. You cannot safely airdrop one, and thus you'd expose a large number of cargo aircraft while trying to deploy even a brigade. Even one of the combined arms teams would be difficult to deploy, as the relatively light Styker still weighs 12 tons.

And, remember, this is just to get the vehicles. What about support vehicles, wreckers, ammunition carriers, MLRS, CC&C tracks, and air defense. This would require the entire C-5 and C-17 fleet just to deploy a part of one armored division.

You need a deep water port. That's why in WWII the port of Antwerp was so important and modern warfare hasn't changed much since those days.

If you ever watched the war news (at least for the stuff they DO allow them to publish)…

Let’s assume that there are zero tanks in Afghanistan and they need to get a bunch there. How hard is it to fly a few dozen in while there’s complete air control in that region?

Let’s take a more “realistic” strategy and deploy some landing crews with hover crafts on that huge beach to the south. Don’t forget that some of Iran’s Navy was already sunk with ease by the US back then…I don’t think they would pose that much of a threat now, especially since the Royal Navy also would prolly just be in it for the target practice. So, how many tanks can they “cheaply” ship in this ad-hoc “deep water port” anywhere along the coast?

On another thought, how many tanks do you actually need? Unless you have air superiority / defense (that works), a tank is a mobile coffin. And Iran has all the aged obsolete US aircraft. If you are on the wrong side, might as well desert your tank and dig a fox hole real far away. So how many Abrams or Challegers do you need to shoot the couple that weren’t worth the jet fuel to revisit. Not to mention a couple of 18 year-old boys can just get out of their Hummers and rocket it from out of range.

It’s more likely the glamour would go to the infantry fighting vehicles because they would be fighting scattered “brave” soldiers if anything. Long are the days past when you dig a big hole and use a tank as some type of “siege engine” and keep shooting at other tanks or until the town crumbles. I mean, you had some Taliban and Northern Alliance do that to each other in their old Russian tanks. But that only worked up until 8 years ago.

Tanks have a much more limited role than they did in WWII.

[hulugu]

If you ever watched the war news (at least for the stuff they DO allow them to publish)…

You'd be amazed at what you can glean from public sources, but I digress...

Let’s assume that there are zero tanks in Afghanistan and they need to get a bunch there. How hard is it to fly a few dozen in while there’s complete air control in that region?

Expensive, difficult (much of Afghanistan lacks the runways necessary to land a laden C-5 or C-17) and risky.

Let’s take a more “realistic” strategy and deploy some landing crews with hover crafts on that huge beach to the south. Don’t forget that some of Iran’s Navy was already sunk with ease by the US back then…I don’t think they would pose that much of a threat now, especially since the Royal Navy also would prolly just be in it for the target practice. So, how many tanks can they “cheaply” ship in this ad-hoc “deep water port” anywhere along the coast?

You'd have to take the coastlines and hope that the Iranians don't have any Exocets left. Of course, you can do it, but again you're incorporating a significantly risky engagement to start landing a major force along the Iranian coastlines.

On another thought, how many tanks do you actually need? Unless you have air superiority / defense (that works), a tank is a mobile coffin. And Iran has all the aged obsolete US aircraft. If you are on the wrong side, might as well desert your tank and dig a fox hole real far away. So how many Abrams or Challegers do you need to shoot the couple that weren’t worth the jet fuel to revisit.

It’s more likely the glamour would go to the infantry fighting vehicles because they would be fighting scattered “brave” soldiers if anything. Long are the days past when you dig a big hole and use a tank as some type of “siege engine” and keep shooting at other tanks or until the town crumbles. I mean, you had some Taliban and Northern Alliance do that to each other in their old Russian tanks. But that only worked up until 8 years ago.

In modern combined arms efforts, tanks are used in infantry support. The gun allows for direct fire support, while the armor protects the crew. M-1A2s were used in Iraq for great effect in this role, even knocking down walls and firing on bunkers in Fallujah.

Also, tanks and the Bradley IFVs (M-2/3)s and Strykers are deployed to work in concert, moving quickly forward in a spearhead, while the various support tracks and vehicles move up behind them. Remember, the M-2 cannot take the same abuse that the M-1A2 can, since it's armor will be penetrated by 30mm AP rounds. The Abrams can survive hits by 100mm rounds, including those fired from the T-38 and T-42 tanks the Iranians own. A combination of air support and armored movement was how we took Iraq in 1991 and 2003 and I don't think it's realistic to expect the tactics that worked in Afghanistan, very small units moving among the mountains, to work in Iran against a much larger and more professional military.

Again, you're entire plan ignores the historical data of modern warfare as we know it, and thus I see the danger in following such advice.

Iran will respond to such an assault with a mixture of forces, especially asymmetric deployments, meaning that C-17s will be fired on by SAMs, ships will be attacked with mines and Exocet missiles, and our infantry will be hit by roadside bombs. This requires a heavy, but fast force and makes the slow deployments by aircraft a dangerous proposition.

Assaulting Iran would be a dangerous and stupid thing to do.

[rasmasyean]

You'd be amazed at what you can glean from public sources, but I digress...



Expensive, difficult (much of Afghanistan lacks the runways necessary to land a laden C-5 or C-17) and risky.



You'd have to take the coastlines and hope that the Iranians don't have any Exocets left. Of course, you can do it, but again you're incorporating a significantly risky engagement to start landing a major force along the Iranian coastlines.





In modern combined arms efforts, tanks are used in infantry support. The gun allows for direct fire support, while the armor protects the crew. M-1A2s were used in Iraq for great effect in this role, even knocking down walls and firing on bunkers in Fallujah.

Also, tanks and the Bradley IFVs (M-2/3)s and Strykers are deployed to work in concert, moving quickly forward in a spearhead, while the various support tracks and vehicles move up behind them. Remember, the M-2 cannot take the same abuse that the M-1A2 can, since it's armor will be penetrated by 30mm AP rounds. The Abrams can survive hits by 100mm rounds, including those fired from the T-38 and T-42 tanks the Iranians own. A combination of air support and armored movement was how we took Iraq in 1991 and 2003 and I don't think it's realistic to expect the tactics that worked in Afghanistan, very small units moving among the mountains, to work in Iran against a much larger and more professional military.

Again, you're entire plan ignores the historical data of modern warfare as we know it, and thus I see the danger in following such advice.

Iran will respond to such an assault with a mixture of forces, especially asymmetric deployments, meaning that C-17s will be fired on by SAMs, ships will be attacked with mines and Exocet missiles, and our infantry will be hit by roadside bombs. This requires a heavy, but fast force and makes the slow deployments by aircraft a dangerous proposition.

Assaulting Iran would be a dangerous and stupid thing to do.

That “infantry support” thing is like for small skirmishes….likely for last mile cleanup after the battle was already pretty much over.

And I’m not quite sure why you think Iran’s professional military is so awesome. You’d be ignoring the historical data part about the 8-year stalemate war with Iraq. And Western forces took them out in like what? A month? Although I don’t doubt good training and professional war-fighters, but in “modern warfare”, you can think of soldiers as just machinery operators. The person with the bigger and better gun wins.

Considering that all we know is that it’s nearly impossible to destroy stealth air assets as we know it… There isn’t any SAM or anything that can hit it before the station gets blow away. And even those that are missed are often killed by SAM killers as soon as they shoot.

By the way, the Royal Navy “publically” has mine clearing unmanned subs that we know of.
http://smart-machines.blogspot.com/2007/03/bae-systems-unveils-talisman-m.html (http://smart-machines.blogspot.com/2007/03/bae-systems-unveils-talisman-m.html)
It’s in like the second generation I think.

And that missile is 30-years old. I’m not sure how that would fare considering it didn’t seem to help them much last time. It sounds from here that the biggest success was actually used by the Iraqis accidentally hitting a US mini-boat minding its own business. LOL
On May 17 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_17), 1987 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1987), the pilot of an Iraqi Mirage F-1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Mirage_F1) allegedly mistook the U.S. Navy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Navy)Oliver Hazard Perry class frigate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Hazard_Perry_class_frigate)USS Stark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Stark_(FFG-31)) for an Iranian tanker and fired two Exocets at the warship.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exocet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exocet)

As for roadside bombs, that’s used in an insurgency. I don’t think Iran would have all their troops plant bombs along all of their own highways for a “possible invasion” that might use those roads.

[hulugu]

That “infantry support” thing is like for small skirmishes….likely for last mile cleanup after the battle was already pretty much over.

Not at all, this role is very important.

And I’m not quite sure why you think Iran’s professional military is so awesome. You’d be ignoring the historical data part about the 8-year stalemate war with Iraq. And Western forces took them out in like what? A month? Although I don’t doubt good training and professional war-fighters, but in “modern warfare”, you can think of soldiers as just machinery operators. The person with the bigger and better gun wins.

I don't expect the Iranians to be "awesome" rather I expect that they've paid attention to 1991 and 2003, as well as Somalia, Afghanistan, and Vietnam and are generating a strategy to blunt our advantages. You're reading of the Second Iraq War completely ignores the differences between a highly-motivated Iranian army and the Iraqi army withered away by sanctions.

Considering that all we know is that it’s nearly impossible to destroy stealth air assets as we know it… There isn’t any SAM or anything that can hit it before the station gets blow away. And even those that are missed are often killed by SAM killers as soon as they shoot.

I'm aware of both the F-117, the B-2, as well as the capability of various HARM platforms, nonetheless, a major landing of armored forces using C-17s would be an easy target for a few men armed with MANPADS. Also, we've lost F-117s, including one that was shot down over Serbia.

By the way, the Royal Navy “publically” has mine clearing unmanned subs that we know of.....And that missile is 30-years old. I’m not sure how that would fare considering it didn’t seem to help them much last time....

The Royal Navy subs could clear the mines, that's just one problem. I don't doubt that we could land a fearsome amphibious force, but do you think the Iranians wouldn't target the rest of the Persian Gulf? A minefield would create all sorts of complications.

As for the Exocet, you're correct it's an old missile, but the HMS Sheffield was damaged by a single Argentine fighter and nearly sunk in the Falklands, let's consider that the Iranian regime would be fighting for its survival rather than just trying to make the Persian Gulf complicated.

As for roadside bombs, that’s used in an insurgency. I don’t think Iran would have all their troops plant bombs along all of their own highways for a “possible invasion” that might use those roads.

This is easy, the Iranians see the amphibious force coming, so they mine points along the way. They find civilians to plant bombs after some Americans pass. The Iraqis seemed to be able to do this for years. Why do you think the Iranians aren't pouring over our tactics and those of the Iraqi insurgency.

We can war game for days, but quite simply I think you're overestimating American (and NATO) equipment, ignoring complexities on the ground, forgetting that Iran would be a country defending itself from hostile invaders while fielding a military that didn't endure more than a decade of sanctions. We would need a huge and well-armed force capable of holding ground.

I could be wrong, but I see Iran as a bloody and awful fight.

[BoyBach]

There must be war. The fundamentalist neo-cons will it!

I mean, surely it'll be another Middle Eastern cakewalk? :rolleyes:

[rhett7660]

That “infantry support” thing is like for small skirmishes….likely for last mile cleanup after the battle was already pretty much over.

And I’m not quite sure why you think Iran’s professional military is so awesome. You’d be ignoring the historical data part about the 8-year stalemate war with Iraq. And Western forces took them out in like what? A month? Although I don’t doubt good training and professional war-fighters, but in “modern warfare”, you can think of soldiers as just machinery operators. The person with the bigger and better gun wins.

Considering that all we know is that it’s nearly impossible to destroy stealth air assets as we know it… There isn’t any SAM or anything that can hit it before the station gets blow away. And even those that are missed are often killed by SAM killers as soon as they shoot.

By the way, the Royal Navy “publically” has mine clearing unmanned subs that we know of.
http://smart-machines.blogspot.com/2007/03/bae-systems-unveils-talisman-m.html (http://smart-machines.blogspot.com/2007/03/bae-systems-unveils-talisman-m.html)
It’s in like the second generation I think.

And that missile is 30-years old. I’m not sure how that would fare considering it didn’t seem to help them much last time. It sounds from here that the biggest success was actually used by the Iraqis accidentally hitting a US mini-boat minding its own business. LOL
On May 17 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_17), 1987 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1987), the pilot of an Iraqi Mirage F-1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Mirage_F1) allegedly mistook the U.S. Navy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Navy)Oliver Hazard Perry class frigate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Hazard_Perry_class_frigate)USS Stark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Stark_(FFG-31)) for an Iranian tanker and fired two Exocets at the warship.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exocet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exocet)

As for roadside bombs, that’s used in an insurgency. I don’t think Iran would have all their troops plant bombs along all of their own highways for a “possible invasion” that might use those roads.


Please tell me you have been in the Military or have been schooled at one of the Militiray Academies?

[Peterkro]

Please tell me you have been in the Military or have been schooled at one of the Militiray Academies?

He's probably just excited by military porn.

[Shivetya]

It doesn't come as a surprise that you haven't read or watched anything about international politics recently.

Actually I watch it all the time, having friends in a few countries overseas. The fact is, Obama is all talk. He has this idiot belief that it was all Bush for the reason we had problems with some of these countries. He has this clueless arrogance that he can just be nice and they will cooperate. His Middle East policy reads as if HRC wrote it. (Human Rights Council)

[Eraserhead]

He has this idiot belief that it was all Bush for the reason we had problems with some of these countries.

Which countries are you thinking of specifically?

His Middle East policy reads as if HRC wrote it. (Human Rights Council)

Sounds like its good policy then.

[edesignuk]

He has this clueless arrogance that he can just be nice and they will cooperate.I think you may be confusing "nice" with attempts at diplomacy.

Bush was perceived as a prick throughout the world largely because he filled the trigger happy arrogant American (sorry Americans :o ) perfectly.

This is a big, connected world we live in. You don't need to immediately threaten invasion/attack to get your way.

Talk to them, listen to them. If they refuse to be a part of any reasonable discussion, at least you have a global backing for any action that is then taken. Hopefully through tough sanctions on trade rather than war.

It's not being soft/weak/cowardly, it's being smart. Something your (Americans) previous President was sorely lacking.

[Eraserhead]

I think you may be confusing "nice" with attempts at diplomacy.

Bush was perceived as a prick throughout the world largely because he filled the trigger happy arrogant American (sorry Americans :o ) perfectly.

This is a big, connected world we live in. You don't need to immediately threaten invasion/attack to get your way.

Talk to them, listen to them. If they refuse to be a part of any reasonable discussion, at least you have a global backing for any action that is then taken. Hopefully through tough sanctions on trade rather than war.

It's not being soft/weak/cowardly, it's being smart. Something your previous President was sorely lacking.

This sums the situation up nicely. Its also why people say things like that no two countries who are both in the global supply chain have ever gone to war.

[obeygiant]

I
Talk to them, listen to them. If they refuse to be a part of any reasonable discussion, at least you have a global backing for any action that is then taken. Hopefully through tough sanctions on trade rather than war.


Haven't sanctions been tried before?

Security Council Resolution 1803 on Iran (March 3, 2008)
Resolution 1747 (March 24, 2007)
Resolution 1737 (December 23, 2006)
Resolution 1696 (June 31, 2006)
Resolution 1696 (June 31, 2006)
In this resolution, the Security Council endorses the offer of diplomatic and economic incentives put forward by the P5 and Germany and demands that Iran suspend all uranium enrichment programs by August 31. Acting under Article 40 of Chapter VII of the United Nations in order to make mandatory the suspension required by the IAEA, the Council threatens Iran with sanctions in case of non-compliance, but avoids any implication that use of force may be warranted. Iran has rejected the resolution claiming that it has only made negotiations more difficult.

Ooh and all during that strange period called "the Bush years."

[edesignuk]

Haven't sanctions been tried before?I don't know, looks like you do though, and it looks like they have.

Anyway, what's your point? Ignore 'em, blow 'em up, something else?

[McGiord]

I am currently in India and here the scenarios showed by the local press today says something like this: if India and Pakistan get in a nuclear war, India will loose around 300 million people, and Pakistan will loose their entire population = wipe off the map.

An old scenarios:
http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/southasia.asp

[Wotan31]

You really think they would use nuclear weapons? REALLY?
If I had asked you on Sept 10th 2001 "Do you think some rag tag zealots from the middle east will crash passenger jets into the world trade center and bring it to the ground tomorrow?" what would you have said? Probably what everyone else in NYC would have said - that you're insane. But then it happened.

Assuming a nation run by extremists will not use a new weapon they've developed is naive at best. Obviously it would be very stupid of them to do so, but again, they are run by extremists who do not listen to reason.

Just having these weapons though, gives them more leverage in world politics; "speak softly and carry a big stick".

Nothing good can come of this.

[skunk]

Assuming a nation run by extremists will not use a new weapon they've developed is naive at best. Obviously it would be very stupid of them to do so, but again, they are run by extremists who do not listen to reason.It is so very easy to characterise the entire leadership of Iran as "extremists", isn't it?

[Macky-Mac]

It is so very easy to characterise the entire leadership of Iran as "extremists", isn't it?

probably as easy as it was to characterize Bush & Co as "extremists"

[obeygiant]

It is so very easy to characterise the entire leadership of Iran as "extremists", isn't it?

Oh he didn't mean it.

[BoyBach]

Assuming a nation run by extremists will not use a new weapon they've developed is naive at best. Obviously it would be very stupid of them to do so, but again, they are run by extremists who do not listen to reason.

Just having these weapons though, gives them more leverage in world politics; "speak softly and carry a big stick".

Nothing good can come of this.


So are the Mullahs and the Ayatollah irrational extremists or playing their hand extremely cleverly?

[skunk]

probably as easy as it was to characterize Bush & Co as "extremists"Who did that? :confused:

[rasmasyean]

Not at all, this role is very important.



I don't expect the Iranians to be "awesome" rather I expect that they've paid attention to 1991 and 2003, as well as Somalia, Afghanistan, and Vietnam and are generating a strategy to blunt our advantages. You're reading of the Second Iraq War completely ignores the differences between a highly-motivated Iranian army and the Iraqi army withered away by sanctions.



I'm aware of both the F-117, the B-2, as well as the capability of various HARM platforms, nonetheless, a major landing of armored forces using C-17s would be an easy target for a few men armed with MANPADS. Also, we've lost F-117s, including one that was shot down over Serbia.



The Royal Navy subs could clear the mines, that's just one problem. I don't doubt that we could land a fearsome amphibious force, but do you think the Iranians wouldn't target the rest of the Persian Gulf? A minefield would create all sorts of complications.

As for the Exocet, you're correct it's an old missile, but the HMS Sheffield was damaged by a single Argentine fighter and nearly sunk in the Falklands, let's consider that the Iranian regime would be fighting for its survival rather than just trying to make the Persian Gulf complicated.



This is easy, the Iranians see the amphibious force coming, so they mine points along the way. They find civilians to plant bombs after some Americans pass. The Iraqis seemed to be able to do this for years. Why do you think the Iranians aren't pouring over our tactics and those of the Iraqi insurgency.

We can war game for days, but quite simply I think you're overestimating American (and NATO) equipment, ignoring complexities on the ground, forgetting that Iran would be a country defending itself from hostile invaders while fielding a military that didn't endure more than a decade of sanctions. We would need a huge and well-armed force capable of holding ground.

I could be wrong, but I see Iran as a bloody and awful fight.

Dude, you need to update your “military porn”! Here’s some for a start.

You know what they did the last time they had a chance to test their traditional “infantry support” skills? They called in a single smart bomb that splits into like 50 smart bombs. The Sadam forces that were lucky enough to be number 51+ fled and cleared the way for the advancement. And after seeing that, you can imagine most of the survivors prolly ditched their vehicle somewhere, stole some clothes from the locals and walked down the “refugee road”.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-216-Y6Cac
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKdFCsycYm8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1QvyodEwg0

F-117 has been downed ONCE. And it was from guessing its path and luckily hitting “near” it while it was flying low.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-117_Nighthawk
Besides, it’s also retired!

The new ones are these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-3Gq8qlygs&feature=related

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Strike_Fighter
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTSRbXTh-_A&feature=related

And modernized Naval ship mobilization, especially one that’s “at battle-stations” is like fortress. It takes some pretty nifty weaponology hopefully newer than 30 years old to take it out. Missiles are so slow and can be detected from really far way. They can be intercepted by other missiles…or if it gets to close, shot down by bullets. Not by people…by machines that process images at 1000 FPS…and who knows what else.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYNn-VZ5Lqs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nY6nm-6eCzM&feature=related

If Japanese students make this kind of machine in their labs…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfdHY26E2jc
…imagine what you can do with hundreds of millions of dollars and mount a 10,000rpm Gatling gun on it.

Not that money solves all issues, but it sure helps A LOT! Check this out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget

You don’t need to be formally trained as a “general/admiral” to understand these things. It just takes some understanding of science and technology and the imagination that people would pay for and use such brutal devices.

War isn't like a boxing match where they fight on equal grounds using some "faceoff" types of scenarios unless there's no other way. "Cheating" is the best part of the game and the advantage always goes to the invader in modern times. Especially if you don't know where he's comming from. Whether you can hold him off after he destroys all your things is another story I guess, but it depends on what you have left. And those budgets reveal a lot.

And I’m not saying that everything would be “perfect” and “zero casualties”. There will be losses and blood but no war in whatever scale doesn’t involve some sacrifice. But to think that leaders wouldn’t be willing to sacrifice some, would be pretty idealist. ;)

[rasmasyean]

It is so very easy to characterise the entire leadership of Iran as "extremists", isn't it?
I think the paranoia in part is due to the unstableness of the regimes. In theory (which has happened in the past) extremists of many walks can rebel and take over the government and the inventory. Especially if such a regime breeds or allows such extremism to flourish among the possible successors.

[Wotan31]

It is so very easy to characterise the entire leadership of Iran as "extremists", isn't it?
What would you call them then? Please sir, do enlighten us.

[hulugu]

If I had asked you on Sept 10th 2001 "Do you think some rag tag zealots from the middle east will crash passenger jets into the world trade center and bring it to the ground tomorrow?" what would you have said? Probably what everyone else in NYC would have said - that you're insane. But then it happened.

Well, since the WTC had already been attacked once by Islamic Extremists, I thought it was unlikely, but possible.

Assuming a nation run by extremists will not use a new weapon they've developed is naive at best. Obviously it would be very stupid of them to do so, but again, they are run by extremists who do not listen to reason.

Assuming a nation will not is foolish, but so is assuming that a nation will. It all depends on whether or not you think the Mullahs in Iran are crazy like a fox or just plain crazy and I'd argue that considering the last 30 years of history, the Mullahs have proven to be strategically agile. It is possible the Iranians will test their first nuke by launching on the tip of a missile? Yes, absolutely. But, it is likely?

Just having these weapons though, gives them more leverage in world politics; "speak softly and carry a big stick".

Nothing good can come of this.

A nuclear-armed Iran is a tremendous problem for the region, but not one that I think we can solve through force of arms—rasmasyean's military porn notwithstanding.

Again, all of this depends on how "extreme" you think the Mullahs are? Are they really serious or are they playing to a crowd? Are they willing to die for their vision of jihad, or will they protect their position and use nukes as a chess piece?

[FX120]

Meh. The problem isn't Iran possessing nuclear arms, it's the possession of fissile material that can go "missing" that worries me the most.

[takao]

Haven't sanctions been tried before?

Security Council Resolution 1803 on Iran (March 3, 2008)
Resolution 1747 (March 24, 2007)
Resolution 1737 (December 23, 2006)
Resolution 1696 (June 31, 2006)

Ooh and all during that strange period called "the Bush years."

yeah in the last 20 years years how many Resolutions did the US simply veto because they were on the receiving end of it ? 18 because of the cuba embargo alone

as long as the security council is full of "old nuclear weapons powers" with veto power it's hardly fair and balanced

hey how many secret nuclear facilites are there in the UK, US, russia, china and france ? and wasn't the last US president the one pushing for development of new nukes ?
and aren't Pakistan, India and Israel all allies of the United states ? and yet none of them is current signee the NPT

[Wotan31]

Well, since the WTC had already been attacked once by Islamic Extremists, I thought it was unlikely, but possible.

Assuming a nation will not is foolish, but so is assuming that a nation will. It all depends on whether or not you think the Mullahs in Iran are crazy like a fox or just plain crazy and I'd argue that considering the last 30 years of history, the Mullahs have proven to be strategically agile. It is possible the Iranians will test their first nuke by launching on the tip of a missile? Yes, absolutely. But, it is likely?

A nuclear-armed Iran is a tremendous problem for the region, but not one that I think we can solve through force of arms—rasmasyean's military porn notwithstanding.

Again, all of this depends on how "extreme" you think the Mullahs are? Are they really serious or are they playing to a crowd? Are they willing to die for their vision of jihad, or will they protect their position and use nukes as a chess piece?

Your first "Is it likely?" came quite true. Will the second? Who is to say? I think we've all seen that islamic extremists are more than willing to die in the name of Jihad. There is a verse in the Quoran than encourages it, hence the willing number of suicide bombers. I agree with you in that it's not likely they will use the nuclear weapons, but it's certainly within the realm of possibility.

[Peterkro]

Your first "Is it likely?" came quite true. Will the second? Who is to say? I think we've all seen that islamic extremists are more than willing to die in the name of Jihad. There is a verse in the Quoran than encourages it, hence the willing number of suicide bombers. I agree with you in that it's not likely they will use the nuclear weapons, but it's certainly within the realm of possibility.

It's unlikely that Britain or France will use nuclear weapons but nonetheless possible,perhaps you should invade them as well.

[obeygiant]

It's unlikely that Britain or France will use nuclear weapons but nonetheless possible,perhaps you should invade them as well.

There are some obvious differences between the governments of Iran and Britain/France that you might be missing here.

[leekohler]

probably as easy as it was to characterize Bush & Co as "extremists"

They were extremists.

If I had asked you on Sept 10th 2001 "Do you think some rag tag zealots from the middle east will crash passenger jets into the world trade center and bring it to the ground tomorrow?" what would you have said? Probably what everyone else in NYC would have said - that you're insane. But then it happened.

I would have said it was entirely possible. I'm cynical.

Assuming a nation run by extremists will not use a new weapon they've developed is naive at best. Obviously it would be very stupid of them to do so, but again, they are run by extremists who do not listen to reason.

Just having these weapons though, gives them more leverage in world politics; "speak softly and carry a big stick".


No kidding. Why do you think they want the bomb? We won't be able to push them around anymore.

[Burnsey]

If I had asked you on Sept 10th 2001 "Do you think some rag tag zealots from the middle east will crash passenger jets into the world trade center and bring it to the ground tomorrow?" what would you have said? Probably what everyone else in NYC would have said - that you're insane. But then it happened.

Assuming a nation run by extremists will not use a new weapon they've developed is naive at best. Obviously it would be very stupid of them to do so, but again, they are run by extremists who do not listen to reason.

Just having these weapons though, gives them more leverage in world politics; "speak softly and carry a big stick".

Nothing good can come of this.

Iran is NOT run by extremists, the leaders, people and culture are 180 degrees from those who flew jets into the WTC. The chances of Iran ever using a nuclear weapon are very very very low, the chances of them getting one soon are low as well, as are the chances of sanctions preventing them from getting one, and an Israeli strike succeeding.

It is disgusting to keep using Sept 11 as justification for more and more military action, you can use it to make any kind of justification against virtually any country.

If Iran today had nukes, you would not be hearing talks of military action against them, you would not be hearing Israeli leaders urging the US to take swift action, you would not be seeing Israeli simulations of an Iranian strike in preparation for one, and very likely you will see a major decrease in the sanctions and a major increase in Iranian influence in the middle east, which would likely mean fewer wars started by the US in the area. If Iran had nukes, you would likely not have seen the invasion of Iraq take place.

What you would have is a country in the middle east that is vocally opposed to US foreign policy, who backs Palestinians as unconditionally as the US backs Israel, having major influence and power. You can imagine how this will end up being a pain in the ass for US/Israeli policy in the region.

[Eraserhead]

There are some obvious differences between the governments of Iran and Britain/France that you might be missing here.

What that the British go to war with other countries more often than the Iranians?

What you would have is a country in the middle east that is vocally opposed to US foreign policy, who backs Palestinians as unconditionally as the US backs Israel, having major influence and power. You can imagine how this will end up being a pain in the ass for US/Israeli policy in the region.

The risk is that Saudi Arabia and Syria decide that now they need nukes as well.

[Shivetya]

They were extremists.



I would have said it was entirely possible. I'm cynical.



No kidding. Why do you think they want the bomb? We won't be able to push them around anymore.

Only a longer span of history will tell. The current administration is bumbling and seems more focused on their image than doing something. Read the story behind the reactor announcement, they were more concerned with Obama looking good at a meeting than revealing the threat.


Iran needs a bomb to keep its own people focused outward. By creating bogeymen and making sure the bogeymen play their part Iran has to have a credible threat.

Never trust a regime which does respect the rights of its citizens... no one knows how many thousands vanish in that country.

The nice thing about countries that adhere to the rule of law is that we vote someone else in, we saw what happens in countries that don't. The just make new rules to keep winning.

[Peterkro]

Iran needs a bomb to keep its own people focused outward. By creating bogeymen and making sure the bogeymen play their part Iran has to have a credible threat.


Now why does that sound familiar?

[iShater]

Now why does that sound familiar?

He just changed the name of the country and the word war to bomb.

What is hypocritical, is that the "west" seems to think that anybody that disagrees with them is extremist.

Man, look at North Korea. That country has test fired rockets left and right, over neighboring nations, tested nukes, is starving its people, and we just wag fingers.

Iran is following the rules of the treatments they signed, yet the west keeps making new conditions up just because they want to. :rolleyes:

[leekohler]

Iran needs a bomb to keep its own people focused outward. By creating bogeymen and making sure the bogeymen play their part Iran has to have a credible threat.

Sounds like another country I know.

Only a longer span of history will tell. The current administration is bumbling and seems more focused on their image than doing something. Read the story behind the reactor announcement, they were more concerned with Obama looking good at a meeting than revealing the threat.


Oh please. :rolleyes:

[iShater]

Is this the "secret" one we are discussing? (http://news.antiwar.com/2009/09/25/as-required-iran-informs-iaea-about-new-enrichment-site/)

[Macky-Mac]

As reported today by Aljazeera (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2009/09/200993013578215116.html), the head of the IAEA has weighed in on whether Iran has followed the rules with this newly revealed site;

IAEA: Iran on wrong side of law

Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the United Nation's nuclear watchdog, has said that Iran was "on the wrong side of the law" by not declaring it had developed a second uranium enrichment plant before last week.

The comments from ElBaradei, the director of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), came a day before talks in Geneva between Iran and six world powers over Tehran's nuclear programme.

Iran disclosed the construction of the second plant to the IAEA after Western intelligence agents reportedly discovered its existence.

"Iran was supposed to inform us on the day it was decided to construct the facility. They have not done that," ElBaradei said....

[fivepoint]

It won't really make much of a difference. Iran would be stupid to use nuclear weapons, and I'm sure they know it. It's just an insurance policy against invasion, nothing more.

Iran would be stupid to use nuclear weapons in a preemptive strike and I'm sure they know it. However, they see war with the US or other countries as being distinctly possible, and if engaged in a war I don't think they would hesitate to use nuclear weapons. Most of the world already dislikes them, and most of the people who do like them would support their right to defend themselves, so I am betting they would see no reason not to take advantage of the tactical advantage nuclear weapon usage would provide.

Usually the leaders are never prepared to sacrifice their own lives for their ideals, only their followers lives. Nukes would have to be launched with orders from the leaders of the country, who would be the main target for a retaliation.

If Ahmadinejad knows that if he even tries to use a nuke he will die in the process. Did you see how he hid from a bunch of angry kids in the street? Do you think he'd be brave enough to bring on an attack from the US, UK, Israel, etc.?

Any of which countries? Any of those randomly assigned "evil" status? Any predominantly Muslim countries? Why?

It is so very easy to characterise the entire leadership of Iran as "extremists", isn't it?

So are the Mullahs and the Ayatollah irrational extremists or playing their hand extremely cleverly?

Iran is NOT run by extremists, the leaders, people and culture are 180 degrees from those who flew jets into the WTC.




Anyone who thinks Iran is not run by extremists is either an extremist themselves, woefully ignorant, or willfully distorting the facts. I for one don't support war with the Iranian government, but I'm not blind enough to completely ignore who these people are and what they want. Let's hope they smarten up and quit developing technologies that can bring nothing but pain to that region.

http://www.allaboutpopularissues.org/12th-imam.htm

The 12th Imam: What Is An Imam?
What is the 12th Imam? According to Islamic belief, an Imam is an anointed leader or ruler. Especially among the Shia beliefs an Imam is thought (though not required), to be a prayer leader or cleric when the word is capitalized. Sunnis too believe an Imam may be a prophet; Shiites believe not all prophets can be an Imam but an Imam can also be a prophet. An Imam is said to be anointed by Allah and a perfect example of leading mankind in every way.

The Shiite interpretation is that only Allah can appoint an Imam and no man has the power to do so. The 12th Imam is said to be a descendent of the Prophet Muhammad, having divine status as did each of this succession of sons. The 12th Imam is also called the Hidden Imam and the Mahdi (guided one).

The 12th Imam: Who Is The 12th Imam?
Within the Shiite, (which is predominate in Iran), it is prophesied that there is a coming 12th Imam who is the great spiritual savior. This Imam is named Abu al-Qasim Muhammad or also called Muhammad al Mahdi. He is said to have been born the son of the 11th Imam, Hasan Al-Askari and his wife, the granddaughter of an Emperor. There are conflicting statements of her name being either Fatima or Nargis Khatoon.

Most accounts of the story say that al Mahdi went into hiding as a child around the age of 5 years (about 13th Century). It said he has been ‘in hiding’ in caves ever since but will supernaturally return just before the Day of Judgment. According to the Hadith the criteria for the Hidden Imam are:

He will be a descendant of Muhammad and the son of Fatima
Will have a broad forehead and pointed nose
Will return just before the end of the world
His appearance will be preceded by a number of prophetic events during 3 years of horrendous world chaos, tyranny and oppression
Will escape from Madina to Mekkah, thousands will pledge allegiance to him
Will rule over the Arabs and the world for 7 years
Will eradicate all tyranny and oppression bringing harmony and total peace
Will lead a prayer in Mekkah which Jesus will be at his side and follow in

Remarkably, the 12th Imam theory plays heavily into the world’s current concerns with Iran. The Shiite Muslim President of Iran, Ahmadinejad, is deeply committed to the Islamic Messiah, al Mahdi. There have been many through the years claiming to be the Hidden Imam but Ahmadinejad believes he is yet to come. He claims that he is to personally prepare the world for the coming Mahdi. In order to save the world, it must be in a state of chaos and subjugation. Ahmadinejad claims he was “directed by Allah to pave the way for the glorious appearance of the Mahdi”. This apocalyptic directive includes some very scary proclamations.

The 12th Imam: Why Is This Especially Important Now?
While Christians look for Jesus’ 2nd coming, the Jews await the Messiah and Muslims await the 12th Imam. However, of the three, Allah’s designated Mahdi is the only one who demands a violent path to conquer the world. Mr. Ahmadinejad, and his cabinet, say they have a ‘signed contract’ with al Mahdi in which they pledge themselves to his work. What does this work involve? In light of concerns over Iran’s nuclear capabilities, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has reportedly stated Israel should be wiped off the map. He spoke to the United Nations in September ’05. During that speech he claims to have been in an aura of light and felt a change in the atmosphere during which time no one present could blink their eyes. Iran’s PM is also said to have spoken in apocalyptic terms and seems to relish conflict with the West whom he calls the Great Satan. This is while he proclaims he must prepare the world for the coming Mahdi by way of a world totally under Muslim control. He is working hard to bring about the world-wide horrors that must be in place for their al Mahdi to bring peace.

This notion and goal, along with a violent hatred of infidels, America and Israel reminds us of Biblical prophecies of the coming anti-Christ and the pledges of millions to a deceiving False Messiah who will claim to bring peace. Could this 12th Imam Mahdi and his servant Ahmadinejad spark the last days of the coming true Savior?

[Zombie Acorn]

Religion. :rolleyes:

[BoyBach]

Anyone who thinks Iran is not run by extremists is either an extremist themselves, woefully ignorant, or willfully distorting the facts.


That's an insightful argument. :rolleyes:

[skunk]

Iran needs a bomb to keep its own people focused outward. By creating bogeymen and making sure the bogeymen play their part Iran has to have a credible threat.How unaware can you be?

[jessica.]

How unaware can you be?
Apparently beyond all reasonable measure.

[bemylover]

I think it's too late to do anything there. Sanctions won't work, neither will the airstrikes. Looks like nuclear Iran is inevitable.

[hulugu]

Your first "Is it likely?" came quite true. Will the second? Who is to say? I think we've all seen that islamic extremists are more than willing to die in the name of Jihad. There is a verse in the Quoran than encourages it, hence the willing number of suicide bombers. I agree with you in that it's not likely they will use the nuclear weapons, but it's certainly within the realm of possibility.

Just because a verse in the Koran doesn't mean that the religious leaders actually believe it. Like the Popes of Italy who led armies and had their personal harems while simultaneously preaching about piety and purity, the Mullahs of Iran may or may not think that dying for Islam is something they want to do.

In fact, the current arch of history supports a calmer Iran and, as one analysis I recently read suggested, it may even stabilize the region.

Anyone who thinks Iran is not run by extremists is either an extremist themselves, woefully ignorant, or willfully distorting the facts. I for one don't support war with the Iranian government, but I'm not blind enough to completely ignore who these people are and what they want. Let's hope they smarten up and quit developing technologies that can bring nothing but pain to that region.

That's just it. For the Iranians, a nuclear weapon gives them a political weight they can use—as they see it—to balance power with the west. A nuclear weapon is a technology that drives dozens of other useful industries with it, including electronics and precision engineering.

What really worries me isn't that Iran has the bomb, but that like the North Koreans they might start exporting that knowledge to less stable regimes. Pushing them with sanctions or a direct attack only makes that more likely and more harrowing.

As for the 12th Imam quote, this is an ancient idea that includes the 13th Occluded Imam. Of course, if you compare such text to those of Jesus' return they sound suspiciously similar and moreover, if you read several other historical texts you'll see that many religious require a 'return' of some kind in order to end the world like the Hindus Kalki, or further some significant change. The Aztec 2012 date is a similar occurrence.
With this is mind, the quote seems less foreboding and more typical.

[fivepoint]

That's just it. For the Iranians, a nuclear weapon gives them a political weight they can use—as they see it—to balance power with the west. A nuclear weapon is a technology that drives dozens of other useful industries with it, including electronics and precision engineering.

What really worries me isn't that Iran has the bomb, but that like the North Koreans they might start exporting that knowledge to less stable regimes. Pushing them with sanctions or a direct attack only makes that more likely and more harrowing.


I share your fear for Iran arming others with nuclear technology.

I also think you're right about for MOST Iranians the nuclear bomb would simply be used as a balance-of-power with the Israel or the U.S., but as demonstrated earlier... for some in the Iranian leadership... it might be something much worse:



As for the 12th Imam quote, this is an ancient idea that includes the 13th Occluded Imam. Of course, if you compare such text to those of Jesus' return they sound suspiciously similar and moreover, if you read several other historical texts you'll see that many religious require a 'return' of some kind in order to end the world like the Hindus Kalki, or further some significant change. The Aztec 2012 date is a similar occurrence.
With this is mind, the quote seems less foreboding and more typical.


With all due respect, you seem to be skipping the parts that you find less palatable. Unlike those who believe in the 12th Imam, believers in the second coming of Christ do not feel like they need to cause death and destruction for that to occur.

While Christians look for Jesus’ 2nd coming, the Jews await the Messiah and Muslims await the 12th Imam. However, of the three, Allah’s designated Mahdi is the only one who demands a violent path to conquer the world. Mr. Ahmadinejad, and his cabinet, say they have a ‘signed contract’ with al Mahdi in which they pledge themselves to his work. What does this work involve? In light of concerns over Iran’s nuclear capabilities, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has reportedly stated Israel should be wiped off the map. He spoke to the United Nations in September ’05. During that speech he claims to have been in an aura of light and felt a change in the atmosphere during which time no one present could blink their eyes. Iran’s PM is also said to have spoken in apocalyptic terms and seems to relish conflict with the West whom he calls the Great Satan. This is while he proclaims he must prepare the world for the coming Mahdi by way of a world totally under Muslim control. He is working hard to bring about the world-wide horrors that must be in place for their al Mahdi to bring peace.

This notion and goal, along with a violent hatred of infidels, America and Israel reminds us of Biblical prophecies of the coming anti-Christ and the pledges of millions to a deceiving False Messiah who will claim to bring peace. Could this 12th Imam Mahdi and his servant Ahmadinejad spark the last days of the coming true Savior?

That's a pretty HUGE difference, wouldn't you say? Are you playing the apologists for this line of thinking? Are you seriously equating it to the second coming of Christ?

[iShater]

Anyone who thinks Iran is not run by extremists is either an extremist themselves, woefully ignorant, or willfully distorting the facts. I for one don't support war with the Iranian government, but I'm not blind enough to completely ignore who these people are and what they want. Let's hope they smarten up and quit developing technologies that can bring nothing but pain to that region.

Nationalist and extremist are different things right? USA USA USA :rolleyes:

And your definition of the Imams and stuff is inaccurate. Your source is a Christian website? how about Wikipedia?

[McGiord]

an interesting video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69UpMhUnEeY

[fivepoint]

Nationalist and extremist are different things right? USA USA USA :rolleyes:

And your definition of the Imams and stuff is inaccurate. Your source is a Christian website? how about Wikipedia?

Choose whatever source you wish. Fact is fact.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/3642984/Will-the-12th-Imam-cause-war-with-Iran.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_al-Mahdi


And yes, I'd say there is a BIG difference between being an extremist and simple pride of country. Anyone who says there isn't, is a few bricks short of a load.

[Eraserhead]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_al-Mahdi

The Wikipedia link is to someone born in 839AD or over 1000 years ago. I'm sure we could get some really crusades things said by someone said in the crusades which are considerably more recent than that. Neither of which affects the view of modern Christians or Muslims.

[Zombie Acorn]

The Wikipedia link is to someone born in 839AD or over 1000 years ago. I'm sure we could get some really crusades things said by someone said in the crusades which are considerably more recent than that. Neither of which affects the view of modern Christians or Muslims.

You've never been around the lower midwest/south US during Christmas time when Atheists are "stealing" their holidays. :eek: Ive actually heard someone say "shoot the bastards".

[Eraserhead]

You've never been around the lower midwest/south US during Christmas time when Atheists are "stealing" their holidays. :eek: Ive actually heard someone say "shoot the bastards".

They may be crazy too, but I think its still basically independent of what was said by the pope or whoever 800+ years ago.

[fivepoint]

The Wikipedia link is to someone born in 839AD or over 1000 years ago. I'm sure we could get some really crusades things said by someone said in the crusades which are considerably more recent than that. Neither of which affects the view of modern Christians or Muslims.

Hahaha, what!?!? You're either not reading the posts, not reading the Wiki, or are simply generally confused on the issue. It's not about what happened in "839AD" it's about what the Iranian leadership thinks is going to happen today. Read: "12th IMAM" Read: "Muhammead ad-Mahdi"

Don't bury your head in the sand and pretend it doesn't exist. :eek:

[hulugu]

....
With all due respect, you seem to be skipping the parts that you find less palatable. Unlike those who believe in the 12th Imam, believers in the second coming of Christ do not feel like they need to cause death and destruction for that to occur....That's a pretty HUGE difference, wouldn't you say? Are you playing the apologists for this line of thinking? Are you seriously equating it to the second coming of Christ?

And, with all due respect you seem unable to comprehend the historical context of the 12th Imam in Islam and it's relationship to the current Mullahs of Iran. Moreover, you also skipped over the notion that Messianic prophecies are inherent to religion and include the pagan religions of both Hinduism as well as Aztec numerology.

It's interesting because when Ahmadinejad states that Iran's nuclear program is for peaceful purposes you're sure he's lying, but when he says he believes in the Occulted One, you believe him.

I'd argue that everything Ahmadinejad says has a political purpose and by understanding how those statements fit within Iran's culture and how it sees itself we may better understand Iran's actual intentions.

Acknowledging that Iran (re: Islam) has a deep cultural and historical background isn't apology, it's analysis.

[rasmasyean]

You've never been around the lower midwest/south US during Christmas time when Atheists are "stealing" their holidays. :eek: Ive actually heard someone say "shoot the bastards".

Christmas is not a religious holiday. It’s a capitalist holiday! ;)
As for the Atheists “stealing” their holiday, perhaps that’s also from some resentment from the fact that Atheists are more prevalent among the higher educated and higher income earners. So you can imaging who contributes more to this burst of capitalism during the end of the year…lol

And even more capitalistic is St. Valentine. I bet at least 90% of the people who celebrate it, doesn't even know who that is.

[iShater]

Christmas is not a religious holiday. It’s a capitalist holiday! ;)
As for the Atheists “stealing” their holiday, perhaps that’s also from some resentment from the fact that Atheists are more prevalent among the higher educated and higher income earners. So you can imaging who contributes more to this burst of capitalism during the end of the year…lol

And even more capitalistic is St. Valentine. I bet at least 90% of the people who celebrate it, doesn't even know who that is.

Man, I must be an exception. Score! :rolleyes:

[fivepoint]

And, with all due respect you seem unable to comprehend the historical context of the 12th Imam in Islam and it's relationship to the current Mullahs of Iran.

How? Prove it. I'm not surprised that you have nothing to back this up. I'm quoting sources and posting fact, you're just saying "you're wrong... neener, neener." Very sad and transparent FAIL.





Moreover, you also skipped over the notion that Messianic prophecies are inherent to religion and include the pagan religions of both Hinduism as well as Aztec numerology.

How in the world did you come to this conclusion? I did the opposite of ignore it, i posted a direct refutation of your insinuation that there was some sort of direct comparison to be made, by showing the major difference in how the different religions see the end times coming to pass. Only through the Muslim faith and belief in the 12th Imam does this come only after pain, suffering, and the entire world's transition to one faith does this come to pass. It's pretty straight forward.

[Evangelion]

I think it's pretty hypocritical for anyone to whine about Iran's nuclear program while Israel has an estimated 200 nuclear warheads.... If Iran can't have them, then so shouldn't Israel. And if Israel is allowed to have them, then by what right are we denying Iran from having them?

[DiamondMac]

How? Prove it. I'm not surprised that you have nothing to back this up. I'm quoting sources and posting fact, you're just saying "you're wrong... neener, neener." Very sad and transparent FAIL.



As usual, you rely on Wikipedia as some main source....never seem to answer specifically any questions about the subject (by 2 posters here).....and continue trying to claim something just because.....

Again, do you actually understand the argument you are making?

[Macky-Mac]

..... And if Israel is allowed to have them, then by what right are we denying Iran from having them?

Because Iran signed onto the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and committed to not acquiring nuclear weapons.......so, are they expected to keep their word? or not?

[Burnsey]

Anyone who thinks Iran is not run by extremists is either an extremist themselves, woefully ignorant, or willfully distorting the facts. I for one don't support war with the Iranian government, but I'm not blind enough to completely ignore who these people are and what they want. Let's hope they smarten up and quit developing technologies that can bring nothing but pain to that region.

LOL. Please don't tell me you actually believe in that dumb theory. The Hawks at their finest right there. And even if you were to believe in it, Iran does not need to do anything to throw the world into chaos, its neighbours Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as Pakistan have already been thrown into chaos due to foreign (US) dealings, and we all know how brutal the Israeli-Palestenian conflict has been with wars in Gaza and Lebanon.

Fact of the matter is you have this "evil" country Iran, ruled by "extremists" at the center. Its neighbour to the east, Afghanistan, was invaded by US forces and is in conflict, to its west Iraq was invaded by US forces and is in conflict, to its southeast Pakistan is in chaos due to the fallout of US conflict in afghanistan, and at the north there are US military bases. Surely you see something wrong with that, after all this evil extremist nation has never invaded any of its neighbours, while the good and righteous foreign forces travel thousands of miles across oceans and deserts weilding deadly weapons to do just that. The country is surrounded. Added to that there are sanctions and political blackmailing that has tried to undermine the stability of the government within the country itself over the last 30 years.

And now there's talk of invading Iran itself, by countries that themselves have stockpiles of nukes (and in Israel's case a secret one, how shameful can you get), that themselves are extremely trigger happy and have contributed significantly to the instability in the region, all accusing Iran of those exact things. Amazing how twisted the world is.

[obeygiant]

^^^

Iran: A perfect little angel country since 1979.

[Burnsey]

^^^

Iran: A perfect little angel country since 1979.

Hell no, my issue is one of credibility. Who has the right to say what these days? You have countries accusing and punishing other countries for crimes they themselves commit. It's all so twisted.

[skunk]

^^^

Iran: A perfect little angel country since 1979.I can't find where anyone has suggested that. Could you provide a link?

[rasmasyean]

Some breaking information...

Senior staff members of the United Nations nuclear agency have concluded in a confidential analysis that Iran has acquired “sufficient information to be able to design and produce a workable” atom bomb.
The report by experts in the International Atomic Energy Agencyhttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/2.gif (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33155618/ns/world_news-the_new_york_times/#) stresses in its introduction that its conclusions are tentative and subject to further confirmation of the evidence, which it says came from intelligence agencies and its own investigations.
But the report’s conclusions, described by senior European officials, go well beyond the public positions taken by several governments, including the United States. (more...)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33155618/ns/world_news-the_new_york_times/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33155618/ns/world_news-the_new_york_times/)

[skunk]

More breaking news: so have several other countries.

[Macky-Mac]

I can't find where anyone has suggested that. Could you provide a link?

perhaps your sarcasm meter isn't working ? probably obeygiant should have used one of those smilies.......:rolleyes:

since he hasn't responded, I'll take a guess that he meant to indicate that he thought that Burnsey's statement was too simplistic and so one sided that it didn't adequately address the situation? But maybe he'll come along and tells himself :p

[FX120]

Some breaking information...

Senior staff members of the United Nations nuclear agency have concluded in a confidential analysis that Iran has acquired “sufficient information to be able to design and produce a workable” atom bomb.
The report by experts in the International Atomic Energy Agencyhttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/2.gif (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33155618/ns/world_news-the_new_york_times/#) stresses in its introduction that its conclusions are tentative and subject to further confirmation of the evidence, which it says came from intelligence agencies and its own investigations.
But the report’s conclusions, described by senior European officials, go well beyond the public positions taken by several governments, including the United States. (more...)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33155618/ns/world_news-the_new_york_times/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33155618/ns/world_news-the_new_york_times/)
So has every nuclear physicist in the world. It's not like the theory of operation of nuclear devices is exactly top-secret information any more.

Seriously, designing and building a crude, yet functioning device is the *easy* part compared to refining the fuel.

[skunk]

But maybe he'll come along and tells himself :pI can wait.

[Ttownbeast]

it really doesn't seem that secret if everybody knows about it does it?

[shivermetimbers]

Very optimistic, naive & wishful thinking.

I could not agree more. With all the rhetoric of wiping Israel out...shooting its own people over its fraudulent elections. A nuclear Iran almost makes me more nervous than North Korea with the bomb. Take the blinders off....... Wish we could resurrect Gen MacArthur..beat he'd still love to kick the crap out of the big red communist dog an the Islam-o-facists. Better yet....deploy Chuck Norris........

[AP_piano295]

I could not agree more. With all the rhetoric of wiping Israel out...shooting its own people over its fraudulent elections. A nuclear Iran almost makes me more nervous than North Korea with the bomb. Take the blinders off....... Wish we could resurrect Gen MacArthur..beat he'd still love to kick the crap out of the big red communist dog an the Islam-o-facists. Better yet....deploy Chuck Norris........

Are you serious?

General McArthur is 50X scarier than a nuclear Iran.

[shivermetimbers]

Are you serious?

General McArthur is 50X scarier than a nuclear Iran.

Joking of course......I would settle for someone engaging "The Chuck Norris Dispenser Button."
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v235/engineguy129/image5.png

Beats sitting around worrying about what your Govt is not going to do....

[sushi]

General McArthur is 50X scarier than a nuclear Iran.
Not really.

And General MacArthur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_MacArthur) knew how to get things done. :)

[shivermetimbers]

Not really.

And General MacArthur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_MacArthur) knew how to get things done. :)
Yes he did and that scared people. Same with General Patton (Old Blood and Guts). Albeit times have changed, I am a military man....I would follow either into battle.... We need do-ers, not people with empty words....

[rasmasyean]

So has every nuclear physicist in the world. It's not like the theory of operation of nuclear devices is exactly top-secret information any more.

Seriously, designing and building a crude, yet functioning device is the *easy* part compared to refining the fuel.

I'm going to go with the notion that there are specifics involved that are not all that "widespread knowledge" about the device. The "theory" of the latest Intel chips is also widely known. It doesn't mean that every electical engineer can make one....provided you are given pure silicon. Are there like "working nuclear fuel detonators" floating arround all over the place from people's basements? Why not...if it's like a "hobby class" endeavor?

[bobber205]

I'm going to go with the notion that there are specifics involved that are not all that "widespread knowledge" about the device. The "theory" of the latest Intel chips is also widely known. It doesn't mean that every electical engineer can make one....provided you are given pure silicon. Are there like "working nuclear fuel detonators" floating arround all over the place from people's basements? Why not...if it's like a "hobby class" endeavor?

I would postulate what is hardest is the technique, the equipment to do the known theories/procedures, and the expertise from actual humans.

[.Andy]

I'm going to go with the notion that there are specifics involved that are not all that "widespread knowledge" about the device.
The tentative and subject to further confirmation notion?

[skunk]

Not really.

And General MacArthur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_MacArthur) knew how to get things done. :)General MacArthur was a dangerously impulsive and flawed man driven by vanity. From your linked article:

A British liaison officer at MacArthur's headquarters, Lt Col Gerald Wilkinson, described him in 1943:
He is shrewd, selfish, proud, remote, highly strung and vastly vain. He has imagination, self-confidence, physical courage and charm, but no humour about himself, no regard for truth, and is unaware of these defects. He mistakes his emotions and ambitions for principles. With moral depth, he would be a great man; as it is he is a near miss which may be worse than a mile.... His main ambition would be to end the war as Pan-American hero in the form of generalissimo of all Pacific theatres.... He hates Roosevelt and dislikes Winston's control of Roosevelt's strategy. He is not basically anti-British, just pro-MacArthur.

[sushi]

General MacArthur was a dangerously impulsive and flawed man driven by vanity. From your linked article:
I draw your attention to the top of the web page:

The neutrality of this article is disputed.

Obviously, there are going to be different impressions of the good general. I only linked to Wikipedia in case someone has not heard of him.

General MacArthur was a true leader in very difficult times. He also understood nation building and honor. In the Pacific region, his legacy lives.

FWIW, over the years, I've known folks who served with General MacArthur. He mentored many along the way. One of the few that I would follow into fire without hesitation. :)

Yes he did and that scared people. Same with General Patton (Old Blood and Guts). Albeit times have changed, I am a military man....I would follow either into battle.... We need do-ers, not people with empty words....
Well said! :)

[obeygiant]

Hell no, my issue is one of credibility. Who has the right to say what these days? You have countries accusing and punishing other countries for crimes they themselves commit. It's all so twisted.

I understand what you mean but who else is going to stand up to this? China, no, Russia, no. A nuclear Iran seems unacceptable given their rhetoric and actions.

The world learned of Iran's nuclear development facility at Natanz only in 2002 when Iranian dissidents revealed it. And now Tehran admits to a second plant. Oil-rich Iran always argues that the centrifuges in its public plant are processing uranium to fuel nuclear-powered electricity generators, and will doubtless say the same about the new one. But it is easy to adapt this process to create the highly enriched uranium that nuclear weapons require. Nor does the Iranian argument that they are being treated unfairly by demands they stop their program stack up against their refusal of an international offer to supply nuclear fuel for power plants. That Tehran is also building medium- range missiles, capable of hitting targets all over the Middle East, demonstrates Iran's aspirations to have both WMDs and the means to deliver them.

News of a second plant will especially worry Israel, the target of consistent threats from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and it will terrify the Sunni states of the Arab world who know they have as much to fear from the Persian Shi'ites of Iran as does the Jewish state. As the June elections demonstrated, Mr Ahmadinejad's authority comes less from the electorate than from fundamentalist clerics and the armed forces, especially the religious militia that he uses to suppress dissent. The prospect of such an unstable state possessing WMDs is a risk to world peace that equals the danger from North Korea.
...
link (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26132906-16741,00.html)

[AP_piano295]

Not really.

And General MacArthur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_MacArthur) knew how to get things done. :)

And if he had been allowed to get his things "done" we would have used nukes against North Korea, and China...your right he sounds like a reasonable man...

[rasmasyean]

15-Ton Bomb revealed with Iran's name on it. :D

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33293807/ns/us_news-military/