Iran has secret nuclear site...

rasmasyean

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jul 11, 2008
810
1
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/



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

macrumors 6502
Nov 9, 2007
390
1
Lexington, KY
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

macrumors G4
Jun 29, 2002
11,745
3,987
Republic of Ukistan
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.
 

leekohler

macrumors G5
Dec 22, 2004
14,162
19
Chicago, Illinois
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.
 

Chaszmyr

macrumors 601
Aug 9, 2002
4,265
76
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

macrumors 603
Feb 9, 2005
6,225
0
The good side of the grass.
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.
 

leekohler

macrumors G5
Dec 22, 2004
14,162
19
Chicago, Illinois
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

macrumors 68040
Feb 24, 2006
3,030
2
UK
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

macrumors 68000
Jan 16, 2008
1,543
223
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?'
 

NC MacGuy

macrumors 603
Feb 9, 2005
6,225
0
The good side of the grass.
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.
 

MyDesktopBroke

macrumors 6502
Jun 2, 2007
396
0
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

macrumors 6502a
May 17, 2009
500
0
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...
 

oscillatewildly

macrumors 68000
Jul 17, 2007
1,808
56
23 Railway Cuttings
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?