Teheran: Israel will regret any attack

[LightbulbSun]

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1167467674699&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull"

 

[Evo]

Hi LightbulbSun, welcome to PF and please read the posting guidelines https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=113181 .

the following rules apply to all new threads started in Politics and World Affairs effective as of the date of posting of these guidelines:

1) A clear statement of purpose written by the person starting the thread and contained in the opening post of the thread.

5) When posting on topics of foreign policy or world issues, remember to ensure the topic is presented in a manner that makes all of our membership welcome to participate.

We don't allow threads with nothing but a link to an article. Please explain what it is that you wish to discuss.

Thanks!

 

[Astronuc]

Does it seem that the world, or parts of it, are going nuts - or nuttier than usual?

Apparently, there has been mention that Israel (really the Israeli government/military, or elements thereof) have devised a plan to use low yield nuclear weapons to destroy Iranian nuclear (perhaps limited to enrichment) facilities!

Israel reportedly has plans to destroy Iran uranium plants

Two Israeli air force squadrons are training to blow up an Iranian facility using low-yield nuclear "bunker-busters," . . . .

Of course, the Israeli government denies this.

Of course, the Iranian government has threatened retaliation.

I hope people take a step back and realize that violence is a very bad way to resolve conflicts.

The immediate repercussions will likely be spike in oil prices and a drop in world stock markets.

 

[LightbulbSun]

Hi LightbulbSun, welcome to PF and please read the posting guidelines https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=113181 .

the following rules apply to all new threads started in Politics and World Affairs effective as of the date of posting of these guidelines:

1) A clear statement of purpose written by the person starting the thread and contained in the opening post of the thread.

5) When posting on topics of foreign policy or world issues, remember to ensure the topic is presented in a manner that makes all of our membership welcome to participate.

We don't allow threads with nothing but a link to an article. Please explain what it is that you wish to discuss.

Thanks!

Ah, sorry about that haha. What I wanted to discuss about was the recent news of Israel threatening a nuclear attack on Iran, but then denying of such a thing earlier today, and now this. Does anyone in government not see the repercussions of nuclear warfare? Counter nuclear attacks will wipe out not only our species, but make the Earth inhabitable forever. So it seems to me rather counterproductive to start a nuclear war.

I'm very anti-war. I wish we would get past this territorial game already and focus on more important issues. If everyone looked at life on Earth at a cosmic level they would see we're insignificant in the grand scale of the cosmos. That Earth remains to be our only home for life, and even that's just a pale blue dot to reference Carl Sagan's book. Thoughts on this subject or to my rantings? I know the notion of "embracing the whole human community" sounds rather trite nowadays considering the type of environment we're dealing with, but what's so disquieting about it? I'm sick of these lame excuses about how peace is unfulfilling and boring. How is war fulfilling I ask? Ok, sorry I'll end my line of thoughts here haha.

 

[russ_watters]

Well, the threat to Israel here is real and needs to be considered.

I had a short and pointless discussion with my boss about this today, as a matter of fact, and he considers it an absolutely 100% certainty that Iran is trying to build the bomb and when they acquire it they will use it on Israel. Given that criteria, Israel must prevent Iran from acquiring the bomb.

The logic is infallible if you agree to the premise, but the premise is, of course, not that clear-cut (which is why discussing politics with my boss is pointless). So the question is: how big of a threat is Iran to Israel really? Would Iran use their weapons for deterrence or would they use them in a hot war? Is the leader of Iran really a lunatic or does he just play one on tv? Not easy questions to answer...

One thing is clear: Israel has done a similar thing before and it is logical to conclude they would do it again if they felt it necessary. Adding the nuclear element to the attack adds a new dimension to it -it puts them in a club that no one in the world really wants to be in.

 

[LightbulbSun]

Well, the threat to Israel here is real and needs to be considered.

I had a short and pointless discussion with my boss about this today, as a matter of fact, and he considers it an absolutely 100% certainty that Iran is trying to build the bomb and when they acquire it they will use it on Israel. Given that criteria, Israel must prevent Iran from acquiring the bomb.

The logic is infallible if you agree to the premise, but the premise is, of course, not that clear-cut (which is why discussing politics with my boss is pointless). So the question is: how big of a threat is Iran to Israel really? Would Iran use their weapons for deterrence or would they use them in a hot war? Is the leader of Iran really a lunatic or does he just play one on tv? Not easy questions to answer...

One thing is clear: Israel has done a similar thing before and it is logical to conclude they would do it again if they felt it necessary. Adding the nuclear element to the attack adds a new dimension to it -it puts them in a club that no one in the world really wants to be in.

But that leads to the question if Iran really does nuke Israel, does the U.S. in retaliation strike back by nuking Iran?

 

[russ_watters]

Does anyone in government not see the repercussions of nuclear warfare? Counter nuclear attacks will wipe out not only our species, but make the Earth inhabitable forever. So it seems to me rather counterproductive to start a nuclear war.

Well that's what is complicated about this: if using a nuclear weapon really meant that, it would be a no-brainer (you couldn't use them), but clearly it doesn't. If Israel used a nuclear bunker-buster on Iran, who would retaliate on Israel with nuclear weapons? There are only a handful of nations that actually have the capability to wipe out a large fraction of the Earth's population - why would they start lobbing nukes at each other in response to this?

Nuclear weapons are terrible to be sure, but they are not much more than just big bombs - contrary to the scary propaganda you hear from crackpot activists. Hiroshima and Nagasaki are thriving cities today. They never were uninhabitable after they were nuked.

I'm very anti-war. I wish we would get past this territorial game already and focus on more important issues. If everyone looked at life on Earth at a cosmic level they would see we're insignificant in the grand scale of the cosmos. That Earth remains to be our only home for life, and even that's just a pale blue dot to reference Carl Sagan's book. Thoughts on this subject or to my rantings? I know the notion of "embracing the whole human community" sounds rather trite nowadays considering the type of environment we're dealing with, but what's so disquieting about it? I'm sick of these lame excuses about how peace is unfulfilling and boring. How is war fulfilling I ask? Ok, sorry I'll end my line of thoughts here haha.

There are not all that many people on Earth who really are not anti-war. But a small handful of people with a lot of power and perhaps some mental illnesses are capable of getting others to follow them to war.

The hatred brewed in the Middle-East is tough to get past, but consider this: no two westernized nations have gone to war with each other in 60 years. And these are countries that used to be perpetually at war with each other. War is obsolete for certain countries and I honestly believe that other countries will come into the fold over time.

 

[LightbulbSun]

Well that's what is complicated about this: if using a nuclear weapon really meant that, it would be a no-brainer (you couldn't use them), but clearly it doesn't. If Israel used a nuclear bunker-buster on Iran, who would retaliate on Israel with nuclear weapons? There are only a handful of nations that actually have the capability to wipe out a large fraction of the Earth's population - why would they start lobbing nukes at each other in response to this?

Nuclear weapons are terrible to be sure, but they are not much more than just big bombs - contrary to the scary propaganda you hear from crackpot activists. Hiroshima and Nagasaki are thriving cities today. They never were uninhabitable after they were nuked.

I was just thinking about that just now russ, good points. However, too much radiation from the nuclear aftermath would be devastating.

There are not all that many people on Earth who really are not anti-war. But a small handful of people with a lot of power and perhaps some mental illnesses are capable of getting others to follow them to war.

The hatred brewed in the Middle-East is tough to get past, but consider this: no two westernized nations have gone to war with each other in 60 years. And these are countries that used to be perpetually at war with each other. War is obsolete for certain countries and I honestly believe that other countries will come into the fold over time.

Now all we have to do is unite with the eastern hemisphere.

 

[Yonoz]

But that leads to the question if Iran really does nuke Israel, does the U.S. in retaliation strike back by nuking Iran?

That question is rather irrelevant, albeit more to Israelis than Iranians.

 

[russ_watters]

But that leads to the question if Iran really does nuke Israel, does the U.S. in retaliation strike back by nuking Iran?

I wouldn't think so. Why would we?

 

[Gokul43201]

Nuclear weapons are terrible to be sure, but they are not much more than just big bombs - contrary to the scary propaganda you hear from crackpot activists. Hiroshima and Nagasaki are thriving cities today. They never were uninhabitable after they were nuked.

To raise a minor point, I think this is true, in part at least, because detonantions were at over a thousand feet in the air (to maximize civilian deaths) over H & N. I think if you had detonantion nearer ground (to take out ground level strategic targets) there would be higher levels of secondary radiation for longer...maybe up to a year within a many mile radius (for a payload of the order of tens of kilotons)?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

To raise a minor point, I think this is true, in part at least, because detonantions were at over a thousand feet in the air (to maximize civilian deaths) over H & N. I think if you had detonantion nearer ground (to take out ground level strategic targets) there would be higher levels of secondary radiation for longer...maybe up to a year within a many mile radius (for a payload of the order of tens of kilotons)?

And those were two very small bombs - firecrackers by today's standards.

IIRC, the biggest problems occur when material from the ground is exposed to the core of the explosion.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The Effects of Nuclear War
Office of Technology Assessment
(May 1979)
http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/7906/

 

[Ivan Seeking]

After a period of time, local fallout radiation
levels decay to the point where the
area would be considered “safe,” and survivors
in fallout shelters would emerge.
Nevertheless, low levels of radiation
would persist for some time— indeed, low
levels of radiation have persisted for years
at some sites of nuclear weapons tests.

The question of safety here is a relative
one. By the standards of peacetime, many
such areas would be considered unsafe,
because living in them would expose a
population to a significant risk of longterm
hazards— cancer, genetic damage,
etc. However, in the aftermath of a nucle
ar attack, there may be few habitable
areas that do not have a measurable
(though low) level of additional radiation,
and the survivors wouId simply have to accept
the hazards.

Some fallout is deposited in the troposphere,
and then is brought down to Earth
(largely by rain) over a period of weeks.
Such fallout reaches areas quite far from
the blast. While the doses inflicted would
be relatively small, they would add to the
risk.

Some fallout is deposited in the stratosphere.
It returns to Earth over a period of
years (through the effects of gravity), and
consequently only very long-lived radioactive
isotopes pose a significant hazard.
If the attacks are confined to the territory of the United States and the Soviet Union (and, for that matter, to Europe and China
as well), then stratospheric fallout will be
confined mostly to the Northern Hemisphere,
and the region between 300 and
600 north latitude will receive the bulk of
it.[continued]

http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/7906/790607.pdf

Note the implicit assumption that there would be fallout shelters available.

After a period of time, local fallout radiation levels decay to the point where the area would be considered “safe,” and survivors in fallout shelters would emerge

How long? I didn't spot a good number, but I think the answer is that depending on the nature of the event, the distance from the epicenter, and the level of radiation one wishes to endure, this lands between thirty days and one year.

 

[LightbulbSun]

I wouldn't think so. Why would we?

Because we're strong allies with Israel, and we consider Iran not only a terrorist threat, but a nuclear one too. We can only assume that if Israel were nuked that the U.S. would feel threatened of an imminent nuclear attack on their own soil no matter how fabricated it may be.

 

[Gokul43201]

We can only assume that if Israel were nuked that the U.S. would feel threatened of an imminent nuclear attack on their own soil no matter how fabricated it may be.

Who do you refer to by the "US" - the administration, Congress, or the people?

I don't think anyone in the administration or Congress actually believes any of the Shahab 6 speculation (they'd much easier believe the taepodong's supposed range). But this doesn't mean it will be hard to put enough fear and doubt into enough people. Heck, if they could pull this off with Iraq's 100-mile al Samouds, they surely can create a lot more fear about the Shahabs.

The only US "soil" that Iran can reasonably reach are the embassies in the Middle East and vicinity.

 

[TuviaDaCat]

Who do you refer to by the "US" - the administration, Congress, or the people?

I don't think anyone in the administration or Congress actually believes any of the Shahab 6 speculation (they'd much easier believe the taepodong's supposed range). But this doesn't mean it will be hard to put enough fear and doubt into enough people. Heck, if they could pull this off with Iraq's 100-mile al Samouds, they surely can create a lot more fear about the Shahabs.

The only US "soil" that Iran can reasonably reach are the embassies in the Middle East and vicinity.

well, actually, I am pretty sure that the U.S. would attack. its not all about the range, a country who dare to use such weapons for the mere reason of killing people, is a big threat, not only to israel, but to europe as well, and could ever deliver it to the U.S. in means other than ballistics...
heh, the U.S. took action for much less in the past...

but i strongly believe that iran would not use a nuke(unless there is some government instability... a change of government to mindless fanatics might do it, but i cannot predict to happen).
nukes until now, have been a source for mutual fear. with such means they will be more free to move without outside reaction from U.S. or israel.
even if they will not use it, the situation is bad, a country with no morality free to do as it please without fear of others is bad..

btw, its not impossible that israel is preparing for using a bunker buster on the nuclear plant, but it can be for emergencies, where we will not be the aggressors...
and ye, wars are stupid, but countries such as russia, arab extremists, crazy gangs in africa, north korea, and china, does not seem to care, or at least their leaders...

 

[LightbulbSun]

Who do you refer to by the "US" - the administration, Congress, or the people?

I don't think anyone in the administration or Congress actually believes any of the Shahab 6 speculation (they'd much easier believe the taepodong's supposed range). But this doesn't mean it will be hard to put enough fear and doubt into enough people. Heck, if they could pull this off with Iraq's 100-mile al Samouds, they surely can create a lot more fear about the Shahabs.

The only US "soil" that Iran can reasonably reach are the embassies in the Middle East and vicinity.

They'll spin it in some manner no matter if 70-80% of the public is not buying it. Remember this administration has ignored the American public, and they will continue to do so. They'll flash terror and aviation alerts in the red category for long periods of time, and the President will make speeches about how we have to be on the offensive now. It's all propaganda. It always has been.

 

[russ_watters]

Because we're strong allies with Israel, and we consider Iran not only a terrorist threat, but a nuclear one too. We can only assume that if Israel were nuked that the U.S. would feel threatened of an imminent nuclear attack on their own soil no matter how fabricated it may be.

Just like with North Korea, Iran does not have the capability to directly attack the US. And if you are comparing that to Iraq - we didn't nuke Iraq. Remember, I'm still responding to your quote about the US nuking Iran for nuking Israel. I could certainly see us giving Iran the treatment we gave Iraq if Iran nuked Israel, but we wouldn't nuke them. It just isn't a worthwhile thing to do. It has no point.

 

[trajan22]

In response to whether the U.S. would respond to a nuclear attack on Israel.
I would have to say it would be entirely unnecessary, there is basically little doubt that Israel possesses nuclear weapons, and they also possesses nuclear submarines ( most likely to hold nukes in case their small country was ever destroyed) therefore Israel would be quite capable of responding without outside help.

 

[Yonoz]

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3349390,00.html"

"No country has launched an attack using nuclear weapons since Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If there's indeed a strike on Iran, the last thing the forces would want to do is to use nuclear arms, as long as there are other means," Deputy Director of the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies Dr. Ephraim Kam told Ynet Sunday morning.

Kam's comments come in response to a Sunday Times report that Israel has formulated a plan to strike three Iranian nuclear facilities using tactical nuclear weapons.

According to Dr. Kam, the use of nuclear arms is an extreme step. "Even though this plan is realistic, I don't know if ultimately we'll see a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. Even in case a decision is taken to act, it doesn't have to be done with nuclear weapons – that's a far-reaching move."

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

A few points, one we don't know yet if the Iranians are building nukes. Although it seems propable they might. And two even if they are aiming to build nukes, current enrichment estimates put them at having about 7% enriched Uranium. Since you need about 85% enriched for a weapon, although much less for a dirty bomb, I don't think this is a concern for quite some time.

Three, since it's patently obvious that Iran needs Nuclear plants to subsidize it's power and thus get more money from it's oil. I don't see it as anything approaching fair to target it's facilities.

Four this is just the usual political games, essentially someones just "leaked" this out to send the message to Iran that they would be prepared to use nuclear weapons if necessary. Sending a warning I think is all this is meant to do. More political posturing basically.

Another thing is this is typical speculative scenario running. For example the US has on it's book a what if situation for invading Canada, no one seriously expects they will, but they run all types of scenarios.

Essentially this is just more of the same political maneuvering in the ME, I see no reason to be alarmed to any real level.

 

[Yonoz]

Three, since it's patently obvious that Iran needs Nuclear plants to subsidize it's power and thus get more money from it's oil. I don't see it as anything approaching fair to target it's facilities.

How is it "patently obvious"? Other nations that have no oil resources of their own and have to buy and transport it don't have nuclear programs. Furthermore, Iran has been offered to have other nations supply them with reactors AND fuel, but they insist on enriching their own Uranium. They also insist on doing this clandestinely in deep underground facilities and without IAEA inspections.
Combine this with the history of Iranian and Iranian-supported attacks against Israeli and Jewish targets all around the world, and the rhetoric of Iranian leaders - and I think you can see why there is no other way for Israel to deal with this existential threat.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

How is it "patently obvious"? Other nations that have no oil resources of their own and have to buy and transport it don't have nuclear programs.

1) what do you think is supplying their power stations with energy at the moment? Oil.

2) Would it make better economic sense to use nuclear power and sell the oil?

Sorry I meant patently obvious to anyone who knows anything about it, this source should make it clear anyway.

http://www.payvand.com/news/03/oct/1022.html

Mohammad Sahimi is Professor & Chairman of Chemical and Petroleum Engineering at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles. Since 1986, he has been a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists, an organization devoted to preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction, and a member of the Union's Partners for Earth program. In addition to his scientific research which has resulted in over 200 papers, published in scientific journals, and six books, his political articles have also appeared as book chapters, on various web sites, and in the Los Angeles Times.

Article:-

In the present article, Part II of a three-part series, the need for building nuclear reactors in Iran is analyzed. As was pointed out in Part I, in the opinion of this author, the questions that we Iranians must ask and debate, are: Does Iran need nuclear energy, and is acquiring it in her national interests? It was also pointed out that one must decouple Iran's need for nuclear energy which, as argued in this article, is completely legitimate on economical, social, and environmental grounds, from her alleged or real intentions for producing nuclear weapons.

Recall that the main argument of the United States against nuclear energy for Iran is that, Iran has vast oil and gas reserves, and hence she needs no nuclear reactor. This argument is, in general, not necessarily valid. Many countries that are rich in fossil energy resources, including Britain and Russia (both oil exporters), rely on nuclear power for a significant portion of their energy needs, while Germany, France, Japan, and many other countries, which have no oil or natural gas reserves, have not abandoned nuclear power in favor of more imported oil and gas, even though they can certainly afford this. There are currently 1118 nuclear reactors in the world of which 280 are for nuclear research, while another 400 are used in ships and submarines for producing power. The remaining 438 nuclear reactors are used for generating electricity, of which 104 are in the US, 59 in France, 53 in Japan, 29 in Russia, and 19 are in Germany. Between 1974, when Iran signed her first agreement for building nuclear reactors, and 2000, use of nuclear reactors for generating electricity has increased by a factor of 12!

In the particular case of Iran, the US argument that Iran needs no nuclear energy has no validity at all. While it is true that Iran does have vast oil and gas reserves, she also needs alternative energy sources. I argue that Iran's needs for such alternatives are glaring and indisputable, and I base my arguments on economical, social, and environmental considerations.

We first, however, consider the case for alternative sources of energy on general grounds:

Most of the world's major oil exporters, such as Iran, are developing nations. Thus, these countries must confront the challenge of their demographic explosion without possessing many of the necessary tools, which are strong state structures, rapidly-growing economies, large amounts of investment capitals, numerous entrepreneurs, engineers and inventors, and infrastructres that are reasonably advanced. In fact, we live in a world in which technology and capital are in the countries that are energy-hungry - those that have no major oil reserves of their own (for example, Germany, France, and Japan) or have at best indeaquate sources (for example, the US) - whereas the population growth and social and political turbulence are in the developing countries that are major oil producers (such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Iraq, etc.).

At the same time, oil is a non-renewable national wealth of Iran (and other oil exporters). Once it is produced and exported, it can never be regenerated. One cannot expect Iran (and other oil-exporting countries) to deplete her non-renewable national wealth recklessly, without receiving any lasting products or benefits in return, but this will happen if Iran's sources for energy are not diversified, and she continues to rely almost exclusively on oil and gas for everything from the only source of energy to her annual budget. Except for Norway, every major oil exporter (including Russia) relies heavily on its revenue from oil sales, so much so that if the oil price stays too low for too long, we may have social instability and even revolution in these countries. What would happen to these countries if all of their recoverable oil and gas are rapidly depleted over a few decades, which would be the case if they rely on oil and gas for everything from their annual budget to energy sources?

Furthermore, Iran has been offered to have other nations supply them with reactors AND fuel, but they insist on enriching their own Uranium. They also insist on doing this clandestinely in deep underground facilities and without IAEA inspections.

Iran got it's first reactor and the Engineering know how from the US, it got it's centrifugal technology from Germany, as well as engineering input, theese highly advanced technologies don't appear in a country by magic.

Combine this with the history of Iranian and Iranian-supported attacks against Israeli and Jewish targets all around the world, and the rhetoric of Iranian leaders - and I think you can see why there is no other way for Israel to deal with this existential threat.

WIll they won't they, fact is no one knows and so this is academic. Do you think it would be wise for Israel to nuke Iran, same question reversed? This is just the usual MAD posturing. Only difference is no one knows anything. Should Iran let in inspectors, hell yes. Should it give up it's nuclear reactors to a hypocritical western world, hell no, it has the same rights to exploit it's resources for economic reasons as anyone else. Take a look at the NPT, it says any country may build nuclear plants for the use of power. Apparently though Iran has a law unto itself, it must stop building nuclear plants with the know how it got from America? Does anyone see this as fair at all. Yes inspectors no to halting it's progress.

 

[TuviaDaCat]

can a nuclear power plant be transformed to a plant capable of making bombs?

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

can a nuclear power plant be transformed to a plant capable of making bombs?

It's not quite that simple: a nuclear power plant can be made to produce material for bombs, but only in conjunction with centrifuges that enrich uranium.

Centrifuges can produce either uranium for power (around 3%) or uranium for Nukes(80-85%) It's a lot harder to do it for nukes, you need a hell of a lot of centrifuges, and Iran does not currently have anywhere near enough.

 

[turbo]

LightbulbSun, Iran cannot nuke Israel because Iran has no nuclear weapons, and no chance of building any for years. Israel has nukes and may elect to use them on Iran's nuclear facilities, as you noted. The prime time to use them would be early in the 2-month deployment overlap of the Eisenhower and Stennis carrier groups in the Persian Gulf. If Israeli hawks want to draw the US into a regional war, they will have the perfect opportunity during that period. I hope and pray that it doesn't happen, but all the saber-rattling combined with the lack of any diplomatic dialog with Iraq's neighbors does not bode well. These are dangerous times.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

LightbulbSun, Iran cannot nuke Israel because Iran has no nuclear weapons, and no chance of building any for years. Israel has nukes and may elect to use them on Iran's nuclear facilities, as you noted. The prime time to use them would be early in the 2-month deployment overlap of the Eisenhower and Stennis carrier groups in the Persian Gulf. If Israeli hawks want to draw the US into a regional war, they will have the perfect opportunity during that period. I hope and pray that it doesn't happen, but all the saber-rattling combined with the lack of any diplomatic dialog with Iraq's neighbors does not bode well. These are dangerous times.

I agree times full of ignorance and nonsense with little interest in the real picture, luckilly a primary source of this stupidity will be removed in 2008. Let's hope he'll be replaced by someone, who at least listens to the truth, not someone who considers it inconvenient.

For me the translation of Ahmadinejad's statement really sums it up; to this day the official record of both the US and UK, shows "wipe Israel of the map" as his words, when in fact four Farsi experts said:-

"The Israeli regime should be removed from the pages of time."

A better translation, how different that makes such a statement.

It really just does make you wonder, what sort of morons we have in power these days.

 

[Mental Gridlock]

Just like with North Korea, Iran does not have the capability to directly attack the US. And if you are comparing that to Iraq - we didn't nuke Iraq. Remember, I'm still responding to your quote about the US nuking Iran for nuking Israel. I could certainly see us giving Iran the treatment we gave Iraq if Iran nuked Israel, but we wouldn't nuke them. It just isn't a worthwhile thing to do. It has no point.

It apparently had a point and they said it was a worthwile thing to do the last time the USA used her nukes.

 

[russ_watters]

It apparently had a point and they said it was a worthwile thing to do the last time the USA used her nukes.

What does that have to do with anything?

 

[Mental Gridlock]

What does that have to do with anything?

I'm thinking the same rationale will happen here too. (hopefully not) They will say like "Iran is building nuclear weapons and must be stopped. They are helping terrorists too. We need to deal with Iran."

So then we'll want to go to war... but so many of our soldiers died for that cause in Iraq and are still dying... And to invade Iran would be a logistical nightmare because we don't have enough troops and it will cost a lot of our servicemen their lives. I can see the same justification repeating. History repeats. At least we won't have to lose OUR soldiers.. If it worked before why couldn't it work now?

So why can't we bomb them into submission? Just like at the end of World War II? Bomb them until our demands are met.

 

[turbo]

If you think that it's OK to bomb a country relentlessly until they are so helpless that our "demands are met" by their primitive living conditions and lack of defense, you may have a career in neoconservative politics.

 

[Gokul43201]

If you think that it's OK to bomb a country relentlessly until they are so helpless that our "demands are met" by their primitive living conditions and lack of defense, you may have a career in neoconservative politics.

On the other hand, if you think it's okay to maintain a rhetoric that troubles the rest of the world and refuse to permit the IAEA to satisfactorily inspect your facilities, yet insist that the rest of the world is being unfair to you, you may have a career in Ahmedinejad's cabinet.

This cuts many ways, and Iran is, by no reasonable judgement, an innocent victim to Western trigger-happiness.

 

[Mental Gridlock]

If you think that it's OK to bomb a country relentlessly until they are so helpless that our "demands are met" by their primitive living conditions and lack of defense, you may have a career in neoconservative politics.

I don't think it's "ok" at all. I don't even believe the atomic bomb droppings on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were "ok" either and I think Truman is a mass murderer, but that's off topic.

All I'm saying is, the same decision could be made today as well. I don't want it to, I'm not advocating it, but the western world is going to want to force Iran into submission on its own terms, exactly the same as the end of WWII. And the United States might use a show of force to compel Iran to do such.. But the United States could decide to use more force than they should in the interest of saving American lives.. If that was the scenario at the end of WWII and if that is what is important, than why wouldn't they make the same decision today?

If Iran is GOING TO build up nuclear weapons, and plans to use them against Israel, or supply them to terrorists, we will have a catastrophe. This is the premise which the western world is using for the purposes of being paranoid. That said, everything is being done to avoid this alleged activity. Sanctions are placed on Iran. But what if the stakes are too high and the US is too stubborn or whatever, no progress is made, and Iran may very well be "forced" to abandon their nuclear weapons program one way or another by the United States. Since an invasion would be really costly (as can be seen in Iraq), what else would they do besides bomb the heck out of Iran?

 

[Yonoz]

1) what do you think is supplying their power stations with energy at the moment? Oil.

2) Would it make better economic sense to use nuclear power and sell the oil?

Not only does it make no economic sense (sanctions), it makes no diplomatic sense either.

Sorry I meant patently obvious to anyone who knows anything about it, this source should make it clear anyway.

This would all be good and well had Iran's nuclear program remained under the supervision of the IAEA. Furthermore, all those other nations didn't spread their civilian enrichment facilities and reactors across the country in deep underground tunnels.

Iran got it's first reactor and the Engineering know how from the US, it got it's centrifugal technology from Germany, as well as engineering input, theese highly advanced technologies don't appear in a country by magic.

Iran was supplied with the technology for a civilian nuclear program from the west - just goes to show there would be no problem with such a program had it remained civilian. FYI they also got military-grade enrichment technology from Pakistan.

WIll they won't they, fact is no one knows and so this is academic. Do you think it would be wise for Israel to nuke Iran, same question reversed?

Israel isn't headed by religious extremists that encourage martyrdom.

This is just the usual MAD posturing. Only difference is no one knows anything. Should Iran let in inspectors, hell yes. Should it give up it's nuclear reactors to a hypocritical western world, hell no, it has the same rights to exploit it's resources for economic reasons as anyone else.
Take a look at the NPT, it says any country may build nuclear plants for the use of power. Apparently though Iran has a law unto itself, it must stop building nuclear plants with the know how it got from America? Does anyone see this as fair at all. Yes inspectors no to halting it's progress.

No one is demanding Iran "give up" its nuclear reactors, "halt their progress" or anything of that sort - only to open its nuclear program for inspection. They've even been offered the fuel for these reactors in exchange for abandoning their clandestine enrichment program.