Iran……what do we do?

Going back on an early one from Coop, for it being the most comprehensive one i can give my counter-arguments to.

That would be a perfect way to further antagonise the Iranian people. Remember that from the mid-1990s on, Iran was very obviously becoming a far less radical fundamentalist country. Unfortunately, some goon whose country got hit by a terrorist attack from Saudi Arabians suddenly named Iran as one of three countries (Iran, Iraq, North Korea) which should be held responsible for that terrorist attack. Result: the Iranian voters look at their ballot, and elect the candidate who shows the biggest finger to that very same goon.

Somehow, GWB’s diplomacy with a saw-off barrel might work for the home crowd, the rest of the world responds rather different. A bit more restraint from the US in dealing with Iran might very well have prevented Ahmedinejad getting elected.

Yes. You already made that choice when you signed up. It’s not that the US military is an organisation ment for territorial defence. At best it’s an organisation ment to defend US econo-political interests, but i can think of a few descriptions with the word ‘defence’ replaced by something more agressive.

Your assumption.

MAJOR assumption. Or have you held a poll in Iran?

What about having two not entirely stable neighbours having nukes? What about having a not-so-friendly nation, known for it’s aggressive posture, having military facilities on your doorstep? What about millions of religious rivals (Sunni muslems rather than Shia ones) in the neighbourhood?
There are literally dozens of perfectly valid reasons why Iran would want nukes. Not the least of which is that post-WW2 the West has really only taken nuclear powers completely serious on a diplomatic level. The USSR, China and India proved that becoming a nuclear power increased their diplomatic standing tremendously. I’m sure a proud nation like Iran wants that status symbol.

No you can’t, although i don’t think it’s likely either.

True, neither Europe nor Russia nor China are all too keen on a nuclear-armed Iran. But that’s the b!tch of proliferation for you, and it’s been a while since Pandora’s box has been opened. But i’m pretty sure Europe’s reservations are born for a large part out of post-9/11 Islamophobia, and for an equally large part out of general concern about proliferation. Europe wasn’t too happy about Israel, India and Pakistan joining the nuclear club either.

MASSIVE assumption on your behalf. One i personally find as far fetched as the nearest quasar.

Yeah, the Lebanese surely threatened to invade Israel in 1982, right?

Definately true, Ahmedinejad’s ramblings definately have struck a few already overly-tight-strung Israeli nerves (give those people some valium, btw). Fortunately, the role of the president in Iran is far from being a truely powerful person like it is in France or the US. Ahmedinejad is not the center of power in Iran – the role of the Persian president is more comparable to that of his colleagues in Germany or Israel.

There is your assumption again. The fact that you fear something doesn’t make it true, or even likely. I guess you haven’t learned from the ‘missing’ Iraqi WMD’s? On a sidenote, i am willing to claim my prize in our bet from a few years back as downing a case of beers together (you pay), i’ll let you pass on the suicide 😉

Coop, you said you’re having a course in targeting at this moment. Is countervalue targeting part of a future curriculum? It most definately still is a major part of any country’s, and particularly the US’, nuclear doctrine. Civilian targets are targets. Period.

Thinking countries want nuclear weapons in order to use them is a very big misconception, if you ask me. Like any other country (except the one which actually used nuclear weapons, and appearantly learned a bit from that), Iran wants nuclear weapons only to have a bigger d!ck to put on the negotiating table. You’re not kidding me into thinking that for one reason or another, Iranians are going to commit suicide-by-proxy by actually using their nuclear weapons. Of course not.

The second assurance is a fair one, and quite a solid reason for Iran to get nuclear weapons. Especially now one of it’s major self-declared enemies (there is that Axis of Evil-speech again) sits on it’s doorstep. The ‘convenient access to nukes for terrorist organisations’ is nothing but ill-thought paranoia on your behalf.

The dikes were bombed, but water levels weren’t high enough. Repeated bombings were vetoed though.

:dev2: :diablo: :p

RE ABOVE
SHOULD READ ” BOMBED IRAQ” 😀 😀

It still BAFFLES me as to why the USA & UK bombed them back to the stonages and the with indecent haste they TRY to repair ALL the damage they have caused. They LOST so why not leave them to make out with what is left instead of trying to build another AMERICAN STATE (which is the Last thing that they want) :confused: :confused: 😡

Terrorists getting nukes is very doubtfull. To handle those devices is very complex, requires a lot of experienced personal, infrastructure….on the other hand the real threath is considered to be dirty bombs, and a lot of material can be found around russia. The possibility of Iranians ‘giving’ nukes to terrorists is aroudn BS.

Afghan wedding = lots of firing in the air… resulted in aircraft deciding they were being fired upon so they returned fire… or that was the story at the time…

Are you talking about an incident in Afghanistan or in Iraq…

Ahhh, so they thought it would take too long…

Actually I think they were afraid that a peace enforcement operation would suffer heavy casualties on the ground. Not that any Western military casualties would have become very extensive compared to Rwandan civilian casualties.

So you are saying it doesn’t matter what skin colour is involved, or how many are dying

Actually I’m not saying that it doesn’t matter. It won’t surprise me if I ever discover that I’m actually right, either.

it is how long it takes to fix and how many men are needed to fix it… Easy quick problems first, hard deeper issues later on, or never…

Operational conveniency does have an influence on decisions. It’s probably one of the reasons why the UNSC declined to create a mandate for a no-fly zone over Darfur. Not that the Balkans were ever “easy.”

yeah… that sounds like the sort of world policeman we want…

The US’ will and ability to deal with these sort of problems are far from perfect, but let’s not forget that other UN members were in the loop as well. What about Russia, China, India, Germany, France, UK… What about other African countries?

Really? I haven’t heard how many were killed for being Gypsies or being Gay. Can you tell me? I can estimate that between 4.5 and 5 million soviet prisoners died in captivity.

I can’t recall any specific numbers, but I think that the Holocaust cost the lives of between five and six million non-Jews.

The fact that he was no longer in power makes that OK?

I wasn’t referring to the extradition, but rather why so many Serbs rallied in the streets of Belgrade shortly before he stepped down.

And I’m sure it would never in a million years occur to Al Jazeera to plant a few wedding gowns at a bomb site to drum up anti-Western sentiment. They are the most honest, unbiased, and trustworthy news agency, you know.

I can’t get AL Jazeera… Saw the wedding bombing on the BBC. At weddings there are often video cameras and there was quite a bit of footage of a wedding. Could have been anti US propaganda… but I doubt it. Afghan wedding = lots of firing in the air… resulted in aircraft deciding they were being fired upon so they returned fire… or that was the story at the time…

Had we wanted to threaten their extermination, we would have been allowed to bomb the dikes around Hanoi…

Perhaps missing the distinction between threatening too and actually doing something perhaps?

Where are the hundreds of thousands of Albanians. And satellites can’t exactly pick dead bodies out of the ground either, to my knowledge at least.

So it can detect rivers under other rivers but not fresh graves? Which hundreds of thousands of missing Albanians are we talking about?

Are you referring to the alleged Iraqi “baby milk factory” which was targeted around 24 January 1991?

How many were there?

An intervention in Rwanda would probably have required a large deployment of ground forces for a sustained period. The Americans (along with the rest of the UN, I reckon) were worried that a peace enforcement operation in Rwanda could lead to yet another failure in the African theater.

Ahhh, so they thought it would take too long… They certainly seemed very optimistic about the time it would take in Kosovo. So you are saying it doesn’t matter what skin colour is involved, or how many are dying, it is how long it takes to fix and how many men are needed to fix it… Easy quick problems first, hard deeper issues later on, or never… yeah… that sounds like the sort of world policeman we want…

Garry, I’m ashamed that the UN didn’t do more to stop the conflict in Rwanda. As I’ve told you before; there is no need to push it on me.

And where did I blame you? the only individual I remember mentioning is Allbright.

I’ve read and heard about the casualties sustained by most of the different groups ever since I first learned about World War II.

Really? I haven’t heard how many were killed for being Gypsies or being Gay. Can you tell me? I can estimate that between 4.5 and 5 million soviet prisoners died in captivity.

And what about his resignation the year before?

The fact that he was no longer in power makes that OK?

A bit more restraint from the US in dealing with Iran might very well have prevented Ahmedinejad getting elected.

Ironic that Busche is probably his best friend… well has helped him the most.

Why? because they were responsible enough to know that if they’ll use nukes on the Arabs, the USSR will defend them with nukes, and then the US will have to nuke the USSR – meaning the end of the world. Israel has demonstrated its responsiblity to hold nukes.

So if the test to have nukes is to never actually use them I guess the US has to give up theirs? Perhaps also if Israel never plans to use its nukes it could give up its nukes as well. Of course till someone proves the Iranians actually intend to create nuclear weapons of their own there is no nuclear weapon issue with Iran.

The only reason Israel has nukes is to balance the Arab and Israeli power – not to get an edge over the Arab side.

But with your Arrow ATBM system plus your subs potentially armed with nukes and planes potentially armed with nukes how can you call such a situation balance. Perhaps the Saudi Government needs to be given some nukes?

Israel has never threatened to exterminate another country, and I don’t remember many nations in modern history that threatened other nations to wipe them off the map – except for the worst kind of nations.

The west changes the maps every day. Yugoslavia was a recent country wiped off the map… what a blood bath that was… ohh, the humanity… oops hang on… countries on maps are created and destroyed with the stroke of a pen, not the slash of a sword.

Israel is ahead of the Arab world in quality – not quantity.

Your resupply network stretches back to the US. It is a quantity thing as well as a quality thing too.

Even when excluding Jordan and Egypt out of the title of “hostile neighbours”, there are still many other nations there that won’t recognize Israel’s right to exist.

Well, lets look at this list… without Jordan and Egypt, you’d also have to exclude Iraq, and pretty much also exclude Saudi Arabia too as both are now US puppets. Who exactly is left that Israel can’t take on via conventional military force?

Israel’s nuclear ability is meant for deterrence – deterrence against a possible attack by an Arab coalition against it,

Yeah, our weapons are for defence, while their weapons are purely for invasion and evil doing…

because while on the paper it seems to be able to deal with a number of invading forces at the same time,

Yeah… on paper Kuwaite do look tough…

we have almost failed to do this before, and there’s always a chance of failure in the future – so nobody is willing to take that chance. If Israel will be invaded like this in the future, the invaders will have to take the chance of having their capital cities destroyed.

Yeah right. I am sure Syria will kick your a$$ and a nuclear strike on its capital was the only sane thing you could do…

Looks to me if Iran can’t be allowed Nukes then why not be fair and take them off Israel too… or give some to Saudi Arabia…

When the entire world recognized their full right to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, there is absolutely no reason why should anyone place an embargo over them, as long as they really do just that. Iran knows that, the West knows that, Israel knows that. No one will try to embargo/attack them at any way. If the US will embargo them for some odd reason, the Europeans/Russians will still be helping them.

Like the US can’t use its economic, political and military might to ‘convince’ other nations to do what it wants. Cuba, Kosovo (in terms of pacifying the Russians), China (lifting of the EU arms embargo), Iraq war…

There are just as many examples of the US government punishing commerical companies for ‘breaking’ their self-imposed sanctions and embargos on various nations ranging from freezing those offending companies’ assets to ruling them out of future US government contracts etc.

On a different level, the reliance on imported nuclear fuel would be like a leash on Iran, with which the west can in effect use to leverage Iran into doing what they want, or at least try to prevent them from doing some things the west doesn’t like. While this might seem like a pretty good thing to you, I doubt the Iranians will see it that way. Neither will you if the roles were reversed (which it might actually be in a few decades) and Iran was using its oil leverage to force the west to do what it wants.

The piece of the program that the West is willing to give Iran is exactly the piece that they officially want – civilian nuclear energy. If they refuse to that, clearly they got something to hide, and it’s not that hard to see.

And these reactors can make electricity without fuel? Iran wants at the very least a self sufficient civilian nuclear programme, one which is not dependent on anyone else’s permission or help to continue operating, and given its past experience with the west and America in paticular, one can hardly blame them for prefering self-reliance.

Iran may well want more then just civilian nuclear tech, in fact, I think their ultimate goal is a nuke because thats what I would go for if I was in charge of Iran. But that does not mean that you are actually proving that Iran wants the bomb just because it is rejecting the european offer, because its not a very good offer, and Iran (or anyone in its position) would most likely reject it even if they don’t want nuclear weapons.

You claimed that Israel didn’t use nukes in 1973 because it knew it could prevail conventionally – which isn’t true. As I said, in the early days of the war, Israel thought it couldn’t win conventionally.

So did the Israeli army just lie down and give up? Does the Israeli government have a hive mind that agree absolutely on everything all the time?

There will always be at least two sides debating on the best course of action in situations like this – those who say ‘nuke the ba$tards’ and those who say the army can hold them back.

Just because some people thought that they were going to loose does not mean that it was the provailing belief on the government.

What is beyound debate is the fact that if Israel spent so much resources developing nukes, they must have been propared to use them when they deemed they had to.

Had the ‘tipping point’, whereby all hope was lost, been reached (eg, the Israeli army had been destroyed, not beaten, not shattered but utterly wiped out), do you honestly think Israel would not have used nukes and to hell with the consequences? If not, why bother getting nukes at all?

Israel is ahead of the Arab world in quality – not quantity. Even when excluding Jordan and Egypt out of the title of “hostile neighbours”, there are still many other nations there that won’t recognize Israel’s right to exist. Israel’s nuclear ability is meant for deterrence – deterrence against a possible attack by an Arab coalition against it, because while on the paper it seems to be able to deal with a number of invading forces at the same time, we have almost failed to do this before, and there’s always a chance of failure in the future – so nobody is willing to take that chance. If Israel will be invaded like this in the future, the invaders will have to take the chance of having their capital cities destroyed.

I think you just answered your own previous question regarding how Israel have benefited from its nuclear arsenal. And how exactly can Israel ‘deter’ an attack if its ‘enemies’ does not beleive it will use its nukes?

And I would suggest that you are a little naive if you think and the suspected several hundred nuclear weapons Israel possess is meant merely to threaten the capital cities of would-be attackers. Several hundred warheads. Thats MAD capacity against, at the very least, Israel’s biggest neighbours, and depending on yeild, could be sufficient to wipe out all cities in the ME.

As for the ‘Arab’s’ quantitative advantage, well even with superior numbers, the Arabs have not been able to mount a credit threat to Israel’s conventional superiority for many decades, and today, more then ever, quality can easily overcome quantity. And with the ME stablising, why does Israel still need its nukes?

If Israel offered to give up its nuclear arsenal in exchange for Iran to make verifiable moves to never develop nuclear weapons, I think that’s an offer the Iranians can’t refuse. Hell, with such a momentous move, Israel will probably be able to get the US to throw in an ‘Israel Act’, which commits the US to fight for Israel if it was attacked.

Its a simple enough thing to do, and Israel will be able to gain a level of security not even its nukes can afford, while none of its neighbours would have reason to develop nukes. But do you really think any Israeli government would agree to such a deal?

Israel is ahead of the Arab world in quality – not quantity. Even when excluding Jordan and Egypt out of the title of “hostile neighbours”, there are still many other nations there that won’t recognize Israel’s right to exist. Israel’s nuclear ability is meant for deterrence – deterrence against a possible attack by an Arab coalition against it, because while on the paper it seems to be able to deal with a number of invading forces at the same time, we have almost failed to do this before, and there’s always a chance of failure in the future – so nobody is willing to take that chance. If Israel will be invaded like this in the future, the invaders will have to take the chance of having their capital cities destroyed.

Which other states? Syria and Iran…and the latter lacks any means of conventional invasion…(Hizzpollah doesen’t really have anything else than a harazing purpose)…and I find it hard to belive that Syria would go on their own…So the “evil arab union” is in the past…

And the justification that you give to your own nuclear weapons is exactly the same that should allow Iran have them as well (and why they are propaply having it at the first palce), deterrence. Israel have attacked against Iraq in the past and agaisnt Tunisia so Iran have pretty justificated fear that they might do it agaisnt them as well. And not to mention USA which have had the habbit of harazing almoust every single oilproducing country that doesen’t follow their lead…So like I said in my earlyer post, Iran should be allwowed for nukes as Israel is…

What is the point in having a nuclear energy programme that is totally dependent on the whims of others? What good is a nuclear power plant that can’t produce electricity because the nuclear fuel that needs to be imported is under embargo?

The west is saying, give up this programme, and in turn, we will give you a piece of the programme, which is totally unless on its own, and which you would have developed by yourself anyways. How could anyone turn down such a generous offer? :rolleyes:

Iran’s refusal of the west’s offer is perfectly understandable and logical. Most rational people is Iran’s position would not accept such pointless offers either, because these offers are less the worthless. The west is trying to get something for nothing here, and you are suprised when it doesn’t work?

When the entire world recognized their full right to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, there is absolutely no reason why should anyone place an embargo over them, as long as they really do just that. Iran knows that, the West knows that, Israel knows that. No one will try to embargo/attack them at any way. If the US will embargo them for some odd reason, the Europeans/Russians will still be helping them. The piece of the program that the West is willing to give Iran is exactly the piece that they officially want – civilian nuclear energy. If they refuse to that, clearly they got something to hide, and it’s not that hard to see.

The most, and only damning statement on there seems to have been made by an advisor. I’m not 100% sure what exact role Iranian presidential advisors perform, but if it anything like their counterparts in the rest of the world, then his statement is hardly an example of offical policy.

Where and when exactly have Iran offically threatened to wipe Israel ‘off the map’? You are treating speeches strictly meant for internal consumption as if they were offical mission statements for the government. Need we dig up some gaffs Bush have made at private dinners to realise that things said at such events need to be taken with a giant grain of salt?

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/15E6BF77-6F91-46EE-A4B5-A3CE0E9957EA.htm
Although this his has been said in Iran, it was said in an international conference called “The world without Zionism“, where people from all over the world participated – so it’s not much of an internal speech.
Iran’s official policy towards Israel doesn’t recognize its existance and/or right to exist – which isn’t much better.

And how does that address my question? Merely repeating yourself does not lend your argument any more weight.

You claimed that Israel didn’t use nukes in 1973 because it knew it could prevail conventionally – which isn’t true. As I said, in the early days of the war, Israel thought it couldn’t win conventionally.

I would call that a very optimistic assessment. But that hardly changes the original point – why does Israel need nukes if it will never ever use them and it is effectively telling everyone as much?

Your point being? Militarily, Israel is head and shoulders ahead of any one of its neighbours conventionally, and have been so for decades. Where is this overwhelming conventional threat that need nuclear weapons to redress?

Israel is ahead of the Arab world in quality – not quantity. Even when excluding Jordan and Egypt out of the title of “hostile neighbours”, there are still many other nations there that won’t recognize Israel’s right to exist. Israel’s nuclear ability is meant for deterrence – deterrence against a possible attack by an Arab coalition against it, because while on the paper it seems to be able to deal with a number of invading forces at the same time, we have almost failed to do this before, and there’s always a chance of failure in the future – so nobody is willing to take that chance. If Israel will be invaded like this in the future, the invaders will have to take the chance of having their capital cities destroyed.

.

If Iran truly wanted nuclear energy, it could have got it. No one undermines Iran’s right for nuclear energy. Their refusal to accept the very thing they supposedly ask is in itself worrying.

What is the point in having a nuclear energy programme that is totally dependent on the whims of others? What good is a nuclear power plant that can’t produce electricity because the nuclear fuel that needs to be imported is under embargo?

The west is saying, give up this programme, and in turn, we will give you a piece of the programme, which is totally unless on its own, and which you would have developed by yourself anyways. How could anyone turn down such a generous offer? :rolleyes:

Iran’s refusal of the west’s offer is perfectly understandable and logical. Most rational people is Iran’s position would not accept such pointless offers either, because these offers are less the worthless. The west is trying to get something for nothing here, and you are suprised when it doesn’t work?

Some of their official statements are here:
http://www.memri.org/iran.html
Otherwise, Google is your friend.

The most, and only damning statement on there seems to have been made by an advisor. I’m not 100% sure what exact role Iranian presidential advisors perform, but if it anything like their counterparts in the rest of the world, then his statement is hardly an example of offical policy.

Where and when exactly have Iran offically threatened to wipe Israel ‘off the map’? You are treating speeches strictly meant for internal consumption as if they were offical mission statements for the government. Need we dig up some gaffs Bush have made at private dinners to realise that things said at such events need to be taken with a giant grain of salt?

Israel was on the brink of defeat. Especially in the early days of the war, most Israeli officials didn’t believe Israel’s ability to win the war conventionally.

And how does that address my question? Merely repeating yourself does not lend your argument any more weight.

Well, according to Global Security, the reactor in Dimona has been active since 1964. The way from that to a bomb is short. So, let’s say that Israel seems to have nuclear weapons for about 40 years.

I would call that a very optimistic assessment. But that hardly changes the original point – why does Israel need nukes if it will never ever use them and it is effectively telling everyone as much?

Look at the Middle East map and see for yourself:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped…/MiddleEast.png

Your point being? Militarily, Israel is head and shoulders ahead of any one of its neighbours conventionally, and have been so for decades. Where is this overwhelming conventional threat that need nuclear weapons to redress?

Every ‘solution’ so far offered involves some vital element of the nuclear programme being supplied by another nation, and so making Iran suseptable to sanctions and embargos. And those same ‘intelligence’ bodies also said Saddam had WMD.

If Iran truly wanted nuclear energy, it could have got it. No one undermines Iran’s right for nuclear energy. Their refusal to accept the very thing they supposedly ask is in itself worrying.

And when did Iran threaten to exterminate Israel? Did any Iranian offical EVER say that Iran will exterminate Israel?

Some of their official statements are here:
http://www.memri.org/iran.html
Otherwise, Google is your friend.

Ha, and the fact that Israel was able to proveil conventionaly had nothing to do with the decision not to resort to nukes. How gullable do you take everyone for? :rolleyes:

Why would Israel need nukes at all if it will never ever use them? :rolleyes:

Israel was on the brink of defeat. Especially in the early days of the war, most Israeli officials didn’t believe Israel’s ability to win the war conventionally.

And you have sources to back this up? Because I have never seen anything that suggests Israel have nuclear weapons anywhere near that early.

Well, according to Global Security, the reactor in Dimona has been active since 1964. The way from that to a bomb is short. So, let’s say that Israel seems to have nuclear weapons for about 40 years.

Thats a good one. 😀 Balance…haha. So what overwhelming superiority does the ‘Arab side’ have conventionally that require Israeli nuclear weapons to balance?

Look at the Middle East map and see for yourself:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/51/MiddleEast.png

.

Yes, and especially since they were offered every kind of solution you could think of that could enable them to have nuclear energy without the possibility of creating nuclear weapons and they refused. I think that most intelligence bodies in the world agree that Iran is on **** way for the bomb.

Every ‘solution’ so far offered involves some vital element of the nuclear programme being supplied by another nation, and so making Iran suseptable to sanctions and embargos. And those same ‘intelligence’ bodies also said Saddam had WMD.

Israel has never threatened to exterminate another country, and I don’t remember many nations in modern history that threatened other nations to wipe them off the map – except for the worst kind of nations.

And when did Iran threaten to exterminate Israel? Did any Iranian offical EVER say that Iran will exterminate Israel?

We were pretty close to that in 1973 – being attacked by a coalition of Arab armies, with the IDf caught completely by surprise. In the worst hours of the war, when everyone was sure that a second holocaust is coming to Israel (that’s how they described it, the destruction of the third Temple) the Israeli government almost used the nuclear option – and yet they didn’t. Why? because they were responsible enough to know that if they’ll use nukes on the Arabs, the USSR will defend them with nukes, and then the US will have to nuke the USSR – meaning the end of the world. Israel has demonstrated its responsiblity to hold nukes.

Ha, and the fact that Israel was able to proveil conventionaly had nothing to do with the decision not to resort to nukes. How gullable do you take everyone for? :rolleyes:

Why would Israel need nukes at all if it will never ever use them? :rolleyes:

Israel is thought to have nuclear weapons for the past 45 years or so

And you have sources to back this up? Because I have never seen anything that suggests Israel have nuclear weapons anywhere near that early.

The only reason Israel has nukes is to balance the Arab and Israeli power – not to get an edge over the Arab side.

Thats a good one. 😀 Balance…haha. So what overwhelming superiority does the ‘Arab side’ have conventionally that require Israeli nuclear weapons to balance?

So you don’t believe Iran when they say they don’t want nukes, but you do beleive them when their president says Israel should be ‘wipped off the map’?

Yes, and especially since they were offered every kind of solution you could think of that could enable them to have nuclear energy without the possibility of creating nuclear weapons and they refused. I think that most intelligence bodies in the world agree that Iran is on **** way for the bomb.

As if Israel has never made a bluff and no Israeli polition has ever talked taugh to win support from the hardliners. Plenty of nations have threatened similar things to other nations in far more direct and overt ways before.

Israel has never threatened to exterminate another country, and I don’t remember many nations in modern history that threatened other nations to wipe them off the map – except for the worst kind of nations.

As for Iran having the ability to carry out its ‘threats’, well so what? Ever heard of the term MAD and nuclear deterrence?

Yes, I’ve heard about them, and they worked when two responsible nations were involved. But this time we have one nation with the mentality of a suicide bomber – they don’t care to die and kill all of their citizens as well, as long as they manage to destroy Israel. I also don’t usually trust nations whose leaders claim to be following God’s direct orders.

The fact of the matter is that the only time nuclear weapons has been used in anger was when the victim did not posses nukes. And ask yourself this, with only Israel possessing nukes in the ME, had the Israeli army been crushed in battle by a united arab coalition force and that force was then heading into Israel, would the IDF hesitate before ordering the use of nukes against the advancing enemy?

We were pretty close to that in 1973 – being attacked by a coalition of Arab armies, with the IDf caught completely by surprise. In the worst hours of the war, when everyone was sure that a second holocaust is coming to Israel (that’s how they described it, the destruction of the third Temple) the Israeli government almost used the nuclear option – and yet they didn’t. Why? because they were responsible enough to know that if they’ll use nukes on the Arabs, the USSR will defend them with nukes, and then the US will have to nuke the USSR – meaning the end of the world. Israel has demonstrated its responsiblity to hold nukes.

Introducing nuclear weapons into a hitherto nuclear-free region is a major destablising factor, especially so if the neighbours in that region dislike each other or are on the brink of war. But once nuclear weapons have been introduced into such a region, additional nuclear powers are far more likely to bring stability then nuclear war.

Israel doesn’t like Iran or Egypt or anyone else in the ME having nukes because it has so far benefited enourously from being the only nuclear power on the block, and its generals and politions dispise loosing that proivilage and having to actually thing about the consequences of its actions instead of just doing whatever the hell they like.

Israel is thought to have nuclear weapons for the past 45 years or so – that didn’t stop the Arabs from attacking Israel, in a number of wars and between them. They only do so because they know Israel won’t just nuke them after being attacked. So in what way has Israel benefited from its nuclear weapons?
The only reason Israel has nukes is to balance the Arab and Israeli power – not to get an edge over the Arab side.

.

Both.

It’s not why they have done, it’s what they threat to do. And will be able to do, given nukes.

So you don’t believe Iran when they say they don’t want nukes, but you do beleive them when their president says Israel should be ‘wipped off the map’?

As if Israel has never made a bluff and no Israeli polition has ever talked taugh to win support from the hardliners. Plenty of nations have threatened similar things to other nations in far more direct and overt ways before.

As for Iran having the ability to carry out its ‘threats’, well so what? Ever heard of the term MAD and nuclear deterrence?

The fact of the matter is that the only time nuclear weapons has been used in anger was when the victim did not posses nukes. And ask yourself this, with only Israel possessing nukes in the ME, had the Israeli army been crushed in battle by a united arab coalition force and that force was then heading into Israel, would the IDF hesitate before ordering the use of nukes against the advancing enemy?

Introducing nuclear weapons into a hitherto nuclear-free region is a major destablising factor, especially so if the neighbours in that region dislike each other or are on the brink of war. But once nuclear weapons have been introduced into such a region, additional nuclear powers are far more likely to bring stability then nuclear war.

Israel doesn’t like Iran or Egypt or anyone else in the ME having nukes because it has so far benefited enourously from being the only nuclear power on the block, and its generals and politions dispise loosing that proivilage and having to actually thing about the consequences of its actions instead of just doing whatever the hell they like.

So, is that the Israeli people or regime?

Care to give some examples of things the Iran has DONE that is ‘irrational, stupid and insane’?

Both.

It’s not why they have done, it’s what they threat to do. And will be able to do, given nukes.

Yeah, the Lebanese surely threatened to invade Israel in 1982, right?

No, but northern Israel was attacked for years by rockets from Lebanon shot by terrorists. The Lebanese military, already falling apart, wasn’t able to control southern Lebanon, and the idea to invade Lebanon was just in order to push the terrorists away from the Israeli border and settlements. The rest of that war, which completely ended only 18 years later, was a complete mistake. The Lebanese were in their own mud and we happily ran into it. Israel went for one war (Lebanon) and one major operation (Kadesh, 1956), after being attacked by terrorists, out of choice.

Going back on an early one from Coop, for it being the most comprehensive one i can give my counter-arguments to.

Perhaps that’s a road to an idea……maybe try and create an internal coup.

That would be a perfect way to further antagonise the Iranian people. Remember that from the mid-1990s on, Iran was very obviously becoming a far less radical fundamentalist country. Unfortunately, some goon whose country got hit by a terrorist attack from Saudi Arabians suddenly named Iran as one of three countries (Iran, Iraq, North Korea) which should be held responsible for that terrorist attack. Result: the Iranian voters look at their ballot, and elect the candidate who shows the biggest finger to that very same goon.

Somehow, GWB’s diplomacy with a saw-off barrel might work for the home crowd, the rest of the world responds rather different. A bit more restraint from the US in dealing with Iran might very well have prevented Ahmedinejad getting elected.

I’m in the military and if I get sent over there, then okay……it’s my job and I’m going to serve my country and give my life if necessary. If I had a choice would I want to go get shot at? No…..

Yes. You already made that choice when you signed up. It’s not that the US military is an organisation ment for territorial defence. At best it’s an organisation ment to defend US econo-political interests, but i can think of a few descriptions with the word ‘defence’ replaced by something more agressive.

Now there’s an assumption if I’ve ever seen one. You think the people of Iran are all in favor of getting nuclear weapons? Somehow I doubt that.

Your assumption.

Many might think they are because they hate the United States…

MAJOR assumption. Or have you held a poll in Iran?

…and they think it will provide them with protection, but otherwise I can’t see any reason they’d want nukes.

What about having two not entirely stable neighbours having nukes? What about having a not-so-friendly nation, known for it’s aggressive posture, having military facilities on your doorstep? What about millions of religious rivals (Sunni muslems rather than Shia ones) in the neighbourhood?
There are literally dozens of perfectly valid reasons why Iran would want nukes. Not the least of which is that post-WW2 the West has really only taken nuclear powers completely serious on a diplomatic level. The USSR, China and India proved that becoming a nuclear power increased their diplomatic standing tremendously. I’m sure a proud nation like Iran wants that status symbol.

I can promise you that America will NOT nuke Iran…

No you can’t, although i don’t think it’s likely either.

…and they have nothing to fear in that respect. It’s in their nation’s best interest to NOT have nukes. America isn’t the only country trying to convince them of that and some of these posts smell of just that statement…..that America is alone is trying to keep Iran from getting nukes. The notion for them not to have nukes is coming from many different nations….not just the USA.

True, neither Europe nor Russia nor China are all too keen on a nuclear-armed Iran. But that’s the b!tch of proliferation for you, and it’s been a while since Pandora’s box has been opened. But i’m pretty sure Europe’s reservations are born for a large part out of post-9/11 Islamophobia, and for an equally large part out of general concern about proliferation. Europe wasn’t too happy about Israel, India and Pakistan joining the nuclear club either.

Yes….let’s give terrorist groups access to nuclear weapons (which the current Iranian gov’t WILL do…..)….

MASSIVE assumption on your behalf. One i personally find as far fetched as the nearest quasar.

Are you kidding me? If I’m not mistaken Israel isn’t a nation that typically invades or otherwise attacks neighboring countries. They’ve been involved in many wars with Arab states because they were attacked or they had word of an impending attack……

Yeah, the Lebanese surely threatened to invade Israel in 1982, right?

Iran getting nukes isn’t likely to calm the Israelis either……rather make them more nervous than ever. Especially seeing as Iran’s president has made it quite clear that his goal is to “destroy the state of Israel.”

Definately true, Ahmedinejad’s ramblings definately have struck a few already overly-tight-strung Israeli nerves (give those people some valium, btw). Fortunately, the role of the president in Iran is far from being a truely powerful person like it is in France or the US. Ahmedinejad is not the center of power in Iran – the role of the Persian president is more comparable to that of his colleagues in Germany or Israel.

You’re looking at things in a very black & white point of view. Iran itself may not use its military forces to make a nuclear strike on another country, but you can rest assure that their gov’t will have no qualms giving terrorist organizations access to nuclear muntions……Do you really want that?

There is your assumption again. The fact that you fear something doesn’t make it true, or even likely. I guess you haven’t learned from the ‘missing’ Iraqi WMD’s? On a sidenote, i am willing to claim my prize in our bet from a few years back as downing a case of beers together (you pay), i’ll let you pass on the suicide 😉

The USA? Perhaps the Iraq war makes you unnecessarily paranoid about us Americans invading your lands, but using nukes? You’ve got to be joking. Don’t even try and bring up the issue of Japan and World War II because I’ve heard all of that before and it doesn’t fly with me…..that was a different time, a different place, and a different situation. Japan would have never given up, and thousands if not millions more lives would have been spent (both Japanese & Allied, military & civilian) if the home islands had been attacked and invaded by conventional means.

Coop, you said you’re having a course in targeting at this moment. Is countervalue targeting part of a future curriculum? It most definately still is a major part of any country’s, and particularly the US’, nuclear doctrine. Civilian targets are targets. Period.

Again, it’s not a question of what the Iranian gov’t (or I guess military) would likely do with the weapons…..it’s who they would supply them to. Don’t be so naive to think I ran wants the weapons to directly attack a country like the United States. They know full well that attacking any nation (be it USA, France, England, etc.) would be utter suicide. France, England, and America (or Israel for that matter) would wipe out Iran fairly quickly with the use of nuclear weapons in retaliation.

Thinking countries want nuclear weapons in order to use them is a very big misconception, if you ask me. Like any other country (except the one which actually used nuclear weapons, and appearantly learned a bit from that), Iran wants nuclear weapons only to have a bigger d!ck to put on the negotiating table. You’re not kidding me into thinking that for one reason or another, Iranians are going to commit suicide-by-proxy by actually using their nuclear weapons. Of course not.

Iran getting nuclear weapons ensures two things: that terrorist groups have convenient access to nukes and 2. nobody invades or otherwise attacks Iran (in which case the Iranian military would likely use the nuclear weapons in question).

The second assurance is a fair one, and quite a solid reason for Iran to get nuclear weapons. Especially now one of it’s major self-declared enemies (there is that Axis of Evil-speech again) sits on it’s doorstep. The ‘convenient access to nukes for terrorist organisations’ is nothing but ill-thought paranoia on your behalf.

Had we wanted to threaten their extermination, we would have been allowed to bomb the dikes around Hanoi…

The dikes were bombed, but water levels weren’t high enough. Repeated bombings were vetoed though.

Israel doesn’t think that the Iranian people aren’t rational and intelligent, it thinks that the Iranian regime is irrentional and stupid, let alone insane.

So, is that the Israeli people or regime?

Care to give some examples of things the Iran has DONE that is ‘irrational, stupid and insane’?

From my observations, it would seem that ‘we’ would be defined as world oppinion, with a few exceptions like Israel. As examplified by the political debate ranging from Iraq to Iran to NK, and from various oppinion polls conducted by some newspapers which showed that most people in most nations saw America as a major threat to world peace.

Israel doesn’t think that the Iranian people aren’t rational and intelligent, it thinks that the Iranian regime is irrentional and stupid, let alone insane.

When talking about Iranian political and religious leaders and “most Americans;” define we.

From my observations, it would seem that ‘we’ would be defined as world oppinion, with a few exceptions like Israel. As examplified by the political debate ranging from Iraq to Iran to NK, and from various oppinion polls conducted by some newspapers which showed that most people in most nations saw America as a major threat to world peace.