Nuclear Retaliation to Iran

[Nitroglys]

:Haaretz, quoting an unnamed source, said the Obama administration would pledge under the proposed :"nuclear umbrella" to respond to any Iranian strike on Israel with a "devastating U.S. nuclear response."

I don't know about anyone else, but this is some pretty heavy shit to me. I have never seen a viable reason for U.S. involvement with Israeli affairs, at least now that they are an upright and standing nuclear power.

It is obvious we have some kind of special interest in the stake they have there, but why put up the charade. And of all people i wouldn't believe it would be the Obama administration damning us to such involvement with a travesty, especially when he campaigned on a promise to get us out of the middle east.

With the withering tensions between Iran and Israel, it is a matter of time before either one pushes the button. And what would happen if Israel shot first. Why are they free from the threat. If they wanted this embargo to work they should hold both countries responsible for their actions. Doing that just makes the side-taking so obvious. Despite what you hear on national news, Iran has made public their intentions to retaliate to Israeli attacks.

I am really disturbed about this development. I hope someone in New grounds can give me some solace in this world, and console me into believing the end of the world isn't so eminent.source

[D3NTATUS]

personally, I don't support Israel.

But I think it's a little absurd to play favorites, especially with nuclear weapons. If we retaliated with our own attack, they're going to retaliate against us, and so on, eye-for-an-eye style. More countries would get involved. It may seem a little alarmist of me to say this, but this sounds like the precedent for WWIII.

[gumOnShoe]

I don't know about anyone else, but this is some pretty heavy shit to me. I have never seen a viable reason for U.S. involvement with Israeli affairs, at least now that they are an upright and standing nuclear power.

Israel has been a pretty unwavering supporter of us and they have the strongest military in the region. It isn't that surprising that we like them and support them. Aside from that, Iran has an anti-american stance, so by saying "we'll level your country," it's an attempt to keep Iran from doing anything by making them nervous and at the same time it means our ally is safe. Iran is probably about the only nation america would bomb off the map though I do agree it would be a travesty.

The final thing is that Israel isn't threatening to do anything to Iran, neglecting removing nuclear capabilities from Iran. Yes, that's a bit of a threat, but the idea is that Iran wants Israel gone, Israel wants Iran not to be threatening and would probably rather just have piece. If you're going to pick between the two, Israel appears to have the higher ground (just on those terms given our policies)

Plus, Israel's a democracy and we feel the obligation to protect the little guy cause that's what america does, and Israel is pretty tiny even for the punch it can pack.

It is obvious we have some kind of special interest in the stake they have there, but why put up the charade. And of all people i wouldn't believe it would be the Obama administration damning us to such involvement with a travesty, especially when he campaigned on a promise to get us out of the middle east.

He said he would reduce forces in Iraq, but wanted to increase them in Afghanistan. Even if you just look at that statement he made no promise to leave the middle east and I doubt any viable candidate for president would.

With the withering tensions between Iran and Israel, it is a matter of time before either one pushes the button. And what would happen if Israel shot first. Why are they free from the threat. If they wanted this embargo to work they should hold both countries responsible for their actions. Doing that just makes the side-taking so obvious. Despite what you hear on national news, Iran has made public their intentions to retaliate to Israeli attacks.

America doesn't claim to be nuetral and we don't like Iran. We won't publicly support an Israeli strike, but privately the CIA is probably willing to help them and it would be in our interests if Israel took out Iran's nuclear arms.

I am really disturbed about this development. I hope someone in New grounds can give me some solace in this world, and console me into believing the end of the world isn't so eminent.source

It's not eminent, but its definately out there.

Israel hits Iran. Iran retaliates with missiles claiming an act of war. Siria & Lebannon renue active war encouraged by Iran. Jordan & Egypt consider but probably decide to stay out of it at first. Gaza & west bank completely rebel. U.S. has to make a decision, probably just lends secondary support to Israel if possible opening up other countries to lend support to the other cause. Probably no one does, but with tensions rising there other countries will see an opening to make a move without being stopped. If this happens it probably happens during the imidiacy of an Obama transition.

Russia see south ossetia as week and with out immediate support, possibly goes in and takes them out leaving it to focus on other former soviet bloc nations that have or are thinking about joining nato.

At the same time, U.S. is entrenched in Iraq. If we support Israel we may have more uprising there, keeping our forces in the area. There's also the possibility of further imflamation in Afghanistan, that could easily spill into Pakistan. Crazy people in pakistan may take the opportunity to attack India. If they do this, then India may not be able to hold back this time and may declare open war on Pakistan.

Pakistan crumbles from two sides leaving a power vacuum and nukes for the taking because pakistan is a nuclear country.

2 possibilities at this juncture

1) Israel wins
One main conflict is resolved, treaties are signed no big deal.
2) Israel about to fail
Israel either launches nukes or hands nukes over to Iran, they probably get launched.
If they don't get launched, Iran, Neo-Palestine, Lebanon (hesbolla), and Syria get nukes.

If pakistan has fallen, Al Qaeda has nukes.

U.S. probably now at war with the Middle East and may resort to having to nuke more than just Iran.

So, given that option which do you want?

[Conspiracy3]

I oppose this

1. If Israel wants to use nuclear weapons as a threat they have their own nuclear weapons to do it with
2. The US has no place getting involved in that conflict
3. Israel should never have been founded. Why should people who have been living in that region for thousands of years be kicked out and/or made second class citizens due to a horrible and catastrophic genocide committed hundreds of miles away by a completely different person?

[Conspiracy3]

At 12/12/08 09:50 PM, gumOnShoe wrote:

Crazy people in pakistan may take the opportunity to attack India. If they do this, then India may not be able to hold back this time and may declare open war on Pakistan.

Pakistan crumbles from two sides leaving a power vacuum and nukes for the taking because pakistan is a nuclear country.

2 possibilities at this juncture

1) Israel wins
One main conflict is resolved, treaties are signed no big deal.
2) Israel about to fail
Israel either launches nukes or hands nukes over to Iran, they probably get launched.
If they don't get launched, Iran, Neo-Palestine, Lebanon (hesbolla), and Syria get nukes.

If pakistan has fallen, Al Qaeda has nukes.

U.S. probably now at war with the Middle East and may resort to having to nuke more than just Iran.

So, given that option which do you want?

I assume that you are making a reference to the Mumbai attacks. Although the terrorists are from Pakistan, Pakistan was not behind the attack. As a matter of fact the Pakistani government has recently cracked down on terrorist cells within their nation. Terrorists represent only a small percentage of Pakistan's population, and they are disliked by most of the nation, except for the zealots.

[blackattackbitch]

I like GumOnShoe's speculative comment, but the future is hard to predict. Let's look at all the trouble regions, conflicts, and bad relations at the moment:

Darfur
Zimbabwe
Various U.S. Conflicts
*Venezuela
*Iran
*China
*Russia
*N. Korea
*Afghanistan
*Iraq
*Various Terrorist groups
*Cuba
*Nicaragua or Panama (can't remember which one it was)
N. Korea and S. Korea
Isreal and...
*Lebanon (Hezbollah)
*Syria
*Jordan
*Palestine
*Iran
*Various terrorist groups
Pakistan and India (with terrorists included)
Columbia and Venezuela
China and Taiwan
Russia and Poland (Kinda, mostly because of U.S. involvement)
Russia and Georgia
Russia and N.A.T.O.
Bosnia
Somalia

All of this would have to be taken into account. Many of these conflicts are monitored by the U.N., which would definitely be distracted if a war broke out. Hell, if total war did break out involving the U.S, this war would be bigger than any other war in history. It would probably eclispse WWII mostly because it wouldn't just be two sides against each other. It would be just plain chaos. But I doubt Iran would be able to produce more than 2 nukes and attach them to mid-range rockets before Israel launches its arsenal. Iran would lose at least one of those rockets in the battle. There would be massive fallout from the incident, not to mention tons of protests. Anti-american and anti-israeli sentiment would skyrocket. But things would be stable for the meantme. But it would pave the way for an even greater war in the future.

[Nitroglys]

At 12/12/08 09:50 PM, gumOnShoe wrote:

Israel has been a pretty unwavering supporter of us and they have the strongest military in the region. It isn't that surprising that we like them and support them. Aside from that, Iran has an anti-american stance, so by saying "we'll level your country," it's an attempt to keep Iran from doing anything by making them nervous and at the same time it means our ally is safe. Iran is probably about the only nation america would bomb off the map though I do agree it would be a travesty.

Ok, but you are missing the part before they were an unwavering supporter. We had interests in them from since Israeli conception. We have funded and armed many levels of the Israeli army, even making the 6 day war possible (a war that threatened Israeli existence). I mean without us these guys would probably be a cockroach on the business end of an Islamic countries boot. Yes the measure is to invoke some sort of fear, but by only threatening Iran don't you think it somewhat condones the terrorism coming out of Israel?

The final thing is that Israel isn't threatening to do anything to Iran, neglecting removing nuclear capabilities from Iran. Yes, that's a bit of a threat, but the idea is that Iran wants Israel gone, Israel wants Iran not to be threatening and would probably rather just have piece. If you're going to pick between the two, Israel appears to have the higher ground (just on those terms given our policies)

I don't know what rock you have been sleeping under, but you need to roll out from under it. Since the birth of Israel there has been grass roots Zionist groups willing to die for their cause. Yes we know the radical Muslim community hates the Israelites, but the Israelites hate them too.We forget about their history, checkered with terrorism.And some say that Israel will pull the trigger first.

Plus, Israel's a democracy and we feel the obligation to protect the little guy cause that's what america does, and Israel is pretty tiny even for the punch it can pack.

I still shun the fact that we have been labeled global police. I believe isolationism was a lot better for our economy and global image. And i don't think wholeheartedly helping Israel involves trading nuclear secrets.

He said he would reduce forces in Iraq, but wanted to increase them in Afghanistan. Even if you just look at that statement he made no promise to leave the middle east and I doubt any viable candidate for president would.

Ya, but increasing them in Afghanistan is hardly the task and solider requirement as the fighting force in Iraq right now. And I do feel bad for Afghanistan. We have been fucking with them for decades now. Hell they are beyond third world right now, and that is a bad reputation for a U.S. liberated country. We fucked up there.

America doesn't claim to be nuetral and we don't like Iran. We won't publicly support an Israeli strike, but privately the CIA is probably willing to help them and it would be in our interests if Israel took out Iran's nuclear arms.

I foresee a U.S. supported Israeli operation that sought to seek and deystroy "suspected" nuclear sites going array and blowing the lid off the whole situation. Iran freaks and pushes the button. We sense it and retaliate. Israel fires what it has and probably gets fired back upon by Pakistan. Who knows what North Korea would do. Russia could go either way when facing global annihilation. It is just another fucked up cold war situation. Why would we willingly put ourselves in that situation.

It's not eminent, but its definately out there.

Has Iran not threatened to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Is there not some pre-exisiting tension between the two countries. It is ludarcris to think that nothing will come of this. And even stupider to cry out, before a threat has been made, and make a statement of nuclear retaliation.

So, given that option which do you want?

That was a very large speculation. Interesting, but a speculation none the less. But the thing is there is no option. Even in your hypothetical world. If any middle eastern country launches a nuke at each other or another country, the region will instantly go into turmoil. Who will win or not is completely in the air, unless the U.S. would intervene and nuke the fuck out of Iran. With one support like that it won't be too hard for us to wipe out another relation from an Islamic nuclear power. Once it comes to nukes old treaties and deals mean nothing and once allies can turn into an enemy.

[gumOnShoe]

At 12/12/08 10:58 PM, Conspiracy3 wrote: I assume that you are making a reference to the Mumbai attacks. Although the terrorists are from Pakistan, Pakistan was not behind the attack. As a matter of fact the Pakistani government has recently cracked down on terrorist cells within their nation. Terrorists represent only a small percentage of Pakistan's population, and they are disliked by most of the nation, except for the zealots.

And I agree its a good thing Pakistan has done this, BUT the precident is set for taking out a government which can't control the forces within it. America did it to Afghanistan and India could use the same argument against Pakistan if another attack occurs. I'm not saying it would be justified. I'm not saying its the right thing to do, I'm saying its plausible under the right conditions which can exist in the country. Afghanistan & the taliban didn't attack America, Al-Qaeda did.

At 12/12/08 11:17 PM, blackattackbitch wrote: I like GumOnShoe's speculative comment, but the future is hard to predict. Let's look at all the trouble regions, conflicts, and bad relations at the moment:

I agree its hard to predict and I'm not sure it would happen the way I predict it, but we deal with other countries behind the scenes by using Worst Case scenarios, not optimistic best case scenarios.

Darfur
Zimbabwe
Various U.S. Conflicts
*Venezuela
*Iran
*China
*Russia
*N. Korea
*Afghanistan
*Iraq
*Various Terrorist groups
*Cuba
*Nicaragua or Panama (can't remember which one it was)
N. Korea and S. Korea
Isreal and...
*Lebanon (Hezbollah)
*Syria
*Jordan
*Palestine
*Iran
*Various terrorist groups
Pakistan and India (with terrorists included)
Columbia and Venezuela
China and Taiwan
Russia and Poland (Kinda, mostly because of U.S. involvement)
Russia and Georgia
Russia and N.A.T.O.
Bosnia
Somalia

But things would be stable for the meantme. But it would pave the way for an even greater war in the future.

We can't know any of that for sure, though I agree there are plenty of places where conflict could occur. I believe it's probabalistically more likely that Iran has a week force, but I don't think its provable and I have no idea what the reaction to the U.S. nuking Iran would be. I suppose there would be sanctions and the world would enter a depression or the world would take it and United States hegemony would go into complete acknowledged effect over the middle east and other territories setting up another cold war between the U.S. and everyone else. Either way, you've got rebellion in the making.

[gumOnShoe]

At 12/13/08 03:32 AM, Nitroglys wrote: Ok, but you are missing the part before they were an unwavering supporter. We had interests in them from since Israeli conception. We have funded and armed many levels of the Israeli army, even making the 6 day war possible (a war that threatened Israeli existence). I mean without us these guys would probably be a cockroach on the business end of an Islamic countries boot. Yes the measure is to invoke some sort of fear, but by only threatening Iran don't you think it somewhat condones the terrorism coming out of Israel?

What terrorism? Israeli terrorism? If you and I are standing on different sides of whether Israel has the right to exist then we're not going to agree on this, but my opinion on the matter is that they do have the right to exist and that they aren't terrorizing their neighbors but just trying to remain as a country in safety. They don't go about it right the entire time, but you and I are looking through a different lense at the same events and almost everything they see is a personal threat against their way of life and their families. Since we don't feel that threat, our opinions are more likely to be skewed. It can be argued that the other side feels the same way, but more often than not its the palistinian & iranian backed operatives that choose to target civilians with explosives.

Before we get into the missile shit, Israel has tried to lift sanctions several times only to have more rockets get launched, so again I see the aggresion on the side of the palestinians, though I agree its not fair to those palestinians in gaza who haven't done anything. But those gazians need to take responsibility for the people in their territory.

I don't know what rock you have been sleeping under, but you need to roll out from under it. Since the birth of Israel there has been grass roots Zionist groups willing to die for their cause. Yes we know the radical Muslim community hates the Israelites, but the Israelites hate them too.We forget about their history, checkered with terrorism.And some say that Israel will pull the trigger first.

Yeah, there are some pretty crazy Zionists, but by and large the Israeli government has been making attempts through its court system to punish them as well and to protect the more moderate Israeli's within their country (Jew & non jew, Zionist & non zionist alike)

As far as strike first, I would assume that you mean at Iran, which I would say is seperate from the zionist issue as zionists care about zion (Israel) and any attack on Iran would be against nuclear weapons only. They did it to Iraq with France's support last time and no one had a problem with it.

I still shun the fact that we have been labeled global police. I believe isolationism was a lot better for our economy and global image. And i don't think wholeheartedly helping Israel involves trading nuclear secrets.

Eh, Isreal consistantly improves on our technology. Stopping traid with them & the flow of information wouldn't be good for either of us. As for the global police. I agree I don't like it, but we still help some people, probably more than we hurt. As for isolationism, I'd rather not go there because then we'd have to turn our lense for the rest of the world back on us. What happens to our military then? We'd be less stable as an isolationist country and we couldn't exist with our current industries in that fashion either.

Isolationism doesn't work anymore in this global environment. Energy, Climate Change, Nuclear threats, Biggeted Idealism all has to be dealt with (and some of those can't be solved) before ignoring the rest of the world is even a real option. (Unless of course you figure out how to errect a giant forcefield around the United States, then you can do whatever you want)

Ya, but increasing them in Afghanistan is hardly the task and solider requirement as the fighting force in Iraq right now. And I do feel bad for Afghanistan. We have been fucking with them for decades now. Hell they are beyond third world right now, and that is a bad reputation for a U.S. liberated country. We fucked up there.

Yes, and we'll need at least as many troops there as we have in Iraq and we'll have to maintain a stable border between them and Pakistan and get Pakistan in control of its western border. Good goals, but idealistic ones.

I foresee a U.S. supported Israeli operation that sought to seek and deystroy "suspected" nuclear sites going array and blowing the lid off the whole situation. Iran freaks and pushes the button. We sense it and retaliate. Israel fires what it has and probably gets fired back upon by Pakistan. Who knows what North Korea would do. Russia could go either way when facing global annihilation. It is just another fucked up cold war situation. Why would we willingly put ourselves in that situation.

Because if we don't the war happens closer to home and eventually we lose by ceding all territory.

It was decided a long time ago that the best foreign policy was to tie a brick to the gas petal and take off the stearing wheel.

Has Iran not threatened to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Is there not some pre-exisiting tension between the two countries. It is ludarcris to think that nothing will come of this. And even stupider to cry out, before a threat has been made, and make a statement of nuclear retaliation.

If we don't make the threat does it make it more or less likely that Iran will actually attack?

That was a very large speculation. Interesting, but a speculation none the less. But the thing is there is no option. Even in your hypothetical world. If any middle eastern country launches a nuke at each other or another country, the region will instantly go into turmoil. Who will win or not is completely in the air, unless the U.S. would intervene and nuke the fuck out of Iran. With one support like that it won't be too hard for us to wipe out another relation from an Islamic nuclear power. Once it comes to nukes old treaties and deals mean nothing and once allies can turn into an enemy.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but the nuclear threat means more than using the nuclear bomb because quite fankly we probably won't do it. All conflicts now occur in such a way as to make the "agressor" look like the agressor before you attack them. We live in a PR war now where information is the right to do what you want to do. I'm not saying specutively that my answer is correct, I'm saying its a possibility.

Its entirely impossible to predict what will happen in a nuclear war, but the U.S. won't remove the nuclear threat from its foreign relations policty because right now that's the only thing that really makes countries listen. Our forces are engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan, we can't stretch them to Iran too, so we say "we won't even deal with you, we'll just remove you from the equation"

Its not to say its morally right, but it may be the best worst thing we can do. Threats are unfortunately needed because holding out a carrot hasn't worked. Iran already said it wouldn't work.

[CBP]

What is wrong with these idiots? Little known fact: 20 nuclear detonations sufficiently spread out would spell out the end of humanity. Did they learn nothing from the Cuban Missile Crisis? I wasn't conceived yet and I know enough to say that nukes are a weapon of suicide.

Here is what I propose we do about nuclear weapons. A treaty is drafted that says that any country that has nuclear weapons will have them disarmed, and this will be overseen by world leaders personally. Any country that doesn't have nukes will agree not to develop them. Whoever does not sign the treaty and comply with the terms will have their country bombed with non-nuclear weapons from every country that did.

The money that would have been spent on nukes can still be put into the military budget, but will not be spent on weapons like nukes that we will probably not use, and if we do use will kill every living thing on the planet.

[gumOnShoe]

At 12/13/08 02:33 PM, CBP wrote: Here is what I propose we do about nuclear weapons. A treaty is drafted that says that any country that has nuclear weapons will have them disarmed, and this will be overseen by world leaders personally. Any country that doesn't have nukes will agree not to develop them. Whoever does not sign the treaty and comply with the terms will have their country bombed with non-nuclear weapons from every country that did.

The U.S. has refused to sign such an act, though I agree in an ideal world everyone would.

Here's the problem. Remember WWII? That's the kind of war our world would engage in with out nuclear arms as a deturent, which is what many of you are missing.

We use nuclear weapons as a deturent.

If israel actually uses them on Irans bunkers then I don't know.

[zoolrule]

At 12/12/08 08:39 PM, Nitroglys wrote: With the withering tensions between Iran and Israel, it is a matter of time before either one pushes the button.

That is what you base your opinion on, and it's simply wrong.
It's really not a matter of time before either pushes the button. It's Israel not wanting Iran to get nuclear-weapons, and Iran that are close of getting it. (Calling to the destruction of Israel from time to time, while developing nuclear technology), once they drop it, it's over, but they wont drop it.
Either way, Iran already "pushed the button", they are openly and directly funding Hezbollah and Hamas. Those terror organization are basically Iranian military branches.

Nuclear Iran is dangerous to everyone, not just to Israel, you should learn a bit about the current Iranian government, it's an extreme Islamic theocracy. Them with nuclear power is one step closer to the end of the human race.

[adrshepard]

At 12/12/08 08:39 PM, Nitroglys wrote:

Haaretz, quoting an unnamed source, said the Obama administration would pledge under the proposed :"nuclear umbrella" to respond to any Iranian strike on Israel with a "devastating U.S. nuclear response."

I don't know about anyone else, but this is some pretty heavy shit to me.

I can't believe that this isn't already a standing agreement. If someone nukes Israel, I can't imagine any US response other than a nuclear strike. It's inconceiveable that we would stop at anything less.

That Obama would announce this agreement is basically a white flag to the Iranians, because it shows he is willing to consider a situation where Iran would have nuclear weapons. He can't very well make this pledge and claim that a nuclear armed Iran is unacceptable. It's a "game-changer," as he put it, a clear loss of relative American power in the region, and Obama can flail about impotently with his disciplined, tough diplomacy as long as he wants for what it will acheive.

[Nitroglys]

At 12/13/08 12:23 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: What terrorism? Israeli terrorism? If you and I are standing on different sides of whether Israel has the right to exist then we're not going to agree on this

You are completely right. That issue can be slanted and skewed to either angle.

Before we get into the missile shit, Israel has tried to lift sanctions several times only to have more rockets get launched, so again I see the aggresion on the side of the palestinians, though I agree its not fair to those palestinians in gaza who haven't done anything. But those gazians need to take responsibility for the people in their territory.

Hell man if mankind could achieve what you just theorized, there would be no war.

Yeah, there are some pretty crazy Zionists, but by and large the Israeli government has been making attempts through its court system to punish them as well and to protect the more moderate Israeli's within their country (Jew & non jew, Zionist & non zionist alike)

Again, if there were achieving what you suggest it wouldn't exist. Not with the military might we have armed them with. If they couldn't suppress the movement, it would be an embarrassment for the U.S. military, CIA, NSA and countless other organizations and national leauges. If Israel wanted it gone, they could make it happen.

As far as strike first, I would assume that you mean at Iran, which I would say is seperate from the zionist issue as zionists care about zion (Israel) and any attack on Iran would be against nuclear weapons only. They did it to Iraq with France's support last time and no one had a problem with it.

True, but, as stated before, the existance and might of the movement in itself could suggest sympathies high up in the chain of command. And shit like those kind of bombings is what gets us in trouble for funding them. Whats to say they wouldn't do the exact same thing to Iran if they conceive such technology. Then where would we stand?

Eh, Isreal consistantly improves on our technology. Stopping traid with them & the flow of information wouldn't be good for either of us. As for the global police. I agree I don't like it, but we still help some people, probably more than we hurt. As for isolationism, I'd rather not go there because then we'd have to turn our lense for the rest of the world back on us. What happens to our military then? We'd be less stable as an isolationist country and we couldn't exist with our current industries in that fashion either.

I do not agree that any improvement whatsoever on weapons of destruction is needed. I see no connection between military power and Imperialism. Which is what we could be categorized as, at least in the sociological and governmental aspects. And the American military does not rely on constant conflict to hone their skill. In the virtual age you don't even have to leave a building anymore for proper training in any military situation. Not to mention the fact that we are by far the strongest military on the face of the planet. We don't need any improvement.

Yes, and we'll need at least as many troops there as we have in Iraq and we'll have to maintain a stable border between them and Pakistan and get Pakistan in control of its western border. Good goals, but idealistic ones.

Not necceisarily. If you wanted eradication of all taliban influence, then you would require a comprable force. But if you are just looking to pull this anarchical 3rd world country into modern civilization, you would only require a minute number of soliders in comparison. They need to be seen in the streets in order to bring the justice and protection needed to protect growing infastructure in Afghanistan. For Christ's sake they don't even have electricity 90% of the time there. And it isn't even thought of if you live outside of the urban areas. We owe a huge debt to that country, if any country.

Because if we don't the war happens closer to home and eventually we lose by ceding all territory.

But what if the opposition of a war we started grew homegrown sympathy in our country. Fuck man we could be over thrown from within. Or, what if being such global police about everything ignited a conflict with a country that is terribly innocent of the crimes we accuse it of (Iraq). Proposals like this just open the doors for that crazy sympathizer to launch one missile and subsequently the world blows itself up.

It was decided a long time ago that the best foreign policy was to tie a brick to the gas petal and take off the stearing wheel.

Har. Please, So i can laugh harder, quote and source that.

If we don't make the threat does it make it more or less likely that Iran will actually attack?

Or it just makes them push it faster, or even redirect the missile. Maybe even make powerful allies like North Korea and Russia and create a legion of doom.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but the nuclear threat means more than using the nuclear bomb because quite fankly we probably won't do it. All conflicts now occur in such a way as to make the "agressor" look like the agressor before you attack them. We live in a PR war now where information is the right to do what you want to do. I'm not saying specutively that my answer is correct, I'm saying its a possibility.

BS. We won't back down once we make a statement like that. I can't think of one time we have done something in that nature.

Its entirely impossible to predict what will happen in a nuclear war, but the U.S. won't remove the nuclear threat from its foreign relations policty because right now that's the only thing that really makes countries listen. Our forces are engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan, we can't stretch them to Iran too, so we say "we won't even deal with you, we'll just remove you from the equation"

So are you saying this move is a way for the Obama administration to remove Iran from the map? Really? That goes against all of his speeches about Iran. Btw the person that made this statement was quoting a source who said Hillary Clinton said it.

Its not to say its morally right, but it may be the best worst thing we can do. Threats are unfortunately needed because holding out a carrot hasn't worked. Iran already said it wouldn't work.

I don't understand the carrot analogy. But where was the diplomacy Obama was talking about. He hasn't even hit the first of his 100 days and his cabinet is hanging nukes over Iran's head. Lunacy i say.

[CBP]

At 12/13/08 02:56 PM, gumOnShoe wrote:

At 12/13/08 02:33 PM, CBP wrote: Here is what I propose we do about nuclear weapons. A treaty is drafted that says that any country that has nuclear weapons will have them disarmed, and this will be overseen by world leaders personally. Any country that doesn't have nukes will agree not to develop them. Whoever does not sign the treaty and comply with the terms will have their country bombed with non-nuclear weapons from every country that did.

The U.S. has refused to sign such an act, though I agree in an ideal world everyone would.

The reason is that most countries would refuse to sign it which would leave us completely vulnerable, a fact that would be remedied by the last part.

Here's the problem. Remember WWII? That's the kind of war our world would engage in with out nuclear arms as a deturent, which is what many of you are missing.

A war that kills many is better than a war that kills all.

We use nuclear weapons as a deturent.

That is a big mistake. You should never threaten if you are not ready to follow up on the threat.

If israel actually uses them on Irans bunkers then I don't know.

I am not anxious to discover if it would happen.

[Nitroglys]

At 12/13/08 04:53 PM, adrshepard wrote:

At 12/12/08 08:39 PM, Nitroglys wrote:

Haaretz, quoting an unnamed source, said the Obama administration would pledge under the proposed :"nuclear umbrella" to respond to any Iranian strike on Israel with a "devastating U.S. nuclear response."

I don't know about anyone else, but this is some pretty heavy shit to me.

I can't believe that this isn't already a standing agreement. If someone nukes Israel, I can't imagine any US response other than a nuclear strike. It's inconceiveable that we would stop at anything less.

Ya, only because of we grossly over-fund and support them, when at this point they can basically stand on their own. The reason i brought it up is to question the validity of such an engagement with another country in that region. It is obvious that there is no intentions by Arabian nations to go about with their intolerance and anti-antisemitism peacefully, so why should we damn ourselves to prolonged engagement and now nuclear annihilation?

That Obama would announce this agreement is basically a white flag to the Iranians, because it shows he is willing to consider a situation where Iran would have nuclear weapons. He can't very well make this pledge and claim that a nuclear armed Iran is unacceptable. It's a "game-changer," as he put it, a clear loss of relative American power in the region, and Obama can flail about impotently with his disciplined, tough diplomacy as long as he wants for what it will acheive.

I can't believe you are suggesting that war in Iran is the only alternative. I am really close to saying fuck Jews and fuck Israel. America has no standing in that country or even that region, trying to create such a foothold has cost too many lives and too much money. No matter how righteous it is to save the land of the Jews, I think it is important that they defend their land and not us. Israel is as dead to me as the Aral sea. The day you see America send its men to die in the name of the Jewish state is the day i will leave this nation. I'm done fighting other people's wars.

[zoolrule]

At 12/17/08 04:14 PM, Nitroglys wrote:

I can't believe you are suggesting that war in Iran is the only alternative. I am really close to saying fuck Jews and fuck Israel. America has no standing in that country or even that region, trying to create such a foothold has cost too many lives and too much money. No matter how righteous it is to save the land of the Jews, I think it is important that they defend their land and not us. Israel is as dead to me as the Aral sea. The day you see America send its men to die in the name of the Jewish state is the day i will leave this nation. I'm done fighting other people's wars.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUezKsBCR bk
Enjoy, retard.

And even if it wasn't for this video, US is the most powerful nation in the world. "With great power comes great responsibility", Small-mindedness is the most idiotic, destructive approach in the fucking world.

Everyone are scared of Nuclear Iran, but everyone are also scared of doing anything. Especially the hypocrite Europeans.

[Nitroglys]

At 12/17/08 05:36 PM, zoolrule wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUezKsBCR bk
Enjoy, retard.

Wow. some babel that we all have heard from many muslim nations. If that is even what he is saying, it doesn't surprise me. and my argument is still valid against this. If the U.S. got out of Israel, our standing in muslim communities would no doubt be higher. This doesn't spell the end for the U.S. Just a tool of tyrannical oppression. Give them something to hate with a passion and they won't notice the shortcomings in their own nation and rights. (sound familiar anyone?)

And even if it wasn't for this video, US is the most powerful nation in the world. "With great power comes great responsibility", Small-mindedness is the most idiotic, destructive approach in the fucking world.

Thank you for that spider-man quote. Great wisdom there. But what is power? and how do you define the responsibility that different amounts of power has? That quote has moral connections, but is vague in the details. You can't just say that because we are the super power we have to rush to the aid of every nation that is threatened, and we certainly not done anything to that measure. We just pick out the most profitable and "save" them. To us, you aren't worth "saving" unless you can pay out.

Everyone are scared of Nuclear Iran, but everyone are also scared of doing anything. Especially the hypocrite Europeans.

No. Everyone ARE scared of your nasty grammar. But you can't justify a nuclear retaliation in any way. It only takes steps toward Armageddon. Like Obama said, diplomacy is the answer, if not, not talking certainly isn't helping.

[hrb5711]

At 12/12/08 08:39 PM, Nitroglys wrote: It is obvious we have some kind of special interest in the stake they have there, but why put up the charade. And of all people i wouldn't believe it would be the Obama administration damning us to such involvement with a travesty, especially when he campaigned on a promise to get us out of the middle east.

Calm down.

1. No countries in the middle east have nuclear weapons that can reach the CONUS.
2. From 1945 until 1996 there was a nuclear weapon tested about every 9 days, these went up to 50,000 KT
3. Don't be scared of nuclear weapons, with their cost, MADD, and lack of a good delivery system, you shouldn't lose sleep over them.

Biological weapons is what you should worry about.

[Nitroglys]

At 12/18/08 01:17 PM, hrb5711 wrote: Calm down.

1. No countries in the middle east have nuclear weapons that can reach the CONUS.

It's not the middle eastern countries that i'm worried about. It is the ensuing world war that could eradicate us. Who knows what powerful U.S. enemies the Iranians might team up with, or who might hate us more if we launch nukes on Iran.

2. From 1945 until 1996 there was a nuclear weapon tested about every 9 days, these went up to 50,000 KT

Ya, but in theory it is possible to demolish the world as we know it with a little over 20 well placed nukes. IN THEORY this would ignite the atmosphere and destroy us all. And its not like those tests had no lasting effects, hence why we stopped them.

3. Don't be scared of nuclear weapons, with their cost, MADD, and lack of a good delivery system, you shouldn't lose sleep over them.

First off, MAD is the exact thing that Clinton is suggesting. And exactly the same thing I'm opposing. and feelings on such can be read above. All i'm saying is we've spent 40 years on the eve of destruction, why would we want that tension once more? How many times have we seen how easy it was to make a dirty bomb. How hard would it be for terrorists to plant a few nuclear strapped explosives around Israel and detonate them? and cost is hardly seeming like a deterrent

Biological weapons is what you should worry about.

War in general is a worry.

[CBP]

At 12/18/08 01:17 PM, hrb5711 wrote:

Biological weapons is what you should worry about.

It doesn't matter whether the weapon is biological or nuclear, both are accessible, and both will kill millions if they land in the hands of the wrong people.

[hrb5711]

At 12/18/08 02:24 PM, Nitroglys wrote: It's not the middle eastern countries that i'm worried about. It is the ensuing world war that could eradicate us. Who knows what powerful U.S. enemies the Iranians might team up with, or who might hate us more if we launch nukes on Iran.

::The only countries that I would worry about that do have weapons that can reach the CONUS is Russia, whos stockpiles are old, broken, and basically worthless and China, who may be crazy enough to do it, but more than likely wouldn't.

Ya, but in theory it is possible to demolish the world as we know it with a little over 20 well placed nukes. IN THEORY this would ignite the atmosphere and destroy us all. And its not like those tests had no lasting effects, hence why we stopped them.

::The CTBT (Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty) was created more to stop the arms race and slightly because of health concerns. You would be amazed at the places the US and other countries have tested weapons. This includes atmosphere, underground, underwater, from balloons, etc. Unless you can show me otherwise I have heard of no major health hazards from nuclear testing.

How many times have we seen how easy it was to make a dirty bomb. How hard would it be for terrorists to plant a few nuclear strapped explosives around Israel and detonate them? and cost is hardly seeming like a deterrent

::Sorry to burst your bubble but a Dirty Bomb is not a threat. For one to be a threat it would have to be huge! Not backpack or box size, but Semi-Truck size. And you can't really strap a nuclear device to your back, they are all big and heavy. The Davey Crockett was the smallest nuclear device created and it had a yield of at most .5 Kilotons, most where 10-20 tons. That is extremely small for a warhead and poses no major threat to even a healivy populated area.
Take a look at this and see the actual size of a blast being 1 KT double the largest Crockett
http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/nukes/nu clear_weapon_effects/nuclearwpneffctcalc .html

War in general is a worry.

Yes it would be nice if there wasn't any war. Since we live in the real world though there will always be war, there will always be people who want to kill you, and there will always be horrible and easy ways for them to kill you. Stop worrying. Or get a gun and a fallout shelter and live in that I guess.

[hrb5711]

At 12/18/08 02:27 PM, CBP wrote:

At 12/18/08 01:17 PM, hrb5711 wrote:

Biological weapons is what you should worry about.

It doesn't matter whether the weapon is biological or nuclear, both are accessible, and both will kill millions if they land in the hands of the wrong people.

Actually they are both highly expensive and dificult to make. Will one bio attack kill millions??? No. Will one Nuclear attack kill millions? No.

Stop thinking that what happens in the movies can really happen!