since the Cuban missile crisis.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...risky-options/
Discuss.
I personally think that any risk is acceptable if it will prevent Iran from producing nukes.
The most dangerous situation in the world
since the Cuban missile crisis.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...risky-options/
Discuss.
I personally think that any risk is acceptable if it will prevent Iran from producing nukes.
I don't think we will stop Iran or DPRK from getting nukes. They will figure it out eventually. The best we can hope for is to push back the timeline. Once Iran goes nuclear it will probably be a prolonged Mexican standoff until they get a leader moderate enough to normalize relations with us (like thats gonna happen) or their shit falls apart in another revolution.
If we do have a ground war with Iran, I think it is more "winnable" than Afghanistan, because Iran is more formalized and less clannish than AFGN. It won't be as much a guerrilla war, but it will still be slow going as Iran has a mountain range on every border.
Originally Posted by Total_Blender
I agree with you, but will it be the next cold war? I believe Israel is the one to really watch on this. Without a doubt, a nuclear Iran is a threat to their being. They will act first in order to save themselves. This will undoubtedly bring us into the fold and probably the Russians. With the US stretched far too thin at that point I think N. Korea sees that as their chance to invade the South and finish what they started in 1950. Then there you have it, WWIII started just like WWI. A basicly inconsequential country becomes more than it ever should.
As far as a ground war against Iran goes, their troops wouldnt be much more than a speed bump for ours. The problem lies in the fact that they wont hesitate to use chemical or bio weapons. Because of that risk, I think our first strike against them may be very low yield nukes targeted on their WMD storage sites. That is the only sure way to make sure they are destroyed without them getting into the air or ground.
Their terrain works against then when it comes to chemical or bio weapons. Chemical weapons were pretty ineffective in mountainous regions in WWI (they were deadly on the plains though). I am also pretty confident that we have our game down when it comes to chemical weapons at least, as we have designed most of our war machines like the Abrams tank for that capability in anticipation of Saddam's stash (ironically, the ones WE sold him).
Also I doubt Iran would use nukes or chem or bio weapons, just because they know the stuff that we have is far more powerful than what they have and we can produce more than they can as well. Thats the reason the Nazi's didn't use chemical weapons, even though they had stockpiled 70,000 tons of Tabun and Sarin nerve gasses and 2 types of Mustard gas. The Nazi's reasoned that the Allies could out produce them and could develop more advanced chemical agents and delivery systems.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/li...t/1984/ARW.htm
I can see this as being a very likely scenario. Israel may strike in self defense, but most countries won't interpret it that way.
The US only has chemical weapons for testing and training purposes. The US response to an attack with chemical or bio weapons is a nuke. We see them as WMD's and make no distinction between them.
They dont put the same value on human life as we do though and will only look at the potential gains. Losses do not matter.
As whacked out as Hitler was, he wasnt crazy in all areas. You are right, he knew that using chemical or bio weapons would backfire on him.
Cold War, definitely a possibility. But as far as military action, nothing will happen expect continued, useless, sanctions in which the US and the UN will draw a line in the sand and Iran's Pres will continue to cross and the line will be redrawn. Given the current political climate regarding prolonged military operations, I don't see it happening unless something drastic happened. Such as Iran bombing/invading Israel in a first strike attack. Even then, I believe the US would be extremely hesitant to get involved choosing the route of prolonged diplomacy via other UN member nations, particularly those of the UN Security Council as a means to prevent or end the crisis.
But, holding true to the Power Transition Theory, seeing as how Iran has not reached parity with either Israel or the US, a war is unlikely. Seeing as how the disparity which exists between the countries is so vast, there in nothing to gain for either Iran, Israel, or the US in regards to a war.
92 EH2 - Current "We will build him, better, stronger, faster."
98 EJ8 - Stolen (Thieves)
I agree completely. The UN went the way of the League of Nations decades ago but every member nation is too damn stupid to figure it out. The UN has no balls, has corruption that rivals the worst places in the world and the fundamental differences in political ideology, especially in the security council, guarantees that nothing meaningful will ever be done.
Iran might do it, but I doubt it. They would have to overcoem the same hurdles Isreal would have to overcome and that is flying over other nation's air space. Iran will not do that on a first strike because our early warning aircraft and sats and because no other country will back them on a first strike with the US there.
Israel, on the other hand, CAN strike at Iran. They have the aircraft that has the range and stealth to make a 1 way trip without tanker support and if they push their luck and use a little of their neighbor's air space they can make it a round trip.
The US already has an ironclad case Iran has committed multiple acts of war against us. I think that if Israel acts first the US will the diplomatic route to start with, but in the end we will back Israel. If we do not back Israel, it will be an open season on them from all sides including Jordan, Egypt and Syria.
WWII Germany could never match the might of the Soviets even without a western front or operations in North Africa. Yet they still attacked. War is never a rational thing, especially a war of aggression.
http://www.globalsecuritynewswire.or...00126_6522.php
Our arsenal of chemical weapons is so big its gonna take hundreds of millions of dollars just to reduce it to comply with the treaties we have signed...
Never knew about that. Those weapons are not part of the usable arsenal unless Obama and/or congress changes the rules.
The most dangerous situation in the world is overpopulation, and the strain it causes on natural resources and ultimately the root cause of land grabbing and warfare. Sodomy is the answer, not Jesus or Allah...so avoid fucking in the front hole. Abortion is eco-friendly if you want to help save this planet.
Lay off the crack dude and don't listen to people that have to much money and are actually out of touch with reality.
vBulletin Message
The server is too busy at the moment. Please try again later.
Discuss.
Here's Hillary Clinton saying no worries on Iran:
http://www.voanews.com/english/news/...105823938.html
vBulletin Message
The server is too busy at the moment. Please try again later.
From the article you posted.
If Iran gets nukes, it could possibly send the entire middle east, and likely world, into war. Iran and Israel WILL use nukes.Our problem is with their facilities at places like Natanz, and their secret facility at Qom and other places where we believe they are conducting their weapons program," she said.
Containment, I like what you've stated here.. I've been studying it over the past few weeks as to why Russia never engaged the U.S on a nuclear level. The two cancel each other out, and the use of the atomic bomb pretty much validates this. When considering an attack on a nuclear level, you also have to consider the defensive position. Primarily the question is "When we launch this attack, how quick and how massive will the response be?" Logically (and this has nothing to do with the value of life) if a retaliatory attack is imminent, all inclination to use nuclear weapons will dissolve.
On the other hand and I hate to play devils advocate here, but look at Iran's position but first you have to take off your "i love america" cap for a second and look at the situation objectively. Israel has nuclear weapons, Iran doesn't. If Israel chose to use them on Iran there is no retaliation.. Iran is helpless in that sense. The answer in Iran's own national interest is to level the playing field, something that will neutralize the threat that Israel may pose to them and I think that answer is nuclear technology. Can't blame them, they're doing what most other countries do and that is acting in their own best interest, if you take to the Realist theory that is.
I agree with you in a vacuum, but is realistic terms you also have to consider Iran's past actions and threats. Iran has been supplying and financing terrorists for 3 decades. They have made threats to Israel and commented on MANY occasions that they would like to wipe Israel off the map. Those things put Iran into a very different category than even a country like China, who would resort to using nukes as a last resort and only if they believe their mainland is threatened.
Even if Iran didnt actually use a nuke weapon on Israel, I have no doubts they would assist, and likely supply, terrorists with a dirty bomb if not a functioning nuke.
You are right about the vacuum part, what I said is moreso based off of theory than reality, I guess my response to that would be Israel acting in their own interest would also keep Iran in check. Personally I see Iran expanding their span of control into Iraq once we are out and then their actions are based off of how much power they accumulate. If there are economic sanctions against Iran than the logical approach for them is military power or imperialism, but a direct strike against Israel would be a suicide mission at best for Iran. Just my own opinion.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
