Attack on Iran inevitable?

Remove all ads!

It's thought provoking, I will give you that. Possibly even scaremongering.

Saddam was full of bravado and bull****. He never had any WMD's. Iran doesn't either. Even IF they did, do not even for one minute think they are stupid enough to use one. Just because these people are labelled "Mad Mullahs", does not necessarily mean they are mad. They know they are hopelessly outnumbered when it comes to arsenal. What Iran has done has stood up to the West and Israel and said "go on, try me".

In the old days of Greenham Common we were told nuclear weapons were important to ensure our safety. It was the deterrent element. I just wonder why the same argument is not being applied to Iran?

Basically, I can't see a war happening with Iran yet. It would be absolutely disgusting if us and the US pulled out of Iraq now, before the job is sorted. We need to stay and make sure a proper system is installed there, otherwise we have achieved nothing except get more enemies.
Surely Bush and co. are not stupid enough to fight a war with Iraq AND Iran at the same time?

I can't see it.

 

SSSHHHHHH!!! Don't you know that's akin to saying "well, at least it can't get any worse" in a movie? You'll bring Bush's idiocy down upon us all!

 

After reading this topic i started wondering about who i trust best with nukes, and after thinking for a while i must say i dont trust the US better then the rest with nukes. After all how many wars has the US army been in in the last 20 years? Same question with Iran, how many wars have they fought in last 20 years?

And even if u think the US can be better trusted with nukes, they are the only ones (to my knowledge at least) to have EVER used them.

Cant say i like the idea of Iran having nukes though since they arent exactly friendly (and perhaps rightly so) with most western countries.

I personally think that its only a matter of time before the US invade Iran, the only thing i wonder about now is wether they will do it alone with Britain or if they will work with NATO and the united nations... wich they of course didnt do in Iraq.


(Sorry for any wrong spelling, not my first language )

[ April 12, 2006, 22:45: Message edited by: Steinar ]

 

I don't see Britian supporting an attack on Iran, and deffinetely not the British people, I don't believe that the British people share the same warmongering thoughts which many Americans hold.

The bombing the US has in mind for Iran would cause extreme civilian casualty, and that can't be allowed to happen. Of course, if in the extremely unlikely event that Iran had aquired capable nukes, and in the extremely unlikely event that it planned on using them to turn Israel into a glass crater, then every effort should be made to stop that, but it would have to be an effort that does not mean causing significant civilian casualty. It also makes me laugh that these are corrupt, and deceiving governments we have calling Iran into question.

Anyway, I don't know that some of you know or can actually even think for a minute what a nukes actually do, I don't think you take into account the potential cost to innocent life. These guys are just regular everyday people like you and me, they have lives, and they have children, and grandchildren, and knowing this, you can so easily condone a nuke attack? Just like that?

[ April 13, 2006, 02:34: Message edited by: Sarevok• ]

 

*Frowns* Warmongering? I don't think our people have those thoughts nearly as much as our government... we want out of Iraq, and we don't want to go to war with other people... our government, maybe, but not our people.

And we wouldn't be using nukes against Iran to stop them from using nukes, so the damage would not be as widespread or terrible as you have said. There would still be collateral, however... is that collateral worth the possible benefits of stopping them?

 

If they use bunker buster nukes, they can't penatrate deeply enough to contain radioactive fallout, and those are the only effective weapon to take out nuclear bunkers in Iran. Plus, stopping them from what? Do they have nukes? No. Do they have the current capability to make nukes? No.

 

Sarevok, you really should have stopped while you were ahead (as in, before editing that post).

I see. So you, in England, have intimate knowledge of the strategic plans of the Bush administration.

Believe me when I say I can't bring myself to laugh about that.

A. Bunker buster nukes? What have you been smoking?
B. Referring you to my first point (about intimate knowledge), what makes you think we would nuke Iran? Not even Bush could justify that.

Are they looking to get them? Yes. But that still does not justify an attack on Iran even with conventional weapons, much less nukes. I can't say for certainty that he won't still try to slip by an invasion, though.

 

Missiles then, what ever, they can cause severe loss of civilian life, that is the point. I don't care what they are exactly, but if it means potential loss of civilian life, it's not good, especially when it is unjustified, and when there are alternatives. The attack using the bunker busters is supposedly the most idealistic method of taking out any of Irans nuke capability. I thought however that the original threat from the US was to use not just conventional, but also nuclear bombs in an effort to take out the bunkers.

[ April 13, 2006, 04:30: Message edited by: Sarevok• ]

 

Extreme, down to severe, down to potential; I told you you should have quit while you were ahead. For what it's worth, though, I agree with you. Even the potential loss of one life (nevermind multiple lives) for no concrete reason is stepping far beyond the line. I believe in most countries it is referred to as murder, and not even our leaders are above the law. It's times like this I wonder at the direct symbolism of God as a burning Bush.

 

Oh, yes, give a bunch of anti-Semitic, religious zealots the bomb - great idea. In this regard, I'm not speaking of the population of Iran, but the Dark Age mullahs who run the government. At least with Saddam we knew what we were dealing with: a ruthless, opportunistic dictator. With Iran, we have a bunch of guys who believe that Alla will protect them from the nuclear fallout. Religious zealots and nukes - a great combination.

 

The Japanese didn't treat their POW's well. On the other hand, they didn't bomb Honolulu, either. My point is that they attacked military targets. They did not attack targets which didn't have any strategic military value. Like we did when we bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

 

Nanjing was so not a military target ... and the civilians there most certainly weren't...

Also, it may even have been in this thread, but I've heard that the US had a nuclear-bunker-buster bit in their Iran invasion plan to take out underground facilities something like 75 metres or feet (can't remember which) under the ground.

And I don't trust the US any more than I do Iran, maybe even less. Iran knows that it'd get glassed if it nuked anything - the US probably won't be.

 

it's funny, because if you swap 'semitic' for 'muslim', you've got America.

 

I honestly do believe that the U.S. would step in if and when Iran gets close to acquiring the ability to produce nuclear weapons. However, as BTA rightly points out, acquiring nuclear weapons would but them in violation of the NPT. However, as they are a signatory to the NPT, I think they have the right to pursue peaceful nuclear technology. As I said before, the uranium enrichment system is basically the same system regardless of whether you're producing nuclear fuel for energy purposes, or producing weapons grade uranium for bombs. The carrot in the NPT was that if you don't make bombs, you are free to persue peaceful nuclear programs, and even get some help in donig it. So Iran is currently not violating anything. Now, if we suspect that they are getting close to producing nuclear weapons, then you might get an attack from the U.S., but it looks like that possibility is still several years off.

 

A bit off topic, but

Hiroshima and Nagasaki most definitely had military significance. (IIRC, Nagasaki had big shipyards, ammo factories, etc. Moreover, Hiroshima was one of the few cities in Japan where there were no big American POW camps closeby). During WWII, strategic bombing of industrial cities was a widely used means of warfare. The Germans did it to England. You can bet that the Japanese would have done it to the americans, if they could (US beind sort of far).

And it kind of unfair to imply that US has no right to argue against other countries aquiring nuclear weapons because they are the only ones which used nukes. It happened during quite a big war, and there were good reasons for it. OTOH, I think the US does not have the right to use military force in order to stop other countries from aquiring such weapons. Even in the case of Iran.

 

This a good read on George II and the Iran situation by Howard Fineman of Newsweek:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12285630/

 

Agreed. Think about it - why would you use a nulcear strike if the primary goal is to destroy civilian population? That could be mop-up work for your bombers if that was the idea. It makes much more sense if the goal is to end the war to destroy your enemy's ability to fight a war.

It may come as a surprise to some, but during the cold war, the Soviets didn't have their nuclear missiles pointed at New York, Philadelphia or Miami. They had them pointed at regions of the country possessing strategic importance that were required to fight a war, including oil fields in Alaska, coal mining regions in Pennsylvania, and major ports such as New Orleans and Baltimore. Some others were pointed in areas where their intelligence indicated the U.S. kept stockpiles of nuclear weapons - the best way to win a war is to prevent counter-attacks.

At how hard is it going to be to get a coalition of the willing this time? How irrelevant is the UN now? Of course, the bigger question is, will anyone listen? Britain, though they have supported us thus far, has no desire for another war. And Russia, France, and China weren't exactly jumping for joy with the Iraq situation, so good luck seeing them chance their tunes now. Bush is looking like the boy who cried wolf.

 

But China didn't, probably because Iran is a major source of oil for China, and China alone can block any UN action.