Iran Close To Having Nuke

[GeauxTo]

Muhammad ElBaradei, chairman of the International Atomic Energy Agency, says Iran is just a few months away from creating an atomic bomb. His comments confirm remarks from Israeli officials.

The seriousness of this, I think, is that Israel will likely act unilaterally once they are sure Iran has a bomb. It would not surprise me to see Israel obliterate Iran once that determination is made. They will do this because they realize that Iran only has the capability to deliver a nuke a relatively short distance... like to Israel. They will not allow Iran to have a bomb.

[Cianne]

World War III wins.

[bamafan0001]

Nah...the democrats are crazy don't listen to them. This is all propaganda straight from the desk of John Kerry and Ted Kennedy.

[HSVTider]

Well, maybe we should just wipe them off the face of the earth.

I'm dead serious too.

I know that sounds crazy as there are a lot of innocent Iranian's that would perish, but are their lives worth than all of the innocent Israeli's that would die when Iran launches that nuke into Jerusalem?

I think not.

If you have an un isolatable subset that is causing a very large problem, sometimes that tough decision must be made to eliminate the super set to ensure preservation of the status quo.

It may be time to make another tough decision.

The only country that would dare challenge us is China and I don't think they would (they make too much money off of us) and the EU..well we've already defeated them on the battle field twice, I know I'd sign up to do it again.

[blues_cap]

if they did drop a nuke over there, that would make one big ass skating rink with all of that sand.

[RW13]

Nah...the democrats are crazy don't listen to them. This is all propaganda straight from the desk of John Kerry and Ted Kennedy.

What? Where did you see anything about democrats? And why would democrats lie about Iran having weapons? Roll coll for conservatives, libertarians and other non democrats who think Iran has/will get nuclear weapons, I'll go first and say I do.....

[JerryBeeds]

What? Where did you see anything about democrats? And why would democrats lie about Iran having weapons? Roll coll for conservatives, libertarians and other non democrats who think Iran has/will get nuclear weapons, I'll go first and say I do.....

He's kidding. He's a lib like you. :)

[RW13]

Can't be, he's from Tennessee....

[RW13]

Jerry Beeds a.k.a. Bob Jones IV

[cocky4ever]

While I agree that Iran is certainly not a country that needs to have nuclear weapons, how would we be any better than them if we blew them off the face of the Earth because of what they had the potential to do? Using that logic N. Korea would be justified in nuking the U.S. because of what we could do. If we nuke Iran for having those types of weapons then that proves we arent responsible enough to have them ourselves. If Israel decides to do something like that then thats all on them. We have enough problems without jumping in and starting WWIII.

[bamafan0001]

Can't be, he's from Tennessee....
HaHa were a dying breed...only the TVA leftovers and a few "onesies and twosies".

[GeauxTo]

While I agree that Iran is certainly not a country that needs to have nuclear weapons, how would we be any better than them if we blew them off the face of the Earth because of what they had the potential to do? Using that logic N. Korea would be justified in nuking the U.S. because of what we could do. If we nuke Iran for having those types of weapons then that proves we arent responsible enough to have them ourselves. If Israel decides to do something like that then thats all on them. We have enough problems without jumping in and starting WWIII.
I don't think there's any question about it; it's Israel who will do it. They are not going to give Iran a first-strike capability. It won't matter who disagrees; the U. S., the Chinese, the Russians, the Brits, the N. Koreans... if Iran creates a nuclear weapon, Israel is going to blast them. They can live with the aftermath of that; they can't live with the aftermath of an Iranian first-strike.

[bamafan0001]

I don't think there's any question about it; it's Israel who will do it. They are not going to give Iran a first-strike capability. It won't matter who disagrees; the U. S., the Chinese, the Russians, the Brits, the N. Koreans... if Iran creates a nuclear weapon, Israel is going to blast them. They can live with the aftermath of that; they can't live with the aftermath of an Iranian first-strike.
Due to geographical proximity I'm not so sure they could live with that.

[GeauxTo]

Due to geographical proximity I'm not so sure they could live with that.
Tehran is about 1,000 air miles from Tel Aviv, but those countries around the Caspian Sea would experience some fall-out if Tehran were hit.

[bamafan0001]

I would venture to say that a nuclear war between Isreal and Iran would pretty much wipe out or contaminate the whole middle east. The Indian Ocean, Persian Gulf, and any other water suppy they have over there would be contaminated as well. In the grand scheme of things 1,000 miles is not very far when launching nukes...Thats like Houston Texas to Lincon Nebraska.

[usafbamafan]

Why would Iran Nuke the land they see as holy?

They hate Israel because of the land they "stole" from Islam, they don't just hate Jews for the fun of it. There is no way Iran would drop a Nuke on Jerusalem. Stop and think for a second people.... :cool:

[Rebeldrummer]

you guys don't remember history do you .. Isreal is on top of this .. ? Just like when Iraq got the french made reactor online , Isreal bombed it on a sunday to avoid killin ginnocent workers ... in the mid eighties .. they will hit Iran before they becom Nuked

[bamafan0001]

Why would Iran Nuke the land they see as holy?

They hate Israel because of the land they "stole" from Islam, they don't just hate Jews for the fun of it. There is no way Iran would drop a Nuke on Jerusalem. Stop and think for a second people.... :cool:
If the people in Isreal launched a nuke at them I don't think preserving their "holy land" would be up there on their priority list.

[usafbamafan]

If the people in Isreal launched a nuke at them I don't think preserving their "holy land" would be up there on their priority list.

Launching a Nuke would be the stupidest thing Israel could possibly do. They would lose the support of the entire world. Do you really think they are that stupid or crazy?

[bamafan0001]

Launching a Nuke would be the stupidest thing Israel could possibly do. They would lose the support of the entire world. Do you really think they are that stupid or crazy?
...if it involves religion or self preservation...yes possibly

[jneesy]

Launching a Nuke would be the stupidest thing Israel could possibly do. They would lose the support of the entire world. Do you really think they are that stupid or crazy?

most certainly

you dont really understand these wacko's do you?


it is time for iran to die....we dont need to use nukes...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1815000/images/_1816706_bbc300bombing.jpg

carpet bombing is a bitch.

[SeattleGamecocks]

Launching a Nuke would be the stupidest thing Israel could possibly do. They would lose the support of the entire world. Do you really think they are that stupid or crazy?
Precisely.

[HSVTider]

While I agree that Iran is certainly not a country that needs to have nuclear weapons, how would we be any better than them if we blew them off the face of the Earth because of what they had the potential to do? Using that logic N. Korea would be justified in nuking the U.S. because of what we could do. If we nuke Iran for having those types of weapons then that proves we arent responsible enough to have them ourselves. If Israel decides to do something like that then thats all on them. We have enough problems without jumping in and starting WWIII.

Right..so lets just take the moral high road and watch our friends and allies get melted in a 10,000 degree oven.

It ain't happening.

I agree with GeauxTo. If we don't do it, Israel will. When it comes to self preservation; rules of engagement, ethical fighting, and the moral high road all go out the window.

Unfortunately, it won't be too long before thinking like yours becomes the vast majority opinion and our great nation, like our soveriegnty, will cease to exist as we know it.

God help me, but I hope I'm dead by then.

[HSVTider]

What? Where did you see anything about democrats? And why would democrats lie about Iran having weapons? Roll coll for conservatives, libertarians and other non democrats who think Iran has/will get nuclear weapons, I'll go first and say I do.....

I'm a die hard conservative and I do believe they'll get nuclear weapons and then shortly there after Israel will make Iran the largest toxic waste dump on the planet.

[GeauxTo]

When it comes to self preservation; rules of engagement, ethical fighting, and the moral high road all go out the window.

Bingo! Right, and bright. There won't be a nuclear war between Iran and Israel. Iran will never get the chance to respond. Anyone who doesn't see this doesn't understand Israel and their history.

[cocky4ever]

Right..so lets just take the moral high road and watch our friends and allies get melted in a 10,000 degree oven.

It ain't happening.

I agree with GeauxTo. If we don't do it, Israel will. When it comes to self preservation; rules of engagement, ethical fighting, and the moral high road all go out the window.

So we should go blow Iran off the face of the Earth because they have a nuke?That would send the world into chaos(even more than it already is) and probably start WWIII. With the way things are in this country I dont think we're ready to go start anymore wars, much less the biggest one the world has ever seen. The only way we could win a war like that is to drop nukes on all of our enemies. We would of course get cities like N.Y., Los Angeles, and probably Atlanta or D.C. blown away. Then the world as we know it wouldnt exists and complete anarchy would break out.
Unfortunately, it won't be too long before thinking like yours becomes the vast majority opinion and our great nation, like our soveriegnty, will cease to exist as we know it.


Dont worry, that day wont get here. Before that happens people who think like you will have completely destroyed the world as we know it and just about the only thing left would be roaches.

[fernandomike]

you guys don't remember history do you .. Isreal is on top of this .. ? Just like when Iraq got the french made reactor online , Isreal bombed it on a sunday to avoid killin ginnocent workers ... in the mid eighties .. they will hit Iran before they becom Nuked

I don't think that there is any question that Israel will respond, the question is how. Israel will not nuke Iran. That would be colossally stupid when they have non-nuclear preemptive capacity. They will hit them soon. They will hit them hard. They will eliminate Iran's nuclear ambitions. That is the reasonable and appropriate action and would neither jeopardize the entire Middle East nor cause them to be scorned by most of the world. As Rebeldrummer has pointed out, there is direct precedent here. I expect it to be followed.

[GeauxTo]

So we should go blow Iran off the face of the Earth because they have a nuke?
Nobody said us, Cocky. It won't be us. And it won't be up to us. Israel will stop Iran, not necessarily with nukes, but they will prevent them from having a nuke capability. That you can depend on. And heaven help us all if anyone responds by jumping on Israel (except the usual suspects; Syria, Egypt, etc.).

[cocky4ever]

Nobody said us, Cocky. It won't be us. And it won't be up to us. Israel will stop Iran, not necessarily with nukes, but they will prevent them from having a nuke capability. That you can depend on. And heaven help us all if anyone responds by jumping on Israel (except the usual suspects; Syria, Egypt, etc.).
That will be fine with me. How refreshing will it be for there to be a relatively large war that America ISNT in :)

[fernandomike]

That will be fine with me. How refreshing will it be for there to be a relatively large war that America ISNT in :)

I am not so sure our leadership would be able to resist.

[ugamic]

Alright all you war nuts let me tell you the truth of it. Nobody's getting nuked. Lay down the paranoia pipe. The commies aren't taking over and there's no need to build yourself a bomb shelter... while we're at it. Contrary to popular opinion every leader in the Middle East is not certifiable. Sure Iran want's nuclear weapons but that does not automatically make them suicidal. They know the consequences of using one. They have very different outlooks on the world but they aren't crazy. If it makes you feel better to think that fine but don't go trying get WWIII started just yet.

[ColonelKurtz]

For reasons other than ugamic espoused, I seriously doubt any kind of offensive intent is in the works for any Iranian nuke. Really now, precisely what would those muslamic morons in Teheran hope to accomplish by striking Israel??? Revenge?

Fact of the matter is, if you take a moment and look at a map, you'll see that it is possible that the Iranians are reacting in a fashion consistent with those of their neighbors. The Paki's share a considerable border with them and have nukes and are friendly with the West right now and Azerbijan & Turkmenistan are both held to harbor nukes which were grandfathered in when the Soviet Union disintigrated.

The old adage that insurance is something not needed until its needed applies here. Fanatical the ruling mullahs may be but stupid they ain't....

[HSVTider]

That would be colossally stupid when they have non-nuclear preemptive capacity.

As far as we know they don't. However, if it becomes evident that our "interests" in the region are becoming destabalized by a nuclear threat against Israel, I wouldn't be surprised at all to see us slip the Israelis some new SAM batteries that could help them out with this problem.

Cold War Style, if you know what I'm getting at.

[HSVTider]

For reasons other than ugamic espoused, I seriously doubt any kind of offensive intent is in the works for any Iranian nuke. Really now, precisely what would those muslamic morons in Teheran hope to accomplish by striking Israel??? Revenge?

Fact of the matter is, if you take a moment and look at a map, you'll see that it is possible that the Iranians are reacting in a fashion consistent with those of their neighbors. The Paki's share a considerable border with them and have nukes and are friendly with the West right now and Azerbijan & Turkmenistan are both held to harbor nukes which were grandfathered in when the Soviet Union disintigrated.

The old adage that insurance is something not needed until its needed applies here. Fanatical the ruling mullahs may be but stupid they ain't....

Fundamentalist Islam exists for one reason alone, the destruction of the Infidels (Jews, Christians, etc) and the liberation of the Holy Land (i.e. the Palestinians should have complete control of the nation of Israel).

So you ask..what would be their motivation? The answer is simple.

Hate

[HSVTider]

Anyway..speaking of bombs, nukes and military engagements.

Did anyone see the special on the Stealth Planes (specifically the F-117A) on the History Channel last night?

That s*** is awesome..and to think..it was designed over 30 years go..what the hell are they working on now?

http://www.dankind.com/images/entries/f117a.jpg

[GamecockDieHard]

Having weapon's grade plutonium and the ability to make a nuke doesn't necessarily mean they will fashion the bomb into a rocket and launch it at Israel. They may just as well put it into a suitcase, add a little saran gas, and walk it over the Mexican border into the good old USA. They may walk several into the US and coordinate a strike (ala 9/11)that would send us back to Fred and Barney land. One thought that hasn't been discussed, I don't think, is the method that radical islamists use bombs and weapons. Most comments are starting from the premise that Iran would "launch" an attack like most standing armies of nations have done in the past. The problem with a Muslim state having a nuke has to do with the possibility of a more extreme and unstable leadership getting control of them. It's the same position we were in with Iraq. It's not that Saddam was stupid enough to attack our interests, the problem is that these scum have no problem giving a suitcase nuke to one of these 16 year old Abdullah's that can't wait to party with their virgins. Just like the debate we're having now about Iraq, who do you blame when Iran says Abdullah "stole" the bomb and it's the 10,000 or so "terrorists" that are to blame, not Iran? You'd have the same crowd that doesn't get the Iraq issue coming to the defense of Iran. No, Iran can not be allowed to have nukes. Neither can any other potential friend of the radical Islamists. Everyone wants peace except these nuts that believe they get paradise points for murder.

[ColonelKurtz]

Seems more than a few are infatuated with this fatalistic muslamic conquest notion which I believe will never gain enough consensus to be viable but the possibility of a suitcase nuke is far more worrisome and if one is to buy into the notion of Iranian culpability in providing such means, you might have something.

While it is true that Islam holds that the submission of all to it is fact, so have other dogmas and to date all of them have failed to acquire the requisite consensus of sheer numbers and lethality to succeed. Sure, dissenters/terrorists will always raise their ugly heads to keep crap stirred up, but what they cannot afford to have happen is precisely what they may invite: a fight with a foe they have absolutely no hope to defeat.

Some still hold that any initiation of nuclear hostilities will usher in another World War but I'm not so sure that is the case anymore. The US, Chinese, Russians, Brits, & French all possess retalitative capabilities to make MAD a reality but were a newbie nuke possessor take it upon themselves to go there, I think you'd have to examine the dynamics of today's prevailing economic situation to find just how far any of the big boys would jump on a war bandwagon of such a scale. Jmho...

---------

HSVTider, I watched that last night too! Amazing story and suprisingly candid discussion of the genesis of Stealth technology. The History/Discovery Channels are two of my favorites, along with SciFi. Since they repeated "The Triangle", I was able to catch both. For any who have missed "The Triangle", it is very well done imo.

Who DOES know what our 'Skunk Works' guys are up to today? Rumors of hypersonic bombers that could leave a US base and deliver a precision strike on the Politburo in Peking in a tad over an hour make missles seem old hat doesn't it? Automated soldiers and combat platforms on land, air, and sea without the need of humans, weapons which can stun large population areas or battlefields eliminating the need of killing, defensive shields which can repel attacking missiles, warheads, and even aircraft, all sorts of stuff that could be down the road.

[fernandomike]

As far as we know they don't. However, if it becomes evident that our "interests" in the region are becoming destabalized by a nuclear threat against Israel, I wouldn't be surprised at all to see us slip the Israelis some new SAM batteries that could help them out with this problem.

Cold War Style, if you know what I'm getting at.

It would be the very definition of overkill to wait for Iran to get nuclear capacity, then use that as reason to nuke them. Since they know exactly what Iran is up to, it would be much more reasonable to strategically strike them without nukes immediately thereby wiping out whatever capacity they have gained.

[GamecockDieHard]

I don't think it's an infatuation of the fatalistic muslamic conquest notion to objectively observe what has been going on with these groups for the last 20 years or so. They have escalated their attacks and make it clear that they aren't necessarily interested in winning. It's only important that they destroy our way of life called democracy and by so doing, they're ok with dying. That's not my opinion, that's what they teach and what they say as they saw off another infidel's head. They celebrate each attack as a victory and don't see human loss as a deterrent nor look to a great battle as a climax. From that perspective, I can't see any rational person believing that this problem can be dealt with through passivism or believing that somehow it's America's fault that the Koran is interpretted by some to mean, kill all infidels. America's policies certainly had no impact on the writings of Mohammed.

[ColonelKurtz]

I don't think it's an infatuation of the fatalistic muslamic conquest notion to objectively observe what has been going on with these groups for the last 20 years or so. They have escalated their attacks and make it clear that they aren't necessarily interested in winning. It's only important that they destroy our way of life called democracy and by so doing, they're ok with dying. That's not my opinion, that's what they teach and what they say as they saw off another infidel's head. They celebrate each attack as a victory and don't see human loss as a deterrent nor look to a great battle as a climax. From that perspective, I can't see any rational person believing that this problem can be dealt with through passivism or believing that somehow it's America's fault that the Koran is interpretted by some to mean, kill all infidels. America's policies certainly had no impact on the writings of Mohammed.

Ok, GDH, you just named the most extreme circumstance for any and every anarchist that has ever existed. And who, btw, could never assemble or manage to gather enough in terms of numbers, wealth, or ability to seize power for themselves. Why is that do you think?

As for their methodology, the beheadings and such, that isn't anything new either, it is as much a part of the cultural practice there (albeit recently made famous again) for 4 Millenia. As repulsive as us Westerners view such savagery, such was seen as merciful treatment not 250 years ago right here in North America. The Native Americans were noted for their considerable abilities for slow, painful ways of extracting information or delivering a death sentance and if one was captured and an enemy, it was never quick.

Now correct me here but I believe you're submitting that these muslamic pos's are Fatalists...and if you are, then in time they will cease to be. Such a philosophy will never do anything more than just kill innocents and there are some 6 Billion targets, so doing the math, without the ability to deal vast blows which kill millions, these guys' efforts are as doomed as a houseplant under my Wife's care.

From the standpoint of addressing this:

They celebrate each attack as a victory and don't see human loss as a deterrent nor look to a great battle as a climax. From that perspective, I can't see any rational person believing that this problem can be dealt with through passivism or believing that somehow it's America's fault that the Koran is interpretted by some to mean, kill all infidels. America's policies certainly had no impact on the writings of Mohammed.

You're right but not entirely, for you're discounting the overriding factor which has us all here today: survival! I didn't previously state that the US or any other Nation would or should just let them off themselves into extinction, hardly, but what I'm getting at is that not all of those holding Islam are keen to get in line to do so, witness the dwindling number of incidents in Iraq. Yes, they've been declining for a while but our media whores aren't reporting it in that light.

GDH, many belief systems have their extreme factions, but to date, have any succeeded in accomplishing their designs? Since there is no ability of a Nation to retaliate against the actions of so few, even if the unthinkable were to be done, for what reason would a power like the US initiate a broader response more than what we've done to date? The US is not being passive, but its efforts must be covert. It is those efforts which will hopefully stop any WMD attack before it happens, but for such to succeed, the American people must understand that when the fight turns nasty, only the nastiest will win. Shackling those efforts by invoking compassion for other innocents in whatever theatre of operations the effort takes our operatives only serves to undermine them.

Though the tenets of Islam hold for the conversion of all by the sword if necessary, so do the tenets of Christianity though without the sword part. That doesn't necessarily hold that all adherents will follow for we all know that they do not. My point being that in time, these extremists will be given up by their own in the cause of the greater good. As US & other nations gain access to these cells of terrorists and eliminate them, and as other cells rise to take their place, the fundamental societal pressures of just living will take over and those who once were their passive shepherds will turn them out. The time that takes is up to the ability of the citizens who are being set upon to come to grips with the way it must be done.

[GamecockDieHard]

CK, I think we agree on many of the most critical aspects. In my mind, the most disturbing change of events happened on 9/11. As a country, we've accepted your premise that there aren't enough of these nutjobs to off "that many" of everyone else to really affect any great societal change. So let's just try to contain them, keep our eyes open, and we'll live like Israel; a few suicide bombers here or there...we can take the casualties because they don't have enough terrorists to overthrow Rhode Island. No doubt they are few in numbers, but Nukes and their willingness to shoot elementary kids in the back (Russia), makes them much more dangerous. They sandpapered a bear's butt and we started doing what we must to eradicate the vermin. Unfortunately, I'm hearing too many people that think Clooney or Penn have it all figured out. The idea of us slipping back into that way of thinking is unacceptable, IMO. Too many people want to compare what's happening now to the revisionists view of what happened in Vietnam.

Oh and btw, decapitation can certainly be used as capital punishment and probably isn't as painful as hanging, for example. Personally, I hope I never know the real answer to that question. However, the sawing off with a dull blade is simply death by torture. It's not just the act or method of killing an innocent, but the mentality of a group that is willing to do it, that disgusts me.

[ColonelKurtz]

For sure GDH, we are in agreement on the larger topic and in much of how we both view this situation.

The two members of the Hollywood Elite speak for fewer people than these muslamic dirtbags yet have monied confederates all too eager to demean our Military, intelligence services, and our President. They ignorantly overlook the 'why' part of the campaign of violence in favor of demonizing the very system which provides them both with their platform. This working within the system to effect change isn't new or original, it simply has a megaphone in the form of the major media.

The killing of innocents begats a like kind response, yet it is the will of the American people which must OK it. This doesn't mean our guys will be sawing off heads with dull knives, but it does mean that in some instances they will collect collateral fatalities when inflicting death upon these idiots. They are like rats, and as we all know, eliminating rats is more the question about localizing your target area small enough to have any effect. Since these Al-Queda followers are all over the place, it is not reasonable to believe that everyone of them will be found and dealt with, so in this particular fight we can only accept the elimination of them as they are discovered.

Back in the time of the Great Khan, this would have been academic. That was then, this is now. Finding positives in small victories like the degredation of capabilities must be enough reward.