»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
Nuclear Weaponed Iran
| The Alley |
|
Nuclear Weaponed Iran |
|
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan 
|
. http://tv.nationalreview.com/uncommonknowledge/post/?q=NmM0OTVjZTgzOTZiYjk1 NmM5YTdiMjk5ZmMyZGFlOWY= Given Russia’s interest, and Iran’s threat through Saudi Arabia’s oil facilities, I don’t see how Iran can be stopped from accomplishing nuclear weapons. At the same time I don’t know how Israel can be made to live with that. . |
||
| © Copyright 2009 John Pawlik - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
It's not a pretty picture under any circumstances, John. I don'y know how accurate our intelligence is from that area at this point. In general, I'm not happy with it. I believe we don't have much penetration of Israeli intelligence, and I don't have any idea how factionalized they are or the Israeli government is. This is, as you suggest, a major element in determining the outcome. While were are supposed to have an alliance with the Saudis, I am not clear about the nature of that. How good a grip the House of Saud has on the government is unclear, and the extent of their bargains with the Wahabist folks means that whatever they say to us will still need to get the okay on some level with the Religious Islamic Right over there. The House of Saud will feel a need to say Yes out front to as many people as possible, because No is politically dangerous in that culture (and perhaps in politics in general, if you think about it). The actual Nos will come in the form of delays and unforeseen circumstances and accidents and apologies and unexplained cancellations. We like to think we're much more straightforward in the U.S., but I tend to think that Politics is Politics the world around. The arabs are simply a bit more flowery about it. If all the hoopla we were hearing 15 years back about loose nukes in the break-up areas of the old USSR was true, it seems there may well be a nuke in some sort of condition floating around the area anyway, and probably under Iranian control. Perhaps I'm simply being a wild man in thinking this, but the quarrel we're having right now is about the Iranians developing their own capability to build their own nukes, not about whether there's one sitting around someplace that could be used if somebody wanted to use it. We don't want Iran to have their own dependable nuclear capability, with more than one or two dependable bombs and the means of delivering them in such as way that they would be hard to stop as a weapon of war. If they were used as a terrorist weapon, I think it would change the nature of how the world would look on terrorism. Now it's a real annoyance, but it's found a niche where the response is just short of a serious major war for those who even look they sponsor a successful midrange terrorist attack. Detonation of a nuclear weapon would, I think change the correlation of forces, and would provoke a seriously savage counterattack with 1)either a significant amount of world support; or 2) a seriously polarized world response which might break down into a nuclear version of the events that lead up to World War I as alliances dragged unwilling participants into an ever-growing nuclear exchange. Hopefully, most folks are too fond of their hindquarters to risk such an exchange for the possibility of limited gain. Our job as a super-power, I would imagine, is twofold as well. Make sure that people realize the level of consequence remains high. Make sure that the level of reward for not pursuing such a course remains diplomatically and economically high as well. Everybody needs to feel they're getting something of a share of the wealth and that a rising tide is, in fact, floating all boats. That seems to be a response that might be useful. The problem is that everything is so vague, it's hard to break down such a general outline of possible future events into potential future plans, or even find some sort of markers to look for to see what sort of clues we should look for that might lead us to which sort of outcomes. I think I'm simply going to have to start warming up the old Tarot Deck, and start working the Yarrow Sticks to see what The Superior Man should do. Confucius, here I come! |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. http://tv.nationalreview.com/uncommonknowledge/post/?q=NTM3YjcwNzM2OTI4MGRi MWMyMDU3ZTk5YmI2OGE4NjE= So, should our planes shoot down theirs, or join them? . |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: You probably won't need to shoot down the Israeli planes - they're likely to fall out of the sky through a lack of fuel long before they get to Iran. Unless they plan to re-fuel in mid-air - a logistical disaster waiting to happen and a bad idea tactically. Operation Opera, the Israeli air attack on the Iraqi nuclear facility at Osirak was at the limit of their tactical range and relied heavily on speed. Iran's facilities are about twice that distance - refueling takes time and they'd have to do it twice. Plenty of time for the Iranian Air Force to prepare on the way there, and retaliate at leisure on the way back. Then you have to consider the flightpath the Israeli's would have to take to even get to Iran - there are only four viable routes. Jordan - Iraq - Iran Saudi Arabia - Iraq - Iran Saudi Arabia - Kuwait - Iran Saudi Arabia - across the Persian Gulf - Iran And the reverse coming back. The first one is out. It would violate the Jordanian\Israeli peace treaty and Jordan would almost certainly retaliate. That leaves three routes via Saudi Arabia. The Saudi's are unlikely to risk the almost certain retribution Iran would exact if they allowed Israli planes to use their airspace to attack Iran. All the above makes an air assault by Israel unlikely to happen and less likely to succeed even if it did. If Israel was stupid enough to try an air assault America would be well advised to stay well out of it. If they help Israel they'll lose whatever credibility they have left in the Middle East and Europe. If Israel overfly Iraq and the Americans sit back and let them the result will be exactly the same. A lose\lose situation. . |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. Could a one way mission work? I'm sure they have missiles; could they do that? I think the only thing that will stop them is the absolute impossibility of success. From their perspective they are seeking to avert annihilation and with a 2% approval Obama has nothing to say . . . I am convinced, if there's a way, they will do it. "Never Again" . . . . |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Huan Yi, I notice that diplomacy was the first thing you leaped to consider. The possibility that Israel might actually have to do some diplomatic work and negotiation rather than put it's alliance with the United States to aggressive and not necessarily fully US sanctioned use, seems unworthy of your consideration? That puts Israel in an uncommonly fragile sort of dependency with the United States without having developed an alternative strategy for survival. How smart is that for them as a matter of national policy? How smart is it for us as a matter of US policy to permit this to happen. You can see at this point at least the ugly spectre of the sort of end game this sort of scenario implies. Grinch has sketched it above. You, John, are making indirect reference to it by avoiding all mention of any non-military options. You are in the process of offering a choice of methods of suicide for Israel, Hmmm? Should it be nuclear fire? Slow starvation by blockade? Biological attack? Chemical weapons? Maybe Israel should start it first? Take a deep breath, give your head a shake or two, and consider how to marshall some diplomatic solutions here that don't end with beautiful glowing sunsets and no population in the area for the next thousand years or so. Words first. What are the issues that can be talked out. Put down the guns and step away from the heated rhetoric, and figure out what can be done to keep everybody breathing for the foreseeable future. What do these people have in common? Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
The maximum range of an F16 is about 3800 kilometres, that's at cruising speed; at combat speeds you could almost halve that. The Iranian border is around 1700 kilometres as the crow flies and the latest atomic facility close to a 1000 kilometres further into Iran. They'd struggle to even get close without refuelling and they'd need a miracle to get back, even if they did what would they gain? If Iran is intent on producing atomic weapons they're unlikely to have a single facility - they'd need several to produce enough weapons grade material. If you take out one it's likely to make them escalate production not slow it down and what do you think they're going to do with the first one off the production line? Could Israel use missiles? The Jericho III certainly has the range but not the precision guidance system to target such a small site. They could pop a 350 - 750 kilogram nuclear warhead on it and put it somewhere in the ballpark but that's not likely to go down well with anyone. Not to mention the senseless irony of trying to stop the use of nuclear weapons by launching one. It's all pretty pointless though. The reality is that Iran has had the capability of producing nuclear weapons for at least 30 years and the ability to procure them for at least 20 - if they really want them you can bet your bottom dollar they already have them. Knocking out one facility isn't going to result in anything but grief for Israel. . |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Oh I think engineering a strike against Iran is just the thing we need. That way, instead of the population being nearly up in arms against its' leadership -- they'd all galvanize together against US! Brilliant! |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. I think the US will have little to say about it. If Israel determines a nuclear weaponed Iran an existential threat then they will act. What other choice after 1939-45 do they have. . |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Diplomacy. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: I don't buy that particular argument, for the same reason I don't buy the excuse that some paedophiles abuse children because, as children, they were themselves abused. So what. It's a lamentable fact that lots of people were abused when they were young yet the majority of them manage to choose not to inflict the same thing on another human being. One heinous act doesn't excuse another in my book, if the Israelis choose to kill Iranians it's because they choose to kill Iranians - period. The fact that 65 years ago Germans killed Jews isn't a valid excuse to kill Iranians or Arabs, the Jewish nation has grown up since 1945, or should have. What choice do they have? They can choose not to become the thing they hate - that would be a good start. . |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. "They can choose not to become the thing they hate - that would be a good start." And die instead? Didn't they try that the first time? . |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: The first time? The Iranians aren't the Germans Huan, the Germans aren't even the Germans who were responsible for the Holocaust, the world has moved on and Israel needs recognise that fact. Israel are easily capable of defending themselves, and well within their rights to do so, the key word there being defending. The minute Israel decides that a strike first philosophy is the best course they become the closest thing to the 1940's Germany that the world has seen. Despite the melodramatic rhetoric and the threats of Iranian leaders, threats manufactured largely for a domestic audience that expects and demands no less, Iran is about as likely to launch a nuclear attack against Israel as Israel is against Iran. In fact probably less likely. . |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. "Despite the melodramatic rhetoric and the threats of Iranian leaders, threats manufactured largely for a domestic audience that expects and demands no less, Iran is about as likely to launch a nuclear attack against Israel as Israel is against Iran. In fact probably less likely." "In fact probably less likely." Why? If instead they chose to dominate the Middle East and its oil with the threat would that be acceptable? . |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear John, Perhaps you didn't hear the word "diplomacy" because it didn't add extra gasoline to the fire? For a man who doesn't like to hear about people dying in combat, you seem remarkably deaf to options mentioned that lead to solutions other that shots being fired, or that lead to fewer shots being fired that might be exchanged otherwise — should there ever exist some way of measuring that desirable outcome. Are you so fixated on how to counter the perception of threat with military force that you won't even respond to the suggestion of diplomacy being used twice in the same thread? This suggests that you have forgotten your Clauswitz. Not that you need necessarily subscribe; some folks don't. War is the extension of diplomacy by other means. Many people would suggest that one would do well in terms of lives, materiel, treasure, position and power to explore and then exhaust the options of diplomacy before embarking on the other means, and that the options of diplomacy be applied fairly and judiciously. I would be one of those people. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Recent history might suggest that the middle east might have more immediate worries for who might wish to take control of it's oil than those countries under whose soil that oil likes. As a hint, those countries might include some with the same initials as The Union of South Africa, but excluding that particular nation. And whose troops might have been actively involved in ground combat in that area over the past few years. Not to put too much of a point on it. And who already have nuclear weapons and have made not so hidden threats about using them in the area, as when some nukes went missing down if Florida a few years back and Vice President Cheney had words to say. If the area had nations to worry about, I would put that country I mentioned on the list, though perhaps a bit lower on the list now than less than a year ago. Since we might be talking about countries who had said, at the time, that they were willing to use first strike capability should they feel threatened, whatever that meant to them at the time. Perhaps because we have an unshakable notion of ourselves a good guys — at least some of us, including myself, much of the time — it may be difficult to understand that others need not share that perception, especially when we don't always act like good guys in the eyes of others. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Well John, You may not think we have a lot to say about it -- but I think you may be wrong: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_aid_to_Israel.gif http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_%E2%80%93_United_States_relations#United_States_military_and_economic_aid |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. I'm still waiting to read why Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his Guard would not eventually offensively use the bomb once they have it . . .Fear of death? . |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
And I would like to know why you wouldn't use that third wish on the funny lamp you have to rain destruction on every muslim you don't like. I suspect the answers may have a lot in common. You don't have the lamp, and Iran doesn't have the bomb. And you still want to talk about stuff that doesn't have anything to do with diplomacy. Granted reality and the limited options it gives us to deal with are less fascinating than the unlimited grounds and vistas of pure fantasy, but it also gives us a somewhat more hopeful possibility for a resolution that is less than catastrophic. We may have some possibility for affecting outcome of events diplomatically. We would actually have to negotiate with Israel and Iran and other nations. We would actually need to define what we find to be an acceptable outcome. We need to speak about these things we Iran, with Israel and with our various allies and with other players in the area. Who do you identify these folks as being , John? What goals do your think would be appropriate? |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: How about fear of god? Launching a nuclear strike towards the two most holy sites in the Islamic world isn't likely to go down too well with the all-powerful one, or Muslims worldwide, including the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Why is he so important? Well he happens to be the supreme leader of Iran - he's the bloke that tells Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Iranian Guard when to jump, where to jump and how high to jump and Ali, supposedly, gets his orders from him upstairs. It'd be like the Pope sanctioning the nuking of Rome If that weren't enough Israel would almost certainly retaliate and their nuclear capability, although not openly declared, is generally accepted to be significantly larger than anything Iran might possess. quote: How exactly would that work? Iran has 10% of the world's oil, in the Middle East only Saudi Arabia produces more oil and Saudi Arabia have been listening to Iranian threats that have never materialised for years. Why would they suddenly capitulate in the face of another? Not convincing enough? OK. What about geography a meteorology? When the nuclear reactor at Chernobyl went bang the sheep 2200 miles away in Wales were contaminated by the radioactive fallout carried by the prevailing winds, to such an extent they weren't safe to eat. Iran is 220 miles away from Saudi Arabia, and, contrary to what people may say, the Iranians certainly know which way the wind blows.  |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. "Launching a nuclear strike towards the two most holy sites in the Islamic world isn't likely to go down too well with the all-powerful one, or Muslims worldwide, including the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei." Have you read or heard anyone of authority in Islam say as much? Does this then protect Israel from an offensive strike? I don't believe fear of death works in this situation. . . |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Really? That's odd. The Israelis do, and so does the US. If they didn't they wouldn't be spending all that time and money building up a nuclear deterrent. It's going to be a heck of a shock when you tell them that they're wasting their time and money, I suggest you get them to sit down before you tell them and have some brandy ready - they're likely to need it. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. Grinch, And Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his Guard? (You knew who I'm writing about . . . Please . . .) I think they are of a kind that already proves a contempt for death in pursuit of killing others now at least once a week. PS: "Have you read or heard anyone of authority in Islam say as much? Does this then protect Israel from an offensive strike?" . |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Launching a nuclear strike towards the two most holy sites in the Islamic world isn't likely to go down too well with the all-powerful one, or Muslims worldwide, including the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Why is he so important? Well he happens to be the supreme leader of Iran - he's the bloke that tells Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Iranian Guard when to jump, where to jump and how high to jump and Ali, supposedly, gets his orders from him upstairs. It'd be like the Pope sanctioning the nuking of Rome quote: Who are "they"? PS quote: No and I'm not likely to either, that's the thing about threats and deterrents - if you tell people you don't really mean what you say they become pretty useless. PSS quote: No, it just makes an Iranian offensive strike unlikely, which is a very good argument against Israel launching their own offensive strike. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. “Who are "they"?” “Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his Guard?” But you knew that . . . . |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: If by this you mean they are of a kind who convert OTHERS to strap on bombs and walk into marketplaces -- then -- you're right. This, however, shows nothing fearless on the part of the 'leaders' does it? My suspicion is that they are adamantly against their own death -- to the point they would hide in a hole in the ground if they had to. I maintain that it is our 'friends' who pose the real nuclear threat to the world: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2188324.stm And I don't think it's wise to misunderstand a culture that "loves death more than [we] love life". But the fact that there are so damn many of them alive sort of undermines the real credibility of that threat. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: Jerusalem is somewhat lower on the list of sites than two in Saudi Arabia. The Al Aqsa mosque is built on the site where Mohammed ascended into heaven. Muslims are required to make a pilgrimage to Mecca, which is considered the most holy place in Islam. I believe Medina is considered the second. I also believe that your understanding of the power structure in Iran is incorrect. The Politics of Iran entry in Wikipedia includes the following entry: quote: You might consider checking it out for yourself. You might consider paying some attention to the part that talks about how it is the leader who appoints the military commanders. The leader is not Mahmoud Ahmadinejad; Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is The President, and is subordinate to the leader, who is Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Or, as the article says, "The Constitution defines the President as the highest state authority after the Supreme Leader." Let me be more explicit, again from the article, which is not as far as I can tell slanted to the right or to the left, but is biased in the direction of offering facts. The article says, "Unlike many other states, the executive branch in Iran does not control the armed forces." Somebody has given you, John, the impression, that the President of Iran seems to have his finger on a button with nuclear weapons connected to the other side of them. The facts suggest that The President of Iran may have his hands and his mouth in a lot of places, but he is not constitutionally allowed to his his hand on any nuclear button. Nor, for that matter is he allowed to have his finger on any military button. He is allowed some police powers and some judicial powers, but even those are apparently supervised. While you have been eagerly pushing Mr. Krauthammer's chair up and down the local hills, and he has been giving you sage advice, he has apparently been forgetting to give you basic information at the same time. Mr. Ahmadinejad does have some power around treaties, those are part of his constitutional powers, and he apparently has exercised his heaven sent right to be annoying. Iran may get nuclear power, and they may get nuclear weapons, but if you're thinking that Ahmadinejad is the guy that we need to be seeing as holding the cap gun on the other side of the playground here, I suspect that this is probably not the case. Nor is the hand being played likely to be the one that he's laying out. But of course, the ways of finding out the missing information — intelligence work and diplomacy — are things that you've been doggedly avoiding in discussion. As though getting blown up or getting our friends and allies blown up were something that you'd rather endure first. For a man who gets upset at eight soldiers getting killed in one day, I find this confusing. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: I also knew that Mahmoud and the Guard get their orders from someone else, which is why I posted this: Launching a nuclear strike towards the two most holy sites in the Islamic world isn't likely to go down too well with the all-powerful one, or Muslims worldwide, including the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Why is he so important? Well he happens to be the supreme leader of Iran - he's the bloke that tells Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Iranian Guard when to jump, where to jump and how high to jump and Ali, supposedly, gets his orders from him upstairs. It'd be like the Pope sanctioning the nuking of Rome But you knew that.. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. "I also knew that Mahmoud and the Guard get their orders from someone else, which is why I posted this: Launching a nuclear strike towards the two most holy sites in the Islamic world isn't likely to go down too well with the all-powerful one, or Muslims worldwide, including the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Why is he so important? Well he happens to be the supreme leader of Iran - he's the bloke that tells Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Iranian Guard when to jump, where to jump and how high to jump and Ali, supposedly, gets his orders from him upstairs. It'd be like the Pope sanctioning the nuking of Rome But you knew that.." What makes you believe Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is any less Apocalyptic? Further you are absolutely the first one I've ever heard suggest that the direction of attack could somehow be a deterrent. Again and specifically, does this apply to an offensive attack against Israel? I don't recall this brought up against Saddam when he fired missiles at Israel during the war, (in which Israel had not attacked him). . . . |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: Dear John, I don’t like the President of Iran. I hope I’ve made that clear. I find his speech incontinent and offensive in many ways. About Israel and its right to exist, he does seem Apocalyptic, though I’d have to check the details to make sure that my memory isn’t being swayed by my dislike for the man in general. I don’t know if these memories are accurate if they extend further. Apocalypse is not a local phenonenon, but a world wide one. More Apocalyptic or less Apocalyptic isn’t a very real distinction; the world is gone or it isn’t. I don’t know if Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is any less Apocalyptic. If you do know, please be specific about this, because I would like to know as well. How do you know this? Where did you learn it? The word you actually use in your quote above is not “know,” which is of course the word which interests me. This means information and proof from reliable sources. The word you used is “believe.” Belief does not require fact to rest on a firm foundation. Belief may be in fact the standard which you require. I am actually requesting facts and knowledge based on facts, not opinion and inferrence. I would also be interested in knowing if the Ayatollah is more Apocalyptic. Since you appear to have access to this sort of information, I’d like to know that as well. And the crux of your question is, it appears, the “What makes you?” part. That would seem to be a request for sources. Am I correct in my understanding that you have reason to believe that the Ayatollah is as “Apocalyptic” as The President of Iran? What statements has he made, what positions has he taken as leader of the country that give that impression? I confess I know of none, which certainly doesn’t mean there are none. quote: I’m not sure that I follow this. If you are talking about possession of nuclear weapons working as a deterrent against those who might wish to attack a nation, I would suggest that this is not new military doctrine. This is what was the underpinning of the strategy of mutually assured destruction — the deterrent was against a first strike. The retalliation could well destroy those who started the conflict. If you are talking about the nature of the targets being religious, then I think you may not be thinking the matter through. Nuclear attack on Israel is still possible, as is chemical and biological attack.. However when the target is Jerusalem, you target — as a Muslim — yourself as much as Jews. A ground attack, yes, and it’s been done, but the city is honeycombed with sites that are holy to Muslims as well as Jews, not to mention your occasional Christian. quote: It would depend on what kind of offensive attack it was against Israel. I don’t recall all the details of the first Gulf War. I do remember attacks were made against Tel Aviv and some other locations. I do not recall that there were attacks against Jerusalem. You may recall there were also attacks against Saudi Arabia. You may also forget that Saddam Hussein was not a very religious guy. He could put it on, but he was pretty much a secularist. He didn’t care. Israel was just a bunch of Jews to him; and, for the most part, everybody hated the Jews. Saddam was an equal opportunity heap of garbage, and that’s the way he thought. It is an issue now because there is the possibility of a nuclear exchange. You can rebuild or clean up after an army, mostly. Three-headed kids are something else. Not being able to go to the Al Aqsa Mosque to pray is something else. Killing millions of Palastinians as well as millions of Jews is something else. The Egyptians and the Jordanians and the Syrians saw what happened in Russia from one reactor going bad. Having a bunch of bombs go off in the middle of the territory and having fallout spread all around the area is something else indeed. As Ricky Riccardo was wont to say, “Lucy, you got a lot of ‘splainin’ to do!” So, whatever else you think, and whatever the good logic of those thoughts, I’d suggest you might keep some of those thoughts in mind as well, to whatever extent you find they have any pragmatism and sense to them. And of course, pragmatism and sense aren’t always the things that govern. I need to keep that in mind. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
John, The estimated population of Iran is 65,875,224. The estimated population of Israel is 7.4 million. Do the math. Forget Nukes. What's keeping Iran's 66 million people from just picking up sticks and stones, walking across Syria and into Israel, and just beating the tar out of its' 7.4 million citizens? Something must be a deterrent? While it is true that the Islamic faith, and the brand practiced in Iran in particular, glorifies violence toward infidels -- it's pretty hard for any faith to fight against human nature (a theme often addressed by Marx) The Catholic Church, for example -- big on trying to suppress the whole sex drive thing -- but, gosh darn it -- they have those confessional booths for something don't they? Because Sex is FUN! The Christian Church in general -- the big guy's own words -- take everything you have, sell it, give the money to the poor. But, hey, what do Christians in this country want to talk about all the time? Capitalism! Because owning stuff is FUN! They'll try the camel through the eye of the needle instead please... So no matter how many virgins are waiting in paradise -- it's damn hard to try to beat that human instinct to survive -- Because staying alive is FUN! (ask John Travolta) There is one human instinct though, that is demonstrably more powerful than survival or sex, or owning stuff -- and that is revenge. You want to turn all 65 million Iranians into suicidal, homicidal fanatics? Bomb them. Ask Saddam Hussein. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2S_tQFdwKJI&feature=player_embedded |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. "What's keeping Iran's 66 million people from just picking up sticks and stones, walking across Syria and into Israel, and just beating the tar out of its' 7.4 million citizens?" Turkey, Iraq, a whole lot of dead ground, mountains and little fresh water . . . They'd just die without killing anyone but themselves. Nuked missles are easier. . |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Turkey? If Turkey is in their way they've taken a wrong turn or lost their satnav Huan. They could go by road from Piranshar, across the border into Iraq on route 3, pick up route 2 to Mosul then hop on route 1 all the way to the Syrian border. They'd then travel down the M4 and pick up the M1 to Dimashq and from there to Israel. But they won't. For the same reason they won't nuke Israel, which in all probability is the same reason they haven't launched a conventional missile strike despite having the capability, or a long-range bombing mission that they're also well capable of doing using Sukhoi Su-30 aircraft refueled in Syria. My guess is that they've made a conscious decision not to do any of the above Haun, either that or they really have simply mislaid their satnav. http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iran/missile/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-30 . |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
For whom? And what is your suggestion as a result of your conclusion? It sounds as though you are suggesting that the only way to deal with those bloodthirsty Iranian folks is to order a tidy pre-emptive first strike. And who better to do so than us just Americans? Please tell me that you aren't thinking thoughts along these lines, John. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
