Question - Would the use of American nuclear bombs of Iranian soil guarantee a nuclear reprisal by a non-state group?

Seems like using nukes to knock out nukes both legitimises the use of nuclear weapons and invites responding attacks.

Would you happen to know of any non state groups that have access to nuclear weapons for sure?

And I don't think we'll be nuking Iran, anywho.

PD

Not at all, but I think a nuclear strike would act as an incentive to get one.

This is irrespective of the likelihood of nuclear release, the idea just occurred to me.

I dunno. I've always thought if it's something that groups who would actually use them (AQ type groups who've ALWAYS had an incentive to use them) could get, they'd have it by now with all that money and cunning. Perhaps the bombing of Iran would give certain states incentives to get these groups nukes to use as proxies? Is that what you're saying?

PD

Persian Gulf naval confrontation?
International sabre-rattling?
Invasion of Iran?
Possible use of nuclear weapons?

Oh poopie pants, I've seen this somewhere before. What is this reminding me of...?

http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0090163/

Oh crap. :dead::huh:

Counterquestion: can one safely assume that terrorists - whose declared intention is to terrorise and cause shock and awe - would not use nukes, if they get access to them? Terrorists have no nation they stand for, so they do not care for retaliation against such nations. If they are relgious nutheads, they even accept the martyr death of people of the faith they claim to act for. Trust in such people, counting on their reason, negotiating and having treaties with them? Yes - but only it that helps to kill them. Every trick and every lie is acceptable that helps to kill them and prevent them from committing mass murder.

I do not believe that anyone has the courage and cold unscrupelousness to use nukes selectively to take out key components of the Iranian program, and that is why I think that the West will ultimately fail on Iran. The success of a cinventional strike by the Israelis is hgighly quesitonable, at best, and some of their analysts said that themselves. This is not osiriak - this is mutliple times as difficult, and much bigger in scale. I know that with every state gaining access to nuclear technology, the risk that we see nukes being used in the future, by terrorists, and then by nations, becomes greater. You cannot really separate civilian use from milurtry use of nuclear technology. the more nations use civilian nuclear energy, the smaller the line becomes we walk on. I fear that before the end of ma natural lifetime we will see nukes being used. and then we will curse ourselves that we did not act with determination to prevent the spreading of nuclear technology at all costs. Not only does nuclear technology by far not solve climate issues, and does not do much in lowering energy costs (all that is myths if you only look beyond the aparrently obvious arguments that are not so solid at all, and check the rat-tail of additonal background conditions) - it's spreading and current revival is an invitation for nuclear terror, and later nuclear wars. the more nuke tech there is, the more countries are possessing it or having acces to it, the smaller the basis for our luck becomes. It is only a question of time then before we run out of luck.

Is that what our policies come down to: hoping that we will be lucky...?

I see the threat of nuclear technology today multiple times as dangerous as just some years ago. just two years ago I wrote in one of the first threats we had on Iran that "the use of nukes in any conflict with Iran is totally unacceptable". Yes, in more or less these words that was said by me. You see, the more I thought about the issues, Iran and civilian use nuclear technology as well, the more I saw myself in need to change my mind. The resulting conclusions are not that scenario I want the world to be. But what I want the world to be, and what the world really is - are two totally different things, unfortunately, and wishful thinking or hopes and prayers will not help anybody for better or worse. The world is just what it is, and that is the one world we have to deal with in this life. Another one we will not be given. maybe when we die, but that is worth a discussion in a separate threat.

The problems revolving around the nukes is that most country feel that the other countries (esp. USA / UK) which has nukes uses different ways to stop them having any, using so called Non proliferation treaties or whatsoever, and this makes them feel unfairly treated.

Even if they have nukes, well, they dare not strike anyway. Even if Iran got a nuke, she dare not strike Israel, nor USA, for fear of a nuclear respiral and international intervention. They don't want to give an excuse to USA to direct all her ballistic missiles to their little country, do they?

Any talks are fruitless unless additional benefit can be offered and this benefit > that offered by having a nuclear weapon. In this way, the problem can be solved at ease, like the case of N. Korea.

should we go to war with Iran, i say no...but it is known that Iran has sent weapons to assist insurgents in iran, you also have to take into account that if any nation were to go to war with iran immediately it would be Israel before the U.S. or U.K. could respond with military might...personally i think iran wants to just show like North Korea, that they "Think" they are big players in this world...remember several months ago they had those gunboats in the straight (the name i can't remember off the top of my head) their goal (or so we believe) was to have the Saudi's block the straight therefore no oil of us aka U.S. so i think Iran just wants the U.S. and Israel to hurt financially and economically...they saw how badly we (americans) mauled the Iraqi army, which is considered a 1st rate army due to they are able to transport their soldiers anywhere in da world so i don't think they would want to go to war wit us.

Having a few drinks with Ret. Lt. CMD R.H. Boehm we had a discussion about "world peace". I asked him if he thought we would ever see it. His reply to me was, "Are you kidding me? Look at the history of the human race, mankind will go to war over cultural issues, religion, turf, economy, you name it. How about in school wasn't there always a school bully or two? Did the bully quit bothering kids that were peace loving? No! This just inflames the instincts in man to take advantage over the weak as they see it. the only way to get the bully to stop is to punch his lights out. Works every time! No! We will never see world peace...."

I agree with Roy, and the situation in Iran will not be solved through diplomacy. However, I think it should be Israel's decision not America's to take out Iran's nuclear facilties. they did it before and they can do it again. Iran seems to harbor an "armageddon" view of it's role in the world. Which makes me believe that if they get the bomb, they will use the bomb in a most deleterious fashion. So, I do not think war with Iran is necessary, just a nice spanking my do the trick.:dead:

So here is my scenario of the possible consequences of an attack on Iran by either Israel or the US.

Once the attack begins, expect the Iranians to repond with an overwhelming anti-ship missle attack on the US Fifth fleet using waves of hundreds or Exocet, Sunburn and Yakhonts missles combined with Shkval torpedos launched from submarines and suicide speedboats. The Navy's own war games predicted a result of Naval casualties in the 20-30,000 range and vessel losses in excess of 75%. At the same time, look for the Iranians to close the Hormuz Straits with similar attacks on any vessel attempting transit, driving oil prices to $3-400/bbl and $20-30/gal for gas. If Iran's ballistic missle arsenal doesn't have the range, expect Hezbollah to launch massive rocket attacks with conventional, chemical and biological warheads on Israel proper. While all this is going on, expect China, Russia, and Iran to dump their dollar holdings en masse triggering both hyperinflation and economic collapse in the US. Other OPEC members will also be forced to dump their dollar holdings as well, accelerating the US economic collapse. The Shi'ite population of Iraq will rise up against US forces there, trapping them in Iraq as the Iranian Army moves across the Shat-al-Arab and taking Basra leaving the only escape route through Kurdistan into Turkey for US forces there. This will leave the Bush administration no choice but to use nuclear weapons against Iran, triggering a general war with the Islamic world, the collapse of the Pakistani government and giving al-qaeda in Pakistan the very access to Nuclear weapons the Iran attack was supposed to forestall.

Quote:

Originally Posted by U-84 should we go to war with Iran, i say no...but it is known that Iran has sent weapons to assist insurgents in iran,

You mean Iraq?;)

But even then, that couldn't be farther from the truth. General Kevin Bergner in Iraq said himself that there has actually been no evidence acquired to link Bush's accusations of the insurgents receiving weapons to Iran.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lM-3pyeG6UI

Quote:

Originally Posted by U-84 personally i think iran wants to just show like North Korea, that they "Think" they are big players in this world...

Well, they are actually a major society in the world and they are actually pretty powerful. They've got us by the balls in oil imports, and if they decided to quit giving us the oil and shift their trade focus to Russia, their ally, it would cause oil here in the US to skyrocket to over $250 A BARREL.

Quote:

Originally Posted by U-84 they saw how badly we (americans) mauled the Iraqi army, which is considered a 1st rate army due to they are able to transport their soldiers anywhere in da world so i don't think they would want to go to war wit us.

Well, one of the only real reasons why the Iraqi army was "mauled" was due to the fact that Hussein's soldiers really weren't as dedicated to him as he thought. They were not impressed by his strict rule, and they really didn't give a damn what happened to him. In fact, hardly any were killed. Most surrendered.

And President Ahmadinejad himself has stated that the last thing he wants between Iran and the United States is war... what makes me laugh so hard though is how John McCain even claimed that President Ahmadinejad had said he wanted to "wipe Israel off the map", which is actually WRONG. He said, and I quote:

"The Imam [Khomeini] said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time."

Or in other words wipe [the nation of} ISRAEL off the map. Same thing really.

of course, war is necessary to keep our Military Industrial Complex alive.
It is a source of income for many you know.

I think the point is that he does believe in it, and that's often how belief becomes reality.