Iran and the bomb

[Skybird]

No. These points above may or may not hold ground, it does not matter, what matters is what they acchieve: self-paralysis.

When I mean you not well and have proven that since years and decades, and I hold a pistol in my hand, and start raising the arm to point it at you, and you do not make me stop that movement before I completed it, then you are - sorry, stupid. Not rational, not moral, not reasonable, not moderate, but simply stupid.

And the risk goes beyond war. It includes the risk of proliferating bomb-capable nuclear material to Islamic terror groups.

The West shies away form the unwelcomed conclusion since twenty years. Europe has given up on keeping Iran form beign nuclear armed, and did so long time ago already. But what is about America, Israel, the Arabs? Turkey?

Nothing but troubles with nuclear Iran. Nothing but steeply risen risks and dangers. Heck, I would prefer a nuclear armed Iraq to a nuclear Iran.

[Jimbuna]

Israel in particular is a good example but is it not reasonable that the likes of Iran fear an attack from them?

[Skybird]

Again, completely wrong question.



I cannot say it any clearer than I already have.

[mapuc]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Again, completely wrong question.



I cannot say it any clearer than I already have.

Can't get following out of my mind-After having read your comments.

As soon Iran has built a few nukes-they will put them on ballistic missile and send these towards Israel and perhaps 1 or 2 against Saudi-Arabia.

Markus

[Catfish]

Just a thought.
If no one cares to attack a country that has the bomb there are two ideas:
1. Do not let them get the bomb.
2. If they have it and act like madmen, bomb them into oblivion.
The latter would apply to North Korea and Russia, now.

[Skybird]

“To be or not to be is not a question of compromise. Either you be or you don't be.” - Golda Meir.

Nuclear deterring an enemy who has nukes like you but in other regards is more primitive and poorer than you, does not work - because you have more to lose than him. Or does anyone think trading the annihilation of New York or Los Angeles can be calculated against the annihilation of Pyong Yang? For somebody who really, truly hates the West/the US, such a trade must sound like a bargain.

Not letting the other have/getting nukes is the only way to go. Regarding Iran, I am of this opinion since twenty years and longer, since I was there.

Also, additional to proliferation it is another risk involved, and that is the risk of an uncontrolled nuclear arms race, and that in a madhouse of this planet where religious fanatism rules and generations- and centuries-old open bills remain unsettled. Lousy idea to accept that happening - very lousy idea.

Leasing his quote from Golda Meir again, slightly altering it: "Peace will come when the others will love their children more than they hate us.”

But what about the unscrupolous governments at the top of a country's hierarchy? They do not care for the people they rule. We can see that clearly in Iran. That government kills its people. Or does the fascist government in Russia care for its own people? Does that of North Korea?

Russia and north Korea we cannot prevent from getting nukes anymore, but both mean trouble, especially proliferation of nuclear technology from NK. We still can prevent Iran, to not allow another evil being added to the world. If we always just tolerate all the monsters being bred in the world, then one day the crowd under our bed becomes unignorable, and one night we are eaten in our sleep.

I really think we should bomb those key installations back into the stone age, we shoudl have done that already 10 years ago, 15 years, with doing all what is needed to accheive that task. Just that. If that means to flatten a full mountain, then keep the bombs falling until it is no more, but is a hole in the ground. I think that since many years. Two wars of desire were launched by the West in the ME since 1991, plus one lets call it a war or reaction. Iran is an operation of need. Whether it turns into a lasting war, is up to Iran - but their nuclear program, the key installations and bomb material must be destroyed, their specialists killed.

The European Chamberlainism of past years over Iran was not helpful - except for the Iranian bomb program.

Bitter. We live in interesting times. Thats a Chinese curse: may you live in interesting times.

[mapuc]

I do understand we have to see it from the Israels point-of-view.

With a country(Iran) Who is fighting Israel by proxy(sending weapons to Hizbollah and other fraction who fight the Israelis)I would understand if Israel conduct a type of strike in Iran or perhaps It's USA who's going to do it.

Markus

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by mapuc

I do understand we have to see it from the Israels point-of-view.

And Europe's. Its not just the Israelis.

Iran however is too big and far away for Israel, I think they cannot do this all by themselves. The key installations are all buried deep into mountains now, thanks to the West who has given them the time to do that. You probably need several air waves to clean an aprppach ally intot he tasrghet areas, to supress air defence and air forces, and then drop nuke after nuke onto thes emo8ntains unto, they are flattened, so to speak.

Or, with an even greater political fallout, you drop one dirty bomb per location, toxifying the places for tens of thousands of years - and then risk they send suicide teams taking surviving equipment and material away, like the workers at Chernobyl got sacrified as well. I think the second scenario has the far greater political fallout - with the first already being "not nice".

Air Cav or commando operations I see no chance to succeed. So, no ground forces except special forces marking targets.