This ought to fire you up - Page 2

The Avon Lady · 01-07-07, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kapitan_Phillips

Send someone in to watch them, see if they're really generating power

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

ASWnut101 · 01-07-07, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bradclark1

Quote:

Originally Posted by cobalt

yes for israel! lets start a global war!

So it would be okay with you for Iran to have The Bomb?

Hell Yeah! Then the USA could finally dust off some of its' Minute Men and Peacekeepers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaptain Phillips

Send someone in to watch them, see if they're really generating power

:rotfl:

PeriscopeDepth · 01-07-07, 04:08 PM

Is anybody really surprised such plans exist? It would be against common sense if Israel did not have plans ready to go for a situation requiring a nuclear attack on a country whose leader has threatened to remove them from the face of the earth multiple times.

PD

bradclark1 · 01-07-07, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CCIP

Now let me make it clear that I do NOT support this "yay nuke" thing. As per the plans, I only saw a tactical bunker-busting weapon being suggested, which I would find acceptable since it serves a military purpose. "Nuke Iran" or "blahblahblah infidels" does not sound right at all.

What it does is open the taboo door to using nukes. Who is to say what an acceptable use of nukes are? Once you use one it will be easier for someone else to use one etc, etc.
Having said that I really don't see a choice but to use one if that is the only feasible option.

Quote:

I would find acceptable since it serves a military purpose.

Is there any other purpose?

joea · 01-07-07, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bradclark1

Quote:

Originally Posted by joea

I don't

2 were enough.

This is a damned if you do and damned if you don't scenario. If you don't do anything Iran has the bomb and that is really frightening. Their bomb making capabilities are beyond conventional munitions capabilities, so what do you do?

You really think deterrence won't work? Amejinethingamajig doesn't seem stable but I think a lot is show.

ASWnut101 · 01-07-07, 04:16 PM

depends on the type of deterrence.

shoot him with facts about how using nukes will destroy the world? No.

Fire a minuteman at him, but change the payload to some dud hunks of metal and target the areas around Tehran, his nuke plant, and his house? That can prove a very good point.

deterrence from a bunch of pansies throwing facts at him just will not get the job done.

Quote:

Amejinethingamajig

try to pronounce this.

geetrue · 01-07-07, 05:04 PM

Israel rejects report it may attack Iran's...

This was on my net zero start up page when I got home from church ...

I don't know if Israel would do to Iran what they did to Iraq in 1981, but can you imagine the pictures news services would show if Israel did attack Iran.

Civilian populations nearby wiped out or at least skin blisters, blind people crying, bodies of little children, women without their head scares crying and screaming.

Not good public relations for a country the UN and President Truman authorized almost 60 years ago next year to be a nation under it's own rules.

World opinion would turn against them and they would be the country with UN restrictions while Iran figures out a way to get even.

Iran's nuclear ambitions are to generate fear, not for first strike issues.

They know they would be wiped off the map to be the first to use nuclear weapons.

What that ex-mayor of Tehran has done is generate fear, because he is guided by the ruling muslim preist or whatever they call themselves.

It's just plain old fear ...

Faith and fear are a lot alike ...

In the small amount of time that it takes to replace each other ...

Click ...

They are just alike

cobalt · 01-07-07, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bradclark1

Quote:

Originally Posted by cobalt

yes for israel! lets start a global war!

So it would be okay with you for Iran to have The Bomb?

I don't think anybody should have the bomb.

and is it israels job to say who does and doesnt?

TteFAboB · 01-07-07, 05:51 PM

Why not just drop more bunker-busters and keep dropping them untill the facility must stop working because of the random crumblings?

A tactical nuke sounds like the easy way out. I say the IAF and the USAF join forces with anybody else interested to do 24h bunker-buster bombing on these facilities. Remember WW2? Remember Bomber Command? The IAF attacks during daylight, the USAF floods the night with B-2's, B-1's, F-117's if there's still any left and whatever else.

After a few days the facilities will have to halt production because it's only a matter of time untill all corridors and rooms collapse on top of anybody inside. No reason to leave the infrastructure leading to the place intact either. Bomb the roads, railways, powerlines, send in SpecOps to sabotage the water line and shut it down.

Well, this plan would be far more expensive but who cares? I'm e-mailing it to the Pentagon.

bradclark1 · 01-07-07, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cobalt

I don't think anybody should have the bomb.

I agree but reality doesn't.

Quote:

and is it israels job to say who does and doesnt?

If someone held a gun and kept saying you and your family should be wiped off the face of the earth, would you wait to see if he was bluffing?

bradclark1 · 01-07-07, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TteFAboB

Why not just drop more bunker-busters and keep dropping them untill the facility must stop working because of the random crumblings?

A tactical nuke sounds like the easy way out. I say the IAF and the USAF join forces with anybody else interested to do 24h bunker-buster bombing on these facilities. Remember WW2? Remember Bomber Command? The IAF attacks during daylight, the USAF floods the night with B-2's, B-1's, F-117's if there's still any left and whatever else.

After a few days the facilities will have to halt production because it's only a matter of time untill all corridors and rooms collapse on top of anybody inside. No reason to leave the infrastructure leading to the place intact either. Bomb the roads, railways, powerlines, send in SpecOps to sabotage the water line and shut it down.

Well, this plan would be far more expensive but who cares? I'm e-mailing it to the Pentagon.

You would have to beat the Russians telephone call to Iran and by the time you got there everything would have been moved so you are just bombing empty facilities.

fatty · 01-07-07, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joea

You really think deterrence won't work? Amejinethingamajig doesn't seem stable but I think a lot is show.

I agree.

I'd bet the Iranian government will not wave their nuclear stick much more if/when they acquire the bomb. They'd be quite aware that a good deal of American nuclear weapons will be pointed squarely at them and, more importantly, their people. I think there are still lots of Iranians who aren't interested in being vapourized by a nuclear counter-strike just yet, even if it means erasing Israel.

And of course, we all know that revolution has happened before in Iran.:hmm:

This article was a step in the right direction - reminding Iranians of the consequences for going nuclear.

baggygreen · 01-07-07, 08:35 PM

Im all for it - provided there is a constant flow of diplomatic pressure on. Yes, i know that it wont count for jack etc, but you've got to be seen to be doing the right thing before taking such a step.

bradclark1 · 01-07-07, 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joea

You really think deterrence won't work? Amejinethingamajig doesn't seem stable but I think a lot is show.

Amejinethingamajig is nothing but a set of lips for the religious leadership.
He doesn't speak without having the words put in his mouth by those nut jobs.

baggygreen · 01-07-07, 10:59 PM

And lets not forget that these nutjobs are the same ones who devote their lives to destroying anythign that doesnt fit exactly into what they deem is 'right'.

In short, they'll kill you given half a chance, without any hesitation. not to mention think they're guaranteeing themselves their virgins for it.

01-07-07, 05:04 PM	#22
geetrue Cold War Boomer Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Walla Walla Posts: 2,837 Downloads: 5 Uploads: 0	Israel rejects report it may attack Iran's... This was on my net zero start up page when I got home from church ... I don't know if Israel would do to Iran what they did to Iraq in 1981, but can you imagine the pictures news services would show if Israel did attack Iran. Civilian populations nearby wiped out or at least skin blisters, blind people crying, bodies of little children, women without their head scares crying and screaming. Not good public relations for a country the UN and President Truman authorized almost 60 years ago next year to be a nation under it's own rules. World opinion would turn against them and they would be the country with UN restrictions while Iran figures out a way to get even. Iran's nuclear ambitions are to generate fear, not for first strike issues. They know they would be wiped off the map to be the first to use nuclear weapons. What that ex-mayor of Tehran has done is generate fear, because he is guided by the ruling muslim preist or whatever they call themselves. It's just plain old fear ... Faith and fear are a lot alike ... In the small amount of time that it takes to replace each other ... Click ... They are just alike __________________ Last edited by geetrue; 01-23-07 at 11:07 PM.

01-07-07, 05:51 PM	#24
TteFAboB Admiral Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 2,247 Downloads: 4 Uploads: 0	Why not just drop more bunker-busters and keep dropping them untill the facility must stop working because of the random crumblings? A tactical nuke sounds like the easy way out. I say the IAF and the USAF join forces with anybody else interested to do 24h bunker-buster bombing on these facilities. Remember WW2? Remember Bomber Command? The IAF attacks during daylight, the USAF floods the night with B-2's, B-1's, F-117's if there's still any left and whatever else. After a few days the facilities will have to halt production because it's only a matter of time untill all corridors and rooms collapse on top of anybody inside. No reason to leave the infrastructure leading to the place intact either. Bomb the roads, railways, powerlines, send in SpecOps to sabotage the water line and shut it down. Well, this plan would be far more expensive but who cares? I'm e-mailing it to the Pentagon. __________________ "Tout ce qui est exagéré est insignifiant." ("All that is exaggerated is insignificant.") - Talleyrand

01-07-07, 04:08 PM	#18
PeriscopeDepth Sea Lord Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Pacific NW Posts: 1,894 Downloads: 6 Uploads: 0	Is anybody really surprised such plans exist? It would be against common sense if Israel did not have plans ready to go for a situation requiring a nuclear attack on a country whose leader has threatened to remove them from the face of the earth multiple times. PD

01-07-07, 08:35 PM	#28
baggygreen Sea Lord Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Canberra, ACT, Down Under (really On Top) Posts: 1,880 Downloads: 7 Uploads: 0	Im all for it - provided there is a constant flow of diplomatic pressure on. Yes, i know that it wont count for jack etc, but you've got to be seen to be doing the right thing before taking such a step.

01-07-07, 10:59 PM	#30
baggygreen Sea Lord Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Canberra, ACT, Down Under (really On Top) Posts: 1,880 Downloads: 7 Uploads: 0	And lets not forget that these nutjobs are the same ones who devote their lives to destroying anythign that doesnt fit exactly into what they deem is 'right'. In short, they'll kill you given half a chance, without any hesitation. not to mention think they're guaranteeing themselves their virgins for it.