miked10270 0 #26 February 7, 2006 Quote The big fallacy of your thinking here is it takes only a handful of Iranians (islamic militants) to pull off a terrorist plan... - But these "handful of Terrorists" have to get the bomb material FROM THE STATE! With permission from national leaders who want to continue to lead their nation... Or would settle for there continuing to be a nation! Would the Iranian State REALLY give nuclear materiel to terrorists and send them on their merry way knowing the certain consequences? Remember that the intrinsic "Atomic-Weapon-Threat" cuts both ways - Remember the American / Western doctrine on WMD response. In particular the position that atomic terrorism is ipso-facto state sponsored! Thus far, terrorist organisations have been singularly unsuccessful in obtaining atomic weapons. Nations tend to be a bit jealous about guarding them! Also, remember that America's "Considered" response to the destruction of 2 buildings was the invasion & subjurgation of 2 entire countries (so far)! We can realistically imagine America's (or indeed ANY atomic power's) JUSTIFIABLE response to an act of atomic terrorism! It's called MAD! Like I said, The leader of an atomic power has NEVER initiated a pre-emptive strike. What has happened (EVERY time since 1945) is that the nation has tended to become more moderate instead. What's to say that Iran would be any different from Britain, Russia, China, France, Israel, Pakistan, India, Taiwan, South Africa....? Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,113 #27 February 7, 2006 Quote We are not dealing with people who are rational in at all the same way we think of ourselves as being. - Irony score 9.8 ... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #28 February 7, 2006 There's always the alleged "suitcase nukes" that have gone missing from the former U.S.S.R.'s arsenal. And there is always the Black Market... You are really confident that just because it doesn't seem that Iran would give its terrorists a nuke that the terrorists who want to make the ultimate strike at the West will never be able to get one? And what if Iran gave its terrorists a nuke in a way where it could not be detected who gave it to them? And they detonate it far from Iran. Who exactly would we use our retaliatory nukes against? --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanuckInUSA 0 #29 February 7, 2006 Quote Right now they have every reason to be pissed at the us Without a doubt the muslims have every right to be unhappy with the US and many of the US's allies for the shit which has gone on over the years. But that doesn't give them a free ticket to become violent without expecting some consequences for their actions. The events over this latest incident are really starting to show the "hatred" many muslims have towards the rest of the world (especially the west). It seems that the more the Europeans apologize about these cartoons, the more violent the muslims become. When will it ever end? I'm guessing that it will only end once the radical muslims get their way and get their Jihad they so desperately want to start. What kind of world do you want to live in? A free world where people are free to make their own decision on how they lead their lives, or a world where religion dictates what does and doesn't happen. Do you want to live in a world where you're subjected to violence only because you're different from the majority? I thought/hoped we were going away from that world, but thanks to these recent events, instead of coming together we're becoming more and more distanced. What's going to happen if/when these radicals get their Jihad? Well I can tell you that there will be a backlash towards muslims living in non-muslim parts of the world and innocent people will suffer because of this (losing their homes, their businesses, some getting deported, some being killed). This is not the world I want to see, but it is the world many radical muslims are pushing us towards only because they hate the infidel. I know this is stereo-typing (and I want you to know that I do like you Darius and do think it's good to have someone around here to give us the Muslim view point), but what the fuck is wrong with some of you muslims? Why are you guys so violent and why do you disrespect life so much? We're on a collision course with "armagedon" if we as humans don't get our act together. Once one radical group gets their hands on some nukes watch out. Why should these radicals care if they blow up the world since they believe they are going to paradise anyway? The problem is, is that I don't believe in the Muslim/Judeo/Christian God yet it's these Muslims/Jews and Christians who are going to kill us all because of their fucked up religious beliefs. Newsflash: There may or may not be a creator, but I assure you he/she/it is not the man-made God humans have invented. Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
miked10270 0 #30 February 7, 2006 Quote Quote As far as delivery systems goes - then I'd expect Iran to have a limited range delivery system.... So let them have nukes, but control how far they can shoot them? That's already done - Atomic weapons are now a fairly complex engineering challenge. Long range delivery systems are effectively a spin-off from a full blown space program (or is that the other way around?). Iran is NOT going to have a capability to deliver atomic weapons further than around 100 miles (Scud-Range). Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
miked10270 0 #31 February 7, 2006 I think that we already discussed the "Fedex-Bomb" scenario. the alleged "Suitcase-Nukes" that allegedly went missing & never ever turned up? Even Joseph One death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic Stalin wouldn't countenance the use of nukes! A nuke ISN'T "just another weapon" It ISN'T just a "Bigger-Better-Bomb". It's a massive change of policy from "attack" to "national suicide". Will terrorists ever get an atomic weapon? I don't know, but I'd say it's unlikely. Of course some terrorist may one day steal a bomb, maybe an American one. The real question: "Will Iran make (several) atomic weapons and then give one or more to terrorists?" No way! That's tantamount to national suicide. Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michele 1 #32 February 7, 2006 Mike, I genuinely enjoy your discussions/arguments. After reading through your posts here, I've got a question or two for you. ~Is not Iran one of the most active state sponsors of terrorism there is? is there not a significant track record of them providing arms and money to those who would see the west harmed for their cause? I think that they would not hesitate to "lose" a nuke (ala the suitcase nukes via the USSR...) and provide it to a terrorist organization with the ability to have "plausible deniability" contained therein. If so, who do you think the nuke would get lost to? ~In confining their ability to deliver a nuclear weapon to the continents of either Europe or the US, but still allowing them both a tactical nuclear weapon and the means of delivering it within, say, 150 miles, doesn't that put Israel at great risk? And if you accept that premise, do you think that a leader of the Iranian people, proved to be one of the hostage takers in the Embassy and who has made it plain, no question about it, that he would prefer to see the State of Israel wiped off the map, do you think that leader should have a nuclear weapon that can decimate Israel? Just some fodder for the discussion. Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanuckInUSA 0 #33 February 7, 2006 Quote The real question: "Will Iran make (several) atomic weapons and then give one or more to terrorists?" No way! That's tantamount to national suicide. You're showing way to much faith that these people (who we obviously know little about) will act the same way that the rest of world behaves. Have you not paid attention that some of these radicals embrace death as a good thing? What happens when the people controlling these potential WMD decide that it is time for everyone to meet their maker? I used to try and give muslims the "benefit of the doubt". But their violence this last week has made me start to re-think my position towards them (rest assured I don't hate muslims, I just don't understand their lack of respect for life). Who can we trust anymore when many many Islamic clerics are calling for Jihad? They want their holy war and they want it now. It doesn't matter if this cleric is in the middle east, in Europe, in Detriot or Toronto. They're telling their people to wage Jihad. We can no longer afford to rest idol while those around us make plans towards our destruction. Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #34 February 7, 2006 Quote Iran is NOT going to have a capability to deliver atomic weapons further than around 100 miles (Scud-Range). BZZZT Wrong Answer http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iran/missile/shahab-4.htm Shahab-4 Technical Details Range (km) 2,200-2,896 CEP (m) unknown Diam. (m) 1.3/.88 Height (m) 25 Launch Weight Mass (kg) 22,000 Thrust (Kg f) 26,000 Burn time (sec.) 293 Thrust Chamb. 1, 1, 1 Stages 2, 3 Fuel Heptyl Oxidizer IRFNA Third Stage Solid Motor* Type IRBM * May have been derived from existing Chinese designs. The Iranian Shahab-4 missile is believed to be a derivation of the 1,350-1,500 kilometer range North Korean No-dong missile delivering a 1,000-760 kg warhead and the follow on Taep'o-dong-1/Paeutusan-1 launch vehicles. The first indications of the development of the Shahab-4 came in The Washington Times on September 11, 1997 when it stated the following: "The Shahab-3 and 4 programs appear to be getting considerable assistance from China and Russia."(1) Shahab-3 and Shahab-4 missile programs are discussed in this article. Shahab-3, is credited with 930 miles (1,496 kilometers) range while the Shahab-4 is credited with 1,240 miles (1,995km) whose prototype appearance is believed to be 2-3 years (1999-2000) away. It also stated an Iranian Diplomat was arrested in Moscow, Russia in 1997 as he was trying to buy missile blue prints. I know the flame wars will start when I say this but I think the Israelis just need to get to a MAD point of reference just let the hostile powers that want to annihalate them know that if a nuclear weapon of any type goes off in Tel-Aviv, or Haifa, Or any other city in Israel that Damascus, Teheran, etc will cease to exist. IT is assumed the Israelis have them they just need to make it simple.. make a lasting peace.. or reap the whirlwind. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
miked10270 0 #35 February 7, 2006 Is Iran a most active state sponsor of terrorism? Thus far in the "War-On-Terror", we have invaded & subjurgated Afghanistan & Iraq. Libya had changed it's stance. There has been no mention of invading Iran & causing regime change. Would they make a nuke then give one to a terrorist for use? That's an act of war with pre-emptive use of WMD! At present, their "plausible deniability" would last around 4:15 and America, or any victim would be seen as fully justified in its reaction. Nation states just don't lose nukes! Urban legends & hollywood scripts notwithstanding, no one leaves them lying out in the rain! Demanding the destruction of another state is easy to say - particularly if you lack the ability. It makes nice rhetoric. The question is whether such rhetoric would be maintained once Iran were a nuclear power!? The point I'm trying to make is that nuclear powers KNOW they can't win a nuclear war. That was the core of Mutual Assured Destruction, and historically, every nation which has obtained nuclear weapons has realised this in very short order. Nuclear weapons are not an offensive weapon. They are a defensive weapon in that they go a long way to guaranteeing national security. Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
miked10270 0 #36 February 7, 2006 "... these people (who we obviously know little about) ... " America only governed them by proxy between 1953 & 1979! "... I don't hate muslims, I just don't understand their lack of respect for life ... " Like the Chinese? Their mass human wave attacks during the Korean war when only 1 in 10 attackers had a rifle? the remainder were to arm themselves from their dead comrades and continue the attack? With their lack of respect for life it's a good thing the Chinese don't have nuclear weapons... "... many Islamic clerics are calling for Jihad? They want their holy war and they want it now... " Rhetoric is easy! The thing is that in considering actually using atomic weapons offensively, you have to then consider your enemy's response. From an Iranian point of view... Is the obliteration of The State of Israel, or the destruction of say 5 major US cities worth the destruction of Islam? Once Iran acquires nuclear weapons, then they must consider the consequences of their use! This is the same situation that America & The Soviet Union, America & China, India & Pakistan, China & Taiwan, have all had to consider with ALL of them coming to the conclusion that a nuclear war is unwinnable. Iran knows that Islam won't win if all its followers are in paradise! If that weren't true, then why hasn't Pakistan nuked india? They were fighting virtually non-stop before they obtained nuclear weapons! Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #37 February 7, 2006 Quote Quote We are not dealing with people who are rational in at all the same way we think of ourselves as being. - Irony score 9.8 Can I get one like you at Williams-Sonoma? --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
miked10270 0 #38 February 7, 2006 Quote Quote Iran is NOT going to have a capability to deliver atomic weapons further than around 100 miles (Scud-Range). BZZZT Wrong Answer http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iran/missile/shahab-4.htm BEEP! Iran has any of these tested & working?... OR are we still at the Iraqi Al-Husayn stage where they really need more Duct Tape? If you're going to deliver a nuclear weapon, you NEED a reliable system - The Scud-B is known to work. Regardless of the delivery system, The question is whether Iran would use atomic weapons offensively? Has anyone? (Caveat: I know that the answer to "Has Anyone?" is simple... Only America has! However, at the time Truman authorised its use believing it to be no more than a Bigger-Better-Bomb. Once faced with what happened at Hiroshima & Nagasaki he immediately & permanently removed atomic weapons from military control, and even offered America's atomic arsenal to The UN provided that other nations did likewise or did not pursue atomic weapons.) Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michele 1 #39 February 7, 2006 Quote Is Iran a most active state sponsor of terrorism? Thus far in the "War-On-Terror", we have invaded & subjurgated Afghanistan & Iraq. Libya had changed it's stance. There has been no mention of invading Iran & causing regime change. O.K., but that isn't my question. Iran has ties (significant, deep ties) to Hezbollah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the Kurdistan Worker's Party, as well as surreptitious ties with other deadly islamic terror organizations. If your answer is an allusion to the changes made from threatening regime changes by the US/West, that is not something I care to stake many lives on...as in, well, it's worked with Qaddafhi, so why not this dude? The primary difference is the (undeclared) jihad on all things western, including allies, friends, and countries which are local and near to them. Understanding jihad and what is in the minds of those who wage it is vital to finding ways to safely, and hopefully peacefully, defuse the situation. Frankly, I don't think that there is a defusion in the offing, and it bothers me greatly to hear this man stand there and say "wipe (them) off the face of the earth. They have no place here." (Please also note the elimination of an identifiable "they"...). I *do* understand your thought regarding a nuclear bomb being a defensive weapon; and if we were dealing with someone who was rational, generally peaceful, and not announcing his intentions to wipe countries and races off the map, I'd be more inclined to agree with you. It may be that he's full of hot air. I don't want to find out differently, after he's obtained a nuke. Furthermore, it's not implausible that a nuke is "lost" and I'm not discussing Clancy or Hollywood...shit happens, things "get lost" (lord knows we've lost some things...), and if they get found by the wrong people, well, it's not necessarily a pre-emptive/first strike sort of thing. It's rather more "dratted terrorists...sorry about that. We'll do better." If someone has plausible deniability, human nature is such that we will not create glass parking lots, but rather go with conventional warfare tactics, and change regimes...but still, not a return nuke would be sent. Again, I understand your position. I disagree with it wholeheartedly, but I understand it. Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanuckInUSA 0 #40 February 7, 2006 Quote "... these people (who we obviously know little about) ... " America only governed them by proxy between 1953 & 1979! America has only been following what the Brits originally taught them on how to exploit underdeveloped countries with their colonial endeavors. Quote From an Iranian point of view You and I could debate this (just like everyone else) until hell freezes over, but it doesn't matter. Unless the rest of the world is willing to play hardball against Iran (or any other nation from this point on wishing to develop nuclear weapons), it would be a big big mistake for the US to make plans to invade Iran anytime soon. Iraq should be enough of a lesson to known that it's a bad idea. Iran will get it's nukes. But it's not really Iran I fear. It's this Jihad talk ... Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
yourmomma 0 #41 February 7, 2006 Any person who will reject me for a natural act like farthing(sic) deserves to be a subject of my wrath. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
miked10270 0 #42 February 7, 2006 "America has only been following what the Brits originally taught them on how to exploit underdeveloped countries with their colonial endeavors." No need to thank us. If it weren't for Americans supporting The PIRA for years, our troops wouldn't be the experts they are at counter-terrorist work in Southern Iraq & Afghanistan! "Jihad" is great rhetoric. It's not Nation talk (look at how Hamas is changing now that it's actually governing Palestine) "Holy-War" sounds great - but it's not "Atomic-Power" talk - look at Pakistan as an Islamic Nuclear Power. Michelle. I see your point, but consider how those countries which have obtained atomic weapons have changed once they obtain them. Possession of atomic weapons forces massive changes to their foreign policies - invariably for the better in every case. The fears I've seen expressed here at the prospect of Iran obtaining atomic weapons seem the same as when Russia, China, India, Pakistan, etc... obtained atomic weapons. I think these fears are as groundless now as they were then. Incidentally, there are rumours in a wikapaedia article that The Saudis are a nuclear power! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_nuclear_weapons "Saudi Arabia - In 2003 members of the government stated that due to the worsening relations with the USA, Saudi Arabia was being forced to consider the development of nuclear weapons. However, so far they have denied that they are making any attempt to produce them. Rumor has it that Pakistan has transferred several nuclear weapons to Saudi Arabia, but this is unconfirmed." Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #43 February 7, 2006 Quote Quote We are not dealing with people who are rational in at all the same way we think of ourselves as being. - Irony score 9.8 pot? meet kettle. irony score 9.604 ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
juanesky 0 #44 February 8, 2006 Pal, you need to revise your history as you either ignored UK's handling of the middle east not to long ago (which was the prelude to Israel, and right after the partition of the holy land). I assume that the posture is fairly common to blame everything to America, instead of who for centuries pillaged, raped, enslaved and abused their colonies..."According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Frenchy68 0 #45 February 8, 2006 Quote for centuries pillaged, raped, enslaved and abused their colonies... Can we Frenchies be part of that club too? Please? "For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
juanesky 0 #46 February 8, 2006 I don't think you it's an exclusive club."According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
miked10270 0 #47 February 8, 2006 Quote Pal, you need to revise your history ... ignored UK's handling of the middle east ... .... blame everything to America... Eh!? Sorry mate, but you've lost me there. My posts were about justification for Iran to obtain atomic weapons, not about blaming America for all the world's ills... Well... Not EVERY single one of them. I'm pretty sure I accused America of being instrumental in ousting a democratically elected socialist government & putting The Shah into power in Iran. But in fairness, that's exactly what you did! Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
juanesky 0 #48 February 8, 2006 How convenient. Iran is using the Israeli-palenstinian conflict to go ahead with Iran's innocent nuclear program, while you ignore what how the European powers singlehandedly fucked up just about every country there in WWI and WWII, not too long before the dates you mentioned. Yes, we can call these the years of "enlightment"."According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
storm1977 0 #49 February 8, 2006 Miked... I like a lot of what you are saying... But I disagree with most of it. The Muslims are not afraid to die for their religion... the extremists of Islam woiuld like to kill every non member of islam.... If you get nukes in their hands even if they know it will be the end of the world, they may view that as what Allah wants them to do.... There sole mission in life to destroy all non believers and bring all muslims to meet in heaven.... Someone a lot smarter than me made this point on TV the other night, and I feel it is a very honest and realistic statement. "We will either be at war with IRAN in the not Too distant future tyring to stop them from obtaining nukes, or, we will be at war with Iran for other reasons farther in the future when they do have Nukes. This is the decision the world faces.... It is not a question of whether we want to fight Iran, but when" ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crozby 0 #50 February 8, 2006 Quote The Muslims are not afraid to die for their religion... the extremists of Islam woiuld like to kill every non member of islam.... If you get nukes in their hands even if they know it will be the end of the world, they may view that as what Allah wants them to do Those Muslims are a very small minority of the billion or so Muslims. And they would not be the one's with their finger on the big red button, nor would they be likely to let extremists anywhere near their nukes. Mikes point is that even the most volatile and extreme nations mellow noticably when they get nukes. There is nothing to suggest that Iran would behave any differently. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
