Iranian Armament

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Ericsson1228d, Sep 25, 2009.

  1. Ericsson1228d

    Ericsson1228d Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2005
    Messages:
    582
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    MI, USA
    I was just wondering what people on this board thought about the recent revelations following the UN meetings this week.

    I appears that Iran has or will have nuclear capabilities (weapons) and I wonder how real the threat is for them starting a war by deployment of a suitcase nuke or something in Israel or elsewhere.

    This is one of those political "What to do?" questions. I don't think there is any "right" answer, but if it were left in my hands, I would be in a quandary.
     
  2. D_Mansworthy Meatwrench III

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2007
    Messages:
    127
    Likes Received:
    1
    It's just saber-rattling bullshit that never ends. We are knee-deep in economic fuckup, and the Feds are pushing their bullshit to cover it up. Since we are now so incest ridden with the economies of the UK and EU countries, the "UN" is trying to dig out of their pyramid scheme hole.

    SO they find a country the size of Texas, and blame them for all kinds of shit.
    Works every time. People are stupid as they say.

    So....we go beat up on other countries. It was a toss up between Iran, Libya, or Syria.
    Gotta make them greenbacks somehow. We can't beat up on Iraq again for at least another 10 years. Nobody but 15 year olds to beat on.

    In this case, we arm the guys we fight, works out well unless you are stuck with being the asshole in the trench.

    There are no "revelations". Iran can nuke up and belly to the bar.
    We will then go stomp them for a little while, at the behest of Israel. And fail, as we seem pre-occupied with repeating Vietnam over and over. For a country we support with a giant welfare check, one would assume that after 50 years, they could actually fight their own wars, on their own turf.

    I guess not. And what the UN says about ANYTHING is about as important as a frog farting in a windstorm. And about as useful as throwing a hotdog down a hallway.
    It ain't. Useful, that is. Or important.

    What to do:
    Nothing. Or something.
    Why?
    Iran isn't exactly on my back doorstep. Let their neighbors deal with it.
    My problem is eating and my bills, not worrying about 3rd world ICBM's that are so old they won't make it 400 miles without springing a fuel leak, because they were bought when the USSR fell, and we bought them out, then re-sold them to Iran to begin with.

    Then again, we can go right in and spank their ass for about a year, piss off every Muslim in the world, help out Israel and float them as usual, and then wonder why we got into a 25 year war we won't finish or win. All the time hoping we don't kick off World War 3, but not being smart enough to do this any other way.

    The dollars, baby. We gotta keep 'em coming.
    War = Money. Always.

    Old Rome is here to stay.
    Right up 'til she collapses, that is.
    Just my look-see at it, mind you.
     
  3. midlifebear

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2007
    Messages:
    5,908
    Likes Received:
    11
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Nevada, Buenos Aires, and Barçelona
    As crazy as kingdongalingus is (and I mean that in a good way), I basically agree with him. What better way to take the focus off of universal health care than insist we need to go to war and occupy another middle eastern country. Akmedadinnerjacket is crazier than a rabid coyote during a full moon, but remember that at least 50% of his country is 100% against him.

    By the way, anyone remember the good old days when we could depend upon the French to fly over Iran and bomb the Hell out of their yet-to-be-put-into-commission nuclear power plants? Ahh, for the good old days when we could convince the French to do our bidding.
     
    #3 midlifebear, Sep 25, 2009
    Last edited: Sep 25, 2009
  4. Jason

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2004
    Messages:
    9,936
    Likes Received:
    644
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    London (GB)
    Surely the reality is that there is nothing we can do. China is happy to trade with Iran; Russia sees no reason to pick a fight (though may pay lip service to sanctions). Much of the world thinks Iran is just fine as a partner. Sanctions won't work - they might even encourage Iran to push ahead with its nuclear weapons programme. Invasion is unthinkable. I think we have to accept that within a very few years Iran will have a nuclear bomb. We have to keep channels of communication open, and hope their present regime falls.

    Once they have a bomb the most likely target is Israel. Probably they would make threats rather than actually use it, eg Israeli withdrawal from all West Bank settlement, full opening of borders with Palestine, reparations to Gaza, Palestinian veto on all actions of the Israeli parliament. Just possibly they would go ahead and use the bomb.

    Presumably the Israeli intelligence service knows exactly how far Iran has got with developing a nulear bomb and Israel is all set to bomb Iran if needs be. Of course there would be international outrage against Israel. Lets hope things don't get this far.

    I think the world does nothing right now. And prays for a change in Iran.
     
  5. Flashy

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2007
    Messages:
    8,097
    Likes Received:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    at home
    really rather simple.

    we do the same thing to Iran that we did to Iraq on the first night of each of the Gulf Wars.

    no need to occupy Iran or send in ground forces.

    a simple, overwhelming aerial annihilation using conventional air and sea launched cruise missiles and bombs against all major Iranian nuclear related sites, not to mention conventional weapons manufacturing facilities, and all IRGC army, navy and air force bases, plus all IRGC headquarters, intelligence services etc.

    all the sunni states secretly want us to do it...and they would rather we did it, then Israel does it because Israel will only be able to delay the program, not destroy it completely.

    we do not need another more dangerous North Korea in the middle east. Iran is running the North Korea playbook to the letter, based upon the obvious success North Korea had.


    and before all of you respond with "we do not need another invasion or occupation", we will not be invading or occupying Iran...it is not necessary.

    2-3 days of aerial bombardment and missile attacks will reduce the Iranian military and special weapons programs to rubble. at the same time, the nuke targets and research centers should be hit at an optimal time, when all the staff is there. killing off hundreds of highly trained nuclear technicians, scientists and researchers will push back Iranian capability indefinitely, not to mention, letting it be know among foreign scientists who may help Iran in the future that they will be signing their death warrants.

    not to mention, go a long way to restoring our deterrence, which is gone.

    kill off the entire IRGC command structure and bases, along with the Nuke programs, research centers and weapons manufacturing, and Iran, is off the radar in terms of troublemaking on a mass scale (not a covert one considering their support for terror all over the place) for the next decade or so at least.
     
  6. SpeedoGuy

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    Messages:
    4,229
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    10
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Pacific Northwest, USA
    I suspect Flashy's prediction is the most likely scenario. Iraq's military never recovered from the weeks-long bombardment meted out during Gulf War I.

    Its possible Israel might do a pre-emptive air attack on Iran's nuclear facilities similar to how it leveled Saddam's Osirak nuclear facility back in 1981.
     
  7. Ericsson1228d

    Ericsson1228d Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2005
    Messages:
    582
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    MI, USA
    I think another issue that then develops is the Russian response. I don't think they would do a thing - I think they value our 'somewhat' friendly relationship more than they value their Iranian relationship, at least I hope they do. :Gulp: I mean, we are a financially very weak country at the moment, internally divided, a congress that is a House Divided, we are snubbing our allies (Britain), the dollar is wreaking havoc on the world economy, and our military is preoccupied in Iraq and Afghanistan. Damn, I hope the bear doesn't realize we are somewhat simmering in our own juices at the moment.

    But I think an "In and Out" Strike, as described by a previous poster, is the most likely scenario. And, we would probably "allow" Israel to do the dirty work, with implicit promises of protection, of course.
     
  8. Flashy

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2007
    Messages:
    8,097
    Likes Received:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    at home
     
    #8 Flashy, Sep 25, 2009
    Last edited: Sep 25, 2009
  9. B_mitchymo

    B_mitchymo New Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2008
    Messages:
    4,706
    Likes Received:
    12
    Location:
    Rugby, England
    I think it will be a continued 'sanctions' affair from the West, continued contempt from the Iranian government, continued terrorism fuelling hatred of the West, continued internal UN division over the best approach until...

    ...Iran provokes Israel which will deal with the situation first which is logical as it is Iran's primary target. Once those two are at war then there will be nothing that can be done but get involved. Iran is not alone, it has support from Syria. Combined with regional instability then other regional nations will get involved to protect what will look like an obvious attack on the Islamic world. Before you know it, WWIII.

    or

    The Iranian people will revolt and remove the Iranian government defuseing tension in the region and allow after a period of adjustment and strengthened relations an address of the Israeli wrongdoing in occupying Palestinian land that is a bone of contention for Middle Eastern relations.

    I know i would prefer the latter to happen.
     
  10. Jason

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2004
    Messages:
    9,936
    Likes Received:
    644
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    London (GB)
    I think there's sense in this post. I don't think the West is going to bomb Iran. The outcry from the Arab world, Russia, China and the terrorist backlash are all serious forces. An in-out strike sounds clean, but you can just about guarantee that some of the installations are in basements beneath hospitals, orphanages or similar. Israel may feel that she has to act. If she misjudges the timing we have a nuclear bomb on Tel Aviv. Syria may attack Israel. The scenario is dire.

    Basically we hold on - and pray. We need a change of government in Iran.
     
  11. SpeedoGuy

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    Messages:
    4,229
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    10
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Pacific Northwest, USA
    Yes an attack against Iran's facilities would not be greeted warmly by many, including Iranians not innately hostile to the west. But the alternative is: What would be the outcry from these same powers should Iran acquire nuclear tipped medium range missiles and aggressively threaten its neighbors, US installations in Iraq, Israel, or even Europe? Will the potential for mere verbal condemnations from Russia and China deter Iran from seizing an opportunity to reduce Tel Aviv to radioactive rubble?

    I'm guessing not. I'm also guessing the Israelis see it the same way.

    The real problem is not potential western attacks against Iran. The real problem is the Iranian government's continued duplicity on the aims of its nuclear program.

    Amen.
     
  12. B_Nick4444

    B_Nick4444 New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2007
    Messages:
    7,002
    Likes Received:
    12
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX
    there are only two realistic responses

    (1) pre-emptive strike, or, (2) do nothing and let history's trajectory take Iran and Israel to their inevitable destinies

    given that Obama will do nothing (somebody hand him a black umbrella), and, given that the Euros' only response would be hand-wringing, the only realistic expectation is # 2
     
  13. lipollo

    lipollo New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2007
    Messages:
    77
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    Why should Europe do anything?

    In fact Iran is a long way of from even being a military regional superpower. Turkey purchased a missile defence system with the whole world saying that it was a paradigm shift on Turkey's part to try and deal with the growing power of Iran and their missile program.

    Really it is because Greece just purchased missiles from France which for the first time allow Greece to undetected bomb upto central Anatolia.

    The point is that Europe doesnt need to get involved in little games because when push comes to shove the Israelis if they feel like they are under threat will simply do the job themselves. No need for Europe to have hate from the middle east - just lump it all on Israel.
     
  14. Hockeytiger

    Hockeytiger Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    680
    Likes Received:
    82
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Midwestern US
    First off, a nuclear Iran is inevitable at this point without a negotiated agreement which isn't likely.

    Secondly, a nuclear Iran is scary but isn't really the problem. The problem is the arab reaction to a nuclear Iran. Ayatollahs with nukes makes me nervous, (but most of them are pretty reasonable, unfortunately the unreasonable ones are in power) but Wahhabi's with nukes scares the crap out of me.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted