How should we deal with Iran's Nuke Program? [Archive]

View Full Version : How should we deal with Iran's Nuke Program?

Nizark

11-10-2003, 08:30 PM

duck

11-10-2003, 08:35 PM

If you want to get a hunch of the Wolfowitz-Rumsfeld point of view, Dr. Michael Ledeen, neocon strategist, has already lined out the Bush administration policy towards Iran. Operation "Irani Freedom"...

http://www.nationalreview.com/ledeen/ledeen-archive.asp

SOG

11-10-2003, 09:11 PM

russia will never lean heavily on them in sanctions, in fact theyll probably sweep em suplies under the rug.

israel could always bomb the place of research/making like before. was that in iraq or iran before? iraq prolly, well maybe it could be iran this time round.

pending where it was being built we could fly over in the middle of the night with a f22 or f117 and drop a single well placed generic bomb ont he target.

you could just send someone to sabotage the work possibly with a radiation leak killing the project and bolstering public opinion its too dangerous.

could let them build nukes then when they get stolen by high financed terrorists from poorly financed regular army then we will have a real good reason to go in :)

could threaten thier leaders, snake thier swiss accounts they thought were safe, HA! or maybe knock one off all natural like.

then again you hear of all these nukes going missing in russia from warheads to tactical nukes to briefcase nukes and where are they? being saved for a rainy day? perhaps through remote viewing and sniffer satelites weve found a few?

just throwing out suggestions for your school doohiky, good luck on it.

wholagun

11-10-2003, 09:14 PM

mainly the EU and Russia into lean heavily on them with possible sanctions.

Didn't the EU threaten to put sanctions on Iran if it didn't cease enriching Uranium? I though that EU representatives went and visited with Iran and told them to stop or face economic consequences.

StarvingStudent47

11-10-2003, 09:24 PM

Flagg

11-10-2003, 09:35 PM

I am writing a policy paper on Iran regarding their nuclear weapons program. My basic thesis is to not allow Iran to get the technology to make the nukes by any means possible BESIDES the military option, and engage the int'l community, mainly the EU and Russia into lean heavily on them with possible sanctions.

What if Iran's government reforms into some semblence of "democracy" and puts on an effective "dog and pony" show for the world(e.g. renouncing terrorism and support for it, etc.)?

If so, how could you justify preventing Iran from acquiring the same capability Israel has had for over 30 years?

How can the international community prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear capability WITHOUT achieving nuclear DISCLOSURE(and possible disarmament) from Israel(the likely opponent in a Middle Eastern nuclear confrontation)?

Where is the international community's credibility if the entire focus is on preventing one opponent(Iran) from acquiring nukes, yet continuing to help the other opponent(Israel) hide it's own nuke capabilities from prying eyes?

What credibility does Germany(3 nuclear capable submarines),France(Dimona reactor contractor), and the US(active/passive supplier of fissionable material) have in preventing Iran from acquiring the same capability and delivery capacity they helped Israel acquire?

Pakistan has a history of dictatorship and support for terrorism(main reasons for preventing Iran from acquiring nukes), yet somehow their nuclear capability is legitimized because they are an "ally" in the "War on Terror"?

Why would Iran's attempt to acquire the same capability not be as legitimate as Pakistan's?

Isn't this a failure in internation policy as it sends a mixed message?

Does that mean if Iran retains it's current theocracy, but "supports" the war on terror somewhat they can then have nukes like Pakistan?

I do not intend this as a flame..... as the threat of Iran acquiring a nuclear capability can be easily argued/spun as being directly tied to Israel's existing capability.

As far as options go, consider the following:

A military option is possible as it has been performed in the past(ala Osirak, Iraq in 1980 by Israeli F15s&F16s).....and I'm sure they have the ability to, if not completely destroy, at least severely damage Iran's nuke program. It may be worth finding out, if possible, if Iran's nuke program took into account the Osirak raid and if the program is decentralized to allow for a strike or two without significant setback.

I would think a strike would be the least palatable option because if Israel launched a raid it could further harden world opinion against it at a time it can ill afford to lose support. If the US launched a raid it could potentially open another theatre of conflict when US forces are already pressed to handle existing and potential(North Korea) operations.

The sanction option is also possible, and the most likely, but there have always been and always will be sanction busting nations that only care about the $$$ due to domestic economic hardship(Russia, supplying nuclear hardware and expertise is but one example) and ignore any/all sanctions.

I'm simply trying to raise some questions(valid or not and not necessarily my own opinion) that MAY need to be answered in order to effectively argue against Iran acquiring nukes and challenges in accomplishing said task.

ßå$tÄ®Ð¢HÏ¿ð

11-10-2003, 10:32 PM

Sanctions only hurt the people not the program. Iran's government wouldnt give a **** cause they'd still be able to get there 3 meals a day. Locking there bank account's would seriously grind the operation to a halt for the time being, most effective way would be some sort of sabotage to the plant or the plants equipment.

NcDeuce

11-10-2003, 10:42 PM

Black ops

jdbjdb

11-11-2003, 12:00 AM

Air raid: Park a carrier in the gulf or 2, hit all 6 sites from the air.

Tane Angle

11-11-2003, 12:30 AM

If it came to a military option, I'd say maybbe have Israel use a vessel similar to the one used in Prime Chance. Essentially, a small civilian aircraft/helicopter carrier. Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

jdbjdb

11-11-2003, 12:51 AM

Sanctions only hurt the people not the program. Iran's government wouldnt give a **** cause they'd still be able to get there 3 meals a day
Your right, sanctions hurt the people and not their government, quick air raids at their nuke sites only.

Erik

11-11-2003, 01:30 AM

Black ops
No, I disagree. Full scale military operation, invasion and finally install a new government. The U.S. should just do one draft round and increase taxes slightly again so that this operation could be funded properly.

Also with the new conscripts U.S. could quite soon pull out all the weary troops now posted in iraq and afganistan. In six months there could be huge conscript army to take care of business. Has anyone ever calculated how much this would save money?

mocking_loudly_died

11-11-2003, 01:39 AM

What?, we can't just bomb them!!!!

Then what the hell can I bomb.....no bombs.....no bombs.....(runs stark naked into the streets yelling "DAMN IT ALL TO HELL, YOU MANIACS YOU WENT TO FAR!").

End theatrics.

Next my thesis is on how to end third world hunger…by using bombs (dead people don't eat).

Nizark

11-11-2003, 04:01 PM

I appreciate the help so far everyone...Interesting ideas..especially about the sanstions not hurting anyone but the people. Although, the iranians really need that EU money with trade and whatnot. Not to mention the secret underground facilities that we know and dont know of like at Natenz and Arak, what can be done with them?

Ya know, i'm pretty militant, hell, i'd invade Utah if there was Iraqi WMD there, but can't there be any other viable solution besides another Osirak and non-working sanctions? For example:

What would stop russian support without question? Besides a iranian attack on moscow.

Would countries break the sanctions simply for money or because they don't like the US/Israel?

And personally, the only sanctions that matter are those that would realistically prevent the iranians from getting nuclear status. We are great at taking out tanks and fighters and ships, so let russia sell them all the soviet era crap they want. Ask stormin norman how much fun it was to pick off all the russian stuff in 91'. So, would it be possible to prevent nuclear technology (weaponry) from getting in to iran?

thanks again folks

Longbranch

11-11-2003, 04:30 PM

By what right does another nation decide that Iran can or can't have nuclear weapons?

rokus2595

11-11-2003, 05:15 PM

By what right does another nation decide that Iran can or can't have nuclear weapons?

God has given Bush the right to decide what countries can or cannot have nuclear weapons...

Mr. Nielsen

11-11-2003, 08:30 PM

I think that russia is not in a hurry to hold their nuclear assistance to Iran, because they can't see what all the fuzz is about.

Iran has signed the treaty of non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and allows inspections of their nuclear facilities. Now they have agreed to even more close inspections. While at the same time the west ignores that Israel haven't even signed the treaty. It's a very hypocritical impression that leaves on the rest of the world.

Also, Iran is not seen as the big bogeyman it is often portrayed as. Iran dosn't have a history of attacking its neighbourgs. And these days the hardline priests has ceased talking about spreading the islamic revolution, in fact they are busy holding back reforms in Iran itself.

by the way the following is from todays Haaretz:

"A report drafted by the International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA) and obtained by Haaretz indicates
there is no evidence that Iran is developing
nuclear weapons. "

jdbjdb

11-11-2003, 09:04 PM

IAEA Says Iran produced plutonium

A UN nuclear agency report said Iran produced small amounts of plutonium as part of covert nuclear activities. While finding "no evidence" that Tehran tried to make atomic arms, it said such efforts cannot be ruled out.

The significance of the plutonium extraction was unclear. The report by the International Atomic Energy Agency did not link it to weapons activity but it criticized Iran for not reporting its processing activities, listing it among dozens of cases where Tehran had covert programs in place.

"Neither the (processing) activities nor the separated plutonium had been previously reported to the agency," said the report, which was obtained by The Associated Press.

Plutonium can be used in nuclear weapons but it also has uses in peaceful programs to generate power — which is what Iran says is the sole purpose of its nuclear activities.

Meanwhile, a top Iranian official announced in Moscow that his country has suspended its enrichment of uranium and agreed to additional UN inspections of its nuclear facilities.

Nizark

11-12-2003, 03:12 AM

Well, I guess the reason why we get to choose is because we feel like it. I'm not saying its right, but thats the way it goes. Does this sound better:
"We prefer that Iran does not get nuclear weapons" Instead of "We will not allow them from getting nuclear weapons" I dont see the difference when we send a couple F-117's or a B-2 wing to "clarify" our point of view. We "chose to bomb their nuclear reactors back to the stone age," or we "did not allow iran to develop nuclear weapons."

WTF? Potatoe, Potato, Tomato, Tomatoe...lets call the whole thing war :D

StarvingStudent47

11-12-2003, 03:19 AM

What if Iran's government reforms into some semblence of "democracy" and puts on an effective "dog and pony" show for the world(e.g. renouncing terrorism and support for it, etc.)?

If so, how could you justify preventing Iran from acquiring the same capability Israel has had for over 30 years?

Iran is a lot closer to having nukes than it is to renouncing Shi'ite fundamentalism/ending aid to international terrorists/becoming a peaceful democracy. So that's a really big "IF" that you start your post with.

If no one stops Iran from getting nuclear weapons, those nukes will be under the control of Shi'ite clerics--the same ones who recently used tanks to crush a pro-democracy demonstration at a university. The same ones who actively support Hezbollah and other terrorist groups. Is that a risk you're willing to take for some abstract sense of "fairness"?

StarvingStudent47

11-12-2003, 03:23 AM

Also, Iran is not seen as the big bogeyman it is often portrayed as. Iran dosn't have a history of attacking its neighbourgs. And these days the hardline priests has ceased talking about spreading the islamic revolution, in fact they are busy holding back reforms in Iran itself.

Let's clarify.

Iran does not have a history of invading neighboring Muslim countries.
Iran does have a history of providing massive economic and administrative support to international terrorists that have attacked both the USA and Israel.

Just because a government is 'busy' rolling over college students with tanks, doesn't mean it can't simultaneously ship a radioactive gift to its Hezbollah buddies.

martinexsquaddie

11-12-2003, 04:50 AM

Iran has a chance of joining normal countrys I.e. some form of democracy any sort of Erik tom clancy fantasy would make that even less likely.
I know lets invade saudi iran and syria we could call it Operation crusade get the pope to bless it and you wonder why people hate you :roll:

Flagg

11-12-2003, 05:38 AM

I Wrote:

I'm simply trying to raise some questions(valid or not and not necessarily my own opinion) that MAY need to be answered in order to effectively argue against Iran acquiring nukes and challenges in accomplishing said task.

You Wrote:

Iran is a lot closer to having nukes than it is to renouncing Shi'ite fundamentalism/ending aid to international terrorists/becoming a peaceful democracy. So that's a really big "IF" that you start your post with.

If no one stops Iran from getting nuclear weapons, those nukes will be under the control of Shi'ite clerics--the same ones who recently used tanks to crush a pro-democracy demonstration at a university. The same ones who actively support Hezbollah and other terrorist groups. Is that a risk you're willing to take for some abstract sense of "fairness"?

First off.....Had you read my post rather than a single sentence you would have seen that I was attempting to offer some questions possibly worthy of answer to the original topic post of "How do we deal with Iran's nuke program?" and the paper being written to support it.

ALL of the questions I wrote may not necessarily require an answer, but they certainly require consideration in dealing with the issue.

Secondly....you mention Iran's support of Hezbollah....I agree...Iran is a supporter of terrorism.....but in many parts of the world so is Israel with a history of supporting Lebanese Christian militias involved in well publicised slaughters, and the same with US support for groups like the Contras....one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist...is it a fair and direct comparison....not likely...but to the average uneducated person it could be argued as such...and for the record...I am a big supporter of the US and Israel on most issues.

Thirdly.... YOU HAVE NO IDEA if/when Iran will develop a nuclear capability and if/when Iran will transform into a legitimite democracy in the eyes of the world, NOR DO I.

Yours is but one opinion, without the relevant expertise in nuclear physics/political science/fortune telling to render a judgement more accurate than anyone else.

I noticed you avatar.....I may be reading into it, but if you happen to be a strong supporter of Israel what is your opinion on Israel's role in assuring Iran doesn't acquire a nuclear capability?

Should Israel disclose its nuclear arsenal for inspection?

If not, why not?

If Iran agrees to renounce the acquisition of a nuclear capability in exchange for Israel's disclosure/reduction/elimination of nuclear weapons....how would you respond to that?

If Iran is pressured to be kept nuclear free why shouldn't it's potential opponent(Israel) be equally pressured into a plan to disclose, reduce and/or eliminate its own arsenal in exchange for security guarantees from the US and backed up by key partner countries(England,France,Russia,China)?

----------

In the end...my OPINION is that attempting to prevent certain nations from acquiring a nuclear capability is analagous to a caveman preventing his neighboring cavemen from discovering fire........it's impossible......

The more time passes, the easier it becomes for nations, or even well motivated/funded groups to acquire dangerous capabilities.

The vast majority of efforts/resources should be spent on pressuring for democratic reform and putting real teeth into international security.

I'm quite surprised at the number of respondents that suggest direct military action.

I think what Israel did over 20 years ago at Osirak helped prevent Saddam from acquiring a nuclear capability, which likely would have had truly disasterous consequences had the raid not occurred.

But as one respondent stated...Iran hasn't initiated conflict with anyone.

Israel...a democracy...has a long history or initiating conflict ...justified as self-defense(which I agree with)....but it could be argued that Iran has substantially more to fear from Israel, than Israel has to fear from Iran.

The flippant remarks regarding the use of a carrier battle group,F117 or B2 bombers to eliminate the threat is a very short-sighted and short-term solution...the genie's out of the bottle..and you can't JDAM the genie.

aktarian

11-12-2003, 05:58 AM

No, I disagree. Full scale military operation, invasion and finally install a new government. The U.S. should just do one draft round and increase taxes slightly again so that this operation could be funded properly.

That's brilliant idea. Occupy 70 million more Muslims. That will work. :roll:

Re military options. There was an article in AirForces Monthly September 03 issue. Various options were discussed. Interesting. Also discusses what should be targeted to shut down program, because IRanians learned form Osirak that one doesn't put all his eggs in one basket.

Just one question. If Israel claims it need nukes because they are surrounded by enemies why can't Iran use same reason?

IDFM203

11-12-2003, 12:58 PM

I guess my opinions of all this would be through a response to yours……..

Secondly....you mention Iran's support of Hezbollah....I agree...Iran is a supporter of terrorism.....but in many parts of the world so is Israel with a history of supporting Lebanese Christian militias involved in well publicised slaughters, and the same with US support for groups like the Contras....one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist...is it a fair and direct comparison....not likely...but to the average uneducated person it could be argued as such...and for the record...I am a big supporter of the US and Israel on most issues. first of all this debate is amongst intelligent and knowledgeable people and not about what uneducated and anknowledgeable people think for that’s not a way to argue a point. To simply say that people that don’t know anything call Israel such and such doesn’t mean that Israel is such and such.

Secondly this is not about Israel supporting this group or even about Iran supporting their group. No this is about Iran which has made it clear over the years that Israel is a sworn enemy and that it will do whatever it takes to destroy it. It has military parades that are called the march to Jerusalem. It has missiles that it names Haifa or other war on Israel themes. Its clerical leaders, the true leaders of Iran, openly state their hostile intentions towards Israel.

It is really to be utterly naive to believe that Iran is not building this nuclear weapons to one day attack Israel

Now Israel on the other hand has always said that it will not be the first to use nuclear weapons and it has thus far proved what it meant.

It has had them now “allegedly” for over thirty years and yet has not used it once nor even made one declaration that it will be the first to use it.

In fact it can be argued that Israel’s’ nuclear capability has actually prevented an all out war in the middle east and that the sole reason why Israel hasn’t been attacked in over thirty years is solely because of that capability.

It can also be argued that because of that capability, Egypt decided to do the smart thing and make this “peace” deal with Israel for it realised that with Israel’s nuclear capability it will be pointless to start another war.

So to sum up. Israel nuclear deterrent has prevented an all out war and has helped big time in Israel’s very survival while Iran’s will start one and will help in Israel’s destruction!!!!!!!!!!

Thirdly.... YOU HAVE NO IDEA if/when Iran will develop a nuclear capability that’s not exactly true for most conservative experts put Iran at having achieved that capability in the next couple of years. Liberal estimates put it at just a year.

and if/when Iran will transform into a legitimite democracy in the eyes of the world, NOR DO I. first of all this can take fifty year’s or more or it can happen now, no one knows……..but waiting on a democracy as some sort of safeguard on Iran’s nuclear capability is a faulty logic to have.

Its faulty for A, its just a hope and its likely that Iran will be a nuclear state much before it becomes a democracy where by then it will be too late.
Secondly B,even if it does become a democracy, that is by no means a guarantee that they wont continue thier hostile intentions with these weapons even in a democratic setting.

Should Israel disclose its nuclear arsenal for inspection? If not why not? should the U.S. Britain, France, Russia, and other nations do it???

Secondly, Israel’s nuclear ambiguity in no one knowing whether it actually has them or not, this has actually prevented wars for it keeps Israel’s hostile neighbours guessing. Most of the world suspects that Israel has them so all these inspections can potentially do is either confirm it or say that Israel has much less or none at all in where in that case the day after Israel will be attacked.

Again Israel has had them for thirty years and has been in constant warfare and yet hasn’t used them. That’s concrete proof that Israel is most definitely responsible with those weapons and it is needed for its deterrent factor that it gives to Israel’s many enemies that would surly attack if Israel did not have there weapons.

Israel case for these weapons in my opinion far outweighs many other nations even those in the west’s, case for having theirs.

If Iran agrees to renounce the acquisition of a nuclear capability in exchange for Israel's disclosure/reduction/elimination of nuclear weapons....how would you respond to that? good question………………I would not comply.

Again Israel has had them now for over thirty years and it has not used it!!
Secondly that nuclear capability is the sole reason why Israel has not been attacked in over thirty years.

Israel has not attacked Iran in all that time even though it has plenty of reason to do so (though all its support of hetballh and other terrorist organisations that have continually killed Israelis for years now) nor has it even made any announcements that it would use nuclear weapons against Iran.

Israel has always stated that it will not be the first nation in the middle east to use nuclear weapons.

Iran on the other hand has been very hostile to Israel and its very existence and it has made it clear that will do whatever it can to help in the destruction of Israel as a Jewish state.

If they made their announcement to stop in acquiring nuclear weapons it would be A, a hoax for they would not really comply or if they would and as a result somehow Israel would also it would be the same as Iran hitting Israel with a nuclear weapon for without those weapons, it would only be a matter of time before Israel would be attacked by its surrounding neighbours and their neighbours etc……

If Iran is pressured to be kept nuclear free why shouldn't it's potential opponent(Israel) be equally pressured into a plan to disclose, reduce and/or eliminate its own arsenal in exchange for security guarantees from the US and backed up by key partner countries(England,France,Russia,China)? while I most defiantly appreciate the help that the U.S. has given to Israel, the ultimate security of Israel must be at the hands of Israel itself. We Jews did not go through the holocaust nor fight for our very survival for the past fifty years through 6 all out wars and constant battle, just to turn our vital security over to foreign nations.

Secondly, Israel is too small and too outnumbered to withstand a full attack and then wait for foreign help to come if we fall like we did in the Yom kipper war for the technology it to advanced to over come if Israel should fall behind.

Thirdly, even if it will win a war, the loss of Jewish life would be catastrophic whereas now there is no wars because of that deterrent. Again Israel’s nuclear deterrent has prevented an all out war!!!!

I mean to ask Israel to take off that deterrent simply falls in the face of common sense when faced with the harsh reality that Israel faces.!!!

In the end...my OPINION is that attempting to prevent certain nations from acquiring a nuclear capability is analagous to a caveman preventing his neighboring cavemen from discovering fire........it's impossible......

The more time passes, the easier it becomes for nations, or even well motivated/funded groups to acquire dangerous capabilities. I agree with you here and I think its going to be hard for Israel to pull off another osirk. With that said, if Israel or another nation does have the capability to do it, it should, for while the Pandora’s box is wide open so to speak and a lot of nations have them, it is incumbent amongst the world community to at least try to prevent the hostile and provocative nations that have made their intentions clear from acquiring it. It not the world community, it is most defiantly incumbent for Israel to do whatever it could to defend its citizens and preventing Iran from having these weapons falls into that defensive category.

The vast majority of efforts/resources should be spent on pressuring for democratic reform and putting real teeth into international security. yes those efforts should be enacted but that’s a very long road and it’s not a guarantee of success by a long shot. In the meantime when all is said and done, if that’s all the effort and nothing else is done, then all you have is a hope with a nation that now is a nuclear armed nation.

I think what Israel did over 20 years ago at Osirak helped prevent Saddam from acquiring a nuclear capability, which likely would have had truly disasterous consequences had the raid not occurred. yes and if you recall at the time, Israel was roundly condemned by every nation on this planet including the U.S. and we see now what Israel knew then, what a great decision that it was that Israel took.
Not every thing the world says is actually correct or non partial in its thinking.(understatement!!)

But as one respondent stated...Iran hasn't initiated conflict with anyone. first of all that’s not true. They have participated and helped in the constant Arab struggle (even though they are not Arab) to rid Israel of the Jews they have participated through their proxy terrorist organisations, in open conflict with Israel for years now. all this is without Israel doing a thing to Iran!!!
Secondly I am not sure about this but I believe that had sent some troops to fight against Israel in some of the Arab wars against Israel.

And lastly, they have made their hostile intentions known to Israel be it through their speeches or through their military parades and things of that nature(which I went in more detail in the beginning of this post)

.but it could be argued that Iran has substantially more to fear from Israel, than Israel has to fear from Iran. all sorts of things can be argued in this world. It doesn’t mean that they are valid though…

To really argue that Iran fears that Israel will want to attack to destroy it is simply absurd. But it most defiantly is not absurd to say that Iran would like to destroy Israel. That’s the reality so faced with that, of course Israel has more to fear from Iran then Iran has to fear from Israel.
Again Israel has never attacked Iran nor has it spoke out in a hostile and aggressive way towards Iran other then to say that it will defend itself. Iran on the other hand has fought Israel through its proxies and has openly been hostile to Israel for years now.

The fact is that Israel has had this nuclear deterrent now for over thirty years and has not used it once!!!

To really believe that Iran would act as Israel has in its non use of those wepons, is naive in the purest sense of that word.

Shalom :D

Red

11-12-2003, 01:00 PM

let the US and Iran sit around a table sip cofee and eat dunkin donuts while talking about nukes while watching Briana Loves jenna.talk about conflict resoulution

spier

11-12-2003, 01:11 PM

How should we deal with Iran's Nuke Program?Invade, invade and INVADE!

pinkeye

11-12-2003, 01:21 PM

i say let's round up all gun-lovin' rednecks and ship them over to iran and see what happens. whatever the outcome, the rest of the world wins...
;)

UoUo

11-12-2003, 02:18 PM

A few B-2 will do the work...no need for invade right now....

aktarian

11-12-2003, 02:21 PM

Idfm203, isn't it odd how despite all fiery rhetoric and support for Hezbollah Iran and Israel enjoyed very good miliary cooperation in 1980s (with ocassional Iranian complaints about defective weapons sold by Israel)?

Why would Iran launch nukes agaisnt Israel? So that Teheran would get that famous green glow at night? What would they gain?

Not all weapons are built for attack. Some are build for defences. And Iranians know from historical experience (something Israel mentiones at every occasion) that if they are attacked nobody will care. That nobody will care if attacker uses gas agaisnt them (and will in fact get pat on the back). So it would be crazy from Iranian perspective not to build nukes.

Flagg

11-12-2003, 02:50 PM

IDFM203

11-12-2003, 02:50 PM

Idfm203, isn't it odd how despite all fiery rhetoric and support for Hezbollah Iran and Israel enjoyed very good miliary cooperation in 1980s (with ocassional Iranian complaints about defective weapons sold by Israel)? huh?? No your timeline is a bit off here. Israel and Iran had good relations (well relatively speaking) before the 1980’s. anything after was at a small scale and it was on a covert scale

secondly the covert help that Israel did on behalf of the U.S. was in everyone’s interests. It was done for the U.S. first for the U.S. efforts to free those hostages. And then Israel perhaps continued it (there is no proof to this whatsoever) a bit in a theory of when two Muslim nations that have openly made Israel an enemy or instead fighting each other, well a continence of that is beneficial to Israel for it means that instead of fighting each other they would then turn their intention to Israel. I know that sounds harsh but that’s the harsh world that the middle east is in.

But actually I believe that it was wrong for Israel to help there and it most certainly wasn’t supported by most of the Israeli public.

Just because it allegedly did something wrong in the 80’s (again on a small scale), doesn’t mean that every wrong thereafter needs to be accepted or tolerated. The old saying that “two wrongs don’t make a right” most defiantly applies to your attempt to equate Israel’s wrongs (Israel’s covert military relationship with Iran) in the 80’s to Iran’s wrongs now (its nuclear weapons acquisitions).

Just to clarify, Israel’s involvement with Iran in the 80’s was at a minimal. It was not decisive in any way or “good” as you put it.

But besides all that, Iran has been fighting Israel through its proxies for years and it has accelerated all that during the 90’s .

Also it has publicly been very hostile towards Israel and it has had military parades and missiles that have had an attack on Israel theme very strong on them.

Iran’s hostile and offensive attitude and intentions towards Israel is very clear, it is truly to be very naive to not recognise that.

Why would Iran launch nukes agaisnt Israel? So that Teheran would get that famous green glow at night? What would they gain? first of all, Iran has made Israel a sworn enemy and has vowed openly to destroy it. That’s a fact so to ask why this and why that is now in the hypothetical but the reality is that Iran holds Israel as an enemy, one in which it has vowed to detroy, even though Israel hasn’t done a thing to it.

Secondly Iran views Israel and its goal for its destruction in the eyes of a radical Islam since in that all infidels as they term it must be eradicated from that land. In a radical Islam sense, in which Iran’s leaders are adherent too, the destruction of Israel as a Jewish state is one that they need to strive for and one in which they have been now doing for years.

Not all weapons are built for attack. Some are build for defences. And Iranians know from historical experience (something Israel mentiones at every occasion) that if they are attacked nobody will care. well they have also made it clear that they have offensive intentions with regards to Israel, now while of course they have perhaps legitimate defensive needs, they making their hostile and offensive intentions clear throughout all these years, tells the true intentions for these weapons.

I will sum it up that Iran wants these weapons for its personal defence as well as to use against Israel.

When a nation has hostile and offensive intentions, it simply cannot be allowed to acquire those weapons even if their defensive needs are just.

Just out of curiosity though, what nuclear defence does Iran need to have now that Iraq is incapable of launching another war against Iran????

Shalom :D

IDFM203

11-12-2003, 04:43 PM

first of all this debate is amongst intelligent and knowledgeable people and not about what uneducated and anknowledgeable people think for that’s not a way to argue a point.

Wouldn't you agree that about 99% of the world's population have NO IDEA WHATSOEVER as to the problem relating to nuclear proliferation in the Middle East?

I would say so....and in Democratic countries the population has to be CONVINCED by their leaders of the appropriate course of action. What if Iran spent $50 million in oil money on lobbyist and PR activities to effectively argue to the PEOPLE in the US and Europe that either Iran deserves the right to protect itself or that Israel must mutually agree to disarm? It could be effectively argued...if not today.....but after "smoke and mirrors" reform. yes again all sorts of things can be argued when your talking about ignorant people and if you claim 99 percent of the world is just that or other’s claim other percentages, it doesn’t mean that their point’s are valid or correct for that matter.

A great example of this is when Israel attacked the osirak reactor in Iraq, and at the time the whole world, every nation including the U.S. publicly condemned Israel. We clearly saw later that Israel did the right thing and 99 percent of the world was wrong!!!

Now of course as wee see on this forum, that people are ignorant to the true realities there and as such all I can do is try to shine some light on their ignorance but whatever arguments we have on this board or not or whatever the world itself argues about, Israel needs to do the right thing in its defence. All I or Israel or other’s can do is point out the dangers of Iran having this, whether people want to buy that or not is not something I can control.

To simply say that people that don’t know anything call Israel such and such doesn’t mean that Israel is such and such.

Absolutely correct...it's called PERCEPTION...and perception has a way of turning into reality for the majority.....for example.....the majority of people in Europe recently polled believe Israel poses the greatest threat to world security....is it true? of course not....but that's what the ignorant majority believe. yes and the ignorant majority is not always right (understatement!!!) we are not talking about what people are going to think or not but rather what is right and what is wrong.

All I can do is point out in an intelligent matter what I feel is right and what I feel are the true realties other then that it is out of my hands.

It is really to be utterly naive to believe that Iran is not building this nuclear weapons to one day attack Israel

If you have lived in such a high threat environment as Israel I can sympathize with this point of view.....however......the possession of nuclear weapons provides a "get out of jail free card".....one only has to look at US policy towards Pakistan and North Korea compared to Iraq and Afghanistan to see that. POSSESSING nukes carries more benefits than USING nukes. I cant respond now to what the U.S. or other nations have done or not done and whether they are right or not right all I will is that Israel not using it has defiantly brought positve benefits: which is, it hasn’t been attacked!!!! That’s all the benefits a nation can need to justify those weapons.

Israel is a tiny nation that is out numbered on a statistical scale of 13 to one (or more then that) and as such the only thing that has prevented the arabs from starting another war is this nuclear deterrent which besides everything, serves as a sort of numerical balance to their large numbers.

Now Israel on the other hand has always said that it will not be the first to use nuclear weapons and it has thus far proved what it meant.

BUT, as I stated in my previous post..Israel has been the FIRST, on a number of occasions, to initiate conflict with conventional weapons....WHICH YOU HAVEN"T ACKNOWLEDGED I didn’t acknowledge it for it was not relevant to this iran/nuclear discussion.

In Israel’s all out wars, Israel was attacked first in 1948 and in 1973. The only times it attacked first was in 1967. In 1967 the Arabs had amassed their troops and were about to attack in another bid to destroy Israel and it was only Israel pre-empting that attack, that saved israel.

The reason why this is all not relevant to Iran is that A, Israel never had a war with Iran nor did it ever attack Iran, and B, Israel has never initiated an all out war against any Arab nation!!! It was repeatedly attacked by the Arabs in an effort to destroy it and the times that Israel did attack it did so in a defensive nature based on the Arabs will to initiate another attack.

And I think it's naive to say Israel would never use nukes first.. well it has been in a couple of wars and in constant battle but it has not used them.

.LOTS of scenarios could result in a first use... Israel would only use it if the arabs attacked and came close to destroying Israel. Their advantages numbers in attacking is in itself a kind of nuclear weapon. Israel’s response to using it if its almost destroyed by those numbers would be a second strike capability.

I think it's safe to say EVERY nation that spent the money on acquiring nukes has spent a couple of bucks developing first use AS WELL AS response plans. ok lets clear this up. Israel will never be the first to use it in an offensive nature. In its defence it might be forced to use it and that will only be as a last resort when its total destruction is near, but that is in only the most extreme case for even in the Yom kipper war when Israel faced that type of scenario and it did not use it.

Now Iran would use it first on a offensive first strike bases!!! I mean to belive hat iran would only use it in the same type of extreme case like Israel’s I naive. The same goes for the other arab nations.

Israel has had them now “allegedly” for over thirty years

Yeah...Israel, only ALLEGEDLY has nukes....too funny ok listen I believe they have them and so does the whole world, but there is no factual proof of this so I said allegedly. Allegedly is more for the timeline (thirty years) then actual nuclear capability.

In fact it can be argued that Israel’s’ nuclear capability has actually prevented an all out war in the middle east and that the sole reason why Israel hasn’t been attacked in over thirty years is solely because of that capability.

I would bet every dollar I own that if Israel faced the combined efforts of Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Libya, and Iran in a conventional conflict...Israel would annihilate then...and I'm not a betting man
Ok heres the point!!! Israel’s nuclear deterrent has prevented the arabs from even starting a war. It’s not about who would win or who would lose, its about prevention!!! Even if Israel would win a war, the loss of Jewish life to the tiny Jewish state would be catastrophic.

Plus...Egypt and Jordan aren't likely opponents. I am not so sure about this!!! I mean if you believe that Egypt has peaceful relations with Israel then you really are naive. I mean yes they signed that deal, but the general Egyptian populace carries on in their utter hatred for Israel as if there was never any deal singed. I mean perhaps if mubarek stays in power, they wont be attacking but it is defiantly conceivable Iran type of situation could happen to Egypt as well.

I believe you have written a number of posts yourself about the vaunted conventional capabilities of Israel. yes and I do believe that Israel will win but it will come at a high price. The simple fact that this time around the arabs have more sophisticated weapons and again also with their huge numerical advantage, only bodes very bad for the amount of Jewish life that would be lost.

So to sum up. Israel nuclear deterrent has prevented an all out war and has helped big time

So Israel DOES have nukes....not just allegedly? again I believe they have them but I use allegedly as I explained before. But anyways for the sake of these conversations I don’t want to get bogged down in these semantics (of petty word games).

The bottom line is that Israel has a nuclear ambiguous policy and its that policy that has prevented an all out war for its keeps the Arabs guessing and as such it makes them think twice about stating another yom kipper war!!!

first of all this can take fifty year’s or more or it can happen now, no one knows……..but waiting on a democracy as some sort of safeguard on Iran’s nuclear capability is a faulty logic to have.
Iran is going to acquire nukes if it wants them bad enough.....YOUR logic is faulty if you think a military solution is anything but a short-term fix, if that...since it's likely the Iranians learned from the Osirak raid and are likely to be a tougher nut to crack, militarily. you obviously didn’t read what I wrote. I acknowledged that it would be difficult. As I said in my last post” I agree with you here and I think its going to be hard for Israel to pull off another osirk. With that said, if Israel or another nation does have the capability to do it, it should, for while the Pandora’s box is wide open so to speak and a lot of nations have them, it is incumbent amongst the world community to at least try to prevent the hostile and provocative nations that have made their intentions clear from acquiring it. It not the world community, it is most defiantly incumbent for Israel to do whatever it could to defend its citizens and preventing Iran from having these weapons falls into that defensive category”

Yes a lot of things are difficult and perhaps there is no military solution to this but your democratic “solution is also very faulty as well”.

I personally believe that this whole situation is the toughest challenge that Israel has had to face in some while!!!

If there is a military way it should do it if not it has no choice but to pray and hope a MAD type of scenario will work. (Although highly doubtful, due to Iran’s religious fundamentalism)

Its faulty for A, its just a hope and its likely that Iran will be a nuclear state much before it becomes a democracy where by then it will be too late.

Possible.....so peaceful diplomatic solutions are quickly needed..... I hope for the same thing but I think it’s highly doubtful that one can be achieved!!

and if I was an Iranian...I would be screaming to drag the Israeli nuke issue into it..they would have to be bloody morons not to do so. you’re damn right they would do that and in fact that have and they are succeeding already in doing this.

If Israel removes their nuclear deterrent based on all this it would be like Iran already stroke Israel with a nuclear weapon for then it would only be a matter of time before Israel would be attacked again like it was during the yom kipper war.

Secondly B,even if it does become a democracy, that is by no means a guarantee that they wont continue thier hostile intentions with these weapons even in a democratic setting.

Possible, but it certainly shouldn't be Israel arguing this point....as the democracy of Israel has initiated conventional and unconventional conflict repeatedly(in believed self-preservation) can, and has, been viewed as hypocritical....."Do as I say, not as I do." yes it can be Israel for Israel hasn’t initiated any conflict. The ones it started were out of self defence based on the Arabs will to initiate the attack first and simply based on Israel’s extreme numerical disadvantage it had no choice but to pre-empt that in order to survive.

Now of course people will be blind to that reality and simply use your types of catchphrases that Israel attacked first without putting in any context, well all I can say is that they are wrong and in my view are a bunch of morons (not you).

Secondly Israel as a democracy has not had offensive and hostile intentions towards Iran while the same cannot be said for Iran. But again this is all hypothetical for Iran is not a democracy and all you have here is wishful thinking while we in Israel have no choice but to deal in practical thinking which is the pressing reality!!!

Most of the world suspects that Israel has them so all these inspections can potentially do is either confirm it or say that Israel has much less or none at all in where in that case the day after Israel will be attacked.

Again...living in a high threat environment must leave one with a different outlook.....but that statement is quite "over the top". please explain how its over the top of me to say that if Israel didn’t have this nuclear deterrent for the past thirty years or if it is immediately known that Israel doesn’t have any, that the Arabs wouldn’t attack as you are insinuating. I say they would and it’s that nuclear deterrent that has prevented them from doing so. I don’t think my insinuation are over the top at all…please explain how my view is over the top here or not realitic.

Your phrase “living in a high threat environment” is a nice way of putting that Israel has been living in a area where many nations have fought and have had the will to destroy Israel and haven’t given up that goal.

Again Israel has had them for thirty years and has been in constant warfare and yet hasn’t used them. That’s concrete proof that Israel is most definitely responsible with those weapons and it is needed for its deterrent factor that it gives to Israel’s many enemies that would surly attack if Israel did not have there weapons.

Pakistan has had nukes for quite a few years now...some believe as long as 15 years...half that of Israel...does that mean in another 15 years Pakistan will be considered a "responsible" nuke owner...your "proof" is no proof at all. first of all, to somehow compare Israel’s extreme numerical disadvantage and its many enemies that it faces all at once that have continua sly sought to destroy it to Pakistan is simply absurd!!!

Secondly regardless of this smoke and mirror attempt to bring in other situations which are not comparable to Israel’s, the fact is that Israel has been in wars and in constant battle against odds that are unparalleled and yet hasn’t used it. Strictly in the Middle East context, that is strong proof!!!!

Thirdly, both of those nations (India and Pakistan)are fighting over one piece of land (Kashmir)and not over the total destruction of each other’s nations. That is not the case for Israel’s enemies that have tried to destroy Israel and have failed conventionally so they are now trying do acquire unconventional means to finish that goal.

If Iran agrees to renounce the acquisition of a nuclear capability in exchange for Israel's disclosure/reduction/elimination of nuclear weapons....how would you respond to that?
good question………………I would not comply.

If Iran drops overt support for terrorism, continues reform(at least on paper), continues nuke development, and spends heaps of oil money deflecting pressure to stop building nukes IF Israel comes to the table as well..Israel has a real problem...because Israel them becomes more of the "bad guy" in the eyes of the world. first of all Israel is a bad guy in the eyes of the world regardless of what it does.

Secondly you asked a lot of if’s and we are along way if at all from ever getting to that point.

Thirdly, I don’t care what Iran says it might do, its actions on the ground speak louder then their mere words. They can make all there dropping of terror announcements all they want, if hetballah and other terrorist groups continue to attack Israel from their (iran’s) support then its all meaningless to Israel.

Lastly, the arabs numerical strength is a type of nuclear weapon in itself!!!! Israel’s nuclear deterrent is A, to prevent a war and B, to counter balance their awesome numerical advantage. So even if Iran doesn’t build nuclear weapons, them or anyone else getting Israel to destroy theirs is bringing the conflict back to its very unequal level that Israel faces. Its as if Israel was hit with a nuclear weapon for the Arabs would surly attack.

Secondly that nuclear capability is the sole reason why Israel has not been attacked in over thirty years.

So Israel's conventional forces COULDN'T wipe out every potential threat in less time than it did in 1967? I don’t want to get into OPSEC violations here but all I will say is that this time around the arabs have much better capabilities and there is no doubt that no matter what, the loss of Jewish life will be catastrophic, this is no matter how strong Israel is.

Israel’s nuclear capability is more to prevent them from starting a war then to actually winning one.

I mean to ask Israel to take off that deterrent simply falls in the face of common sense when faced with the harsh reality that Israel faces.!!!

I can see your point of view....but I'm not the one who needs to be convinced...it's the ignorant masses that need to be convinced....and right now, Israel is perceived as a security threat itself(in Europe and Asia)....leaving it with less diplomatic "firepower". I thought you were the one that needed to be convinced ;)

Ultimately whether the world is convinced or not, no one but Israel has the power to destroy its nuclear deterrent. For Israel to listen to a ignorant world (which in a lot of cases is on purpose) would be disastrous. Now it should try to make its case as I am trying here as well but ultimately it needs to do what’s right for its very security regardless of what the non-parial world thinks.

Osirak is a perfect example of what the world thought and what Israel thought and who was right!!!!!

To really argue that Iran fears that Israel will want to attack to destroy it is simply absurd.

So if Israel acquires intelligence about the known location of an iranian nuke, Israel WOULDN'T strike Iran? The argument from an Iranian perspective would be far from absurd. no they would attack that plant but not try to destroy Iran.
I thought I was clear, Israel fears Iran will for it wants to destroy Israel and it is acquiring nuclear weapons to do that, while Iran has no such fear (and if it does it is simply groundless and only for the gullible western consumption) all it fears is an attack on its nuclear plants but not that Israel is going to destroy the whole Iran as Iran has made clear it wants to do to the whole Israel.

The fact is that Israel has had this nuclear deterrent now for over thirty years and has not used it once!!!

Pakistan has had it for up to 15 years and hasn't used it either.....that doesn't mean it's OK does it? again I cant speak for other places but in Israel’s case the fact is that Israel’s nuclear deterrent has prevented an all out war and without a doubt if it did not have that deterrent, there would have been an all out war by now again. In Israel’s case it most defiantly is right to have them especially considering Israel’s harsh reality!!!

To really believe that Iran would act as Israel has in its non use of those wepons, is naive in the purest sense of that word.

I NEVER STATED Iran would act as Israel...DON'T MISQUOTE ME...and you're naive to think a military solution is the answer. I never quoted that you said that. You have insinuated that, which you have!! But besides what you believe or not, other’s do believe what you have insinuated and my response is more to them then to you.

With a military solution it is now you misquoting me as I explained before.

Shalom :D

Steve Andrews

11-12-2003, 04:54 PM

Nuke Baghdad.
Might as well. Get all your blue on blue's done in one go.

Flagg

11-12-2003, 07:25 PM

We've both had pretty long-winded posts...I'll "try" and keep this one short(er):

Israel is a tiny nation that is out numbered on a statistical scale of 13 to one (or more then that) and as such the only thing that has prevented the arabs from starting another war is this nuclear deterrent which besides everything, serves as a sort of numerical balance to their large numbers.

Israel had the bomb(air droppable and Jericho I) in 1973 and that didn't prevent Syria and Egypt from attacking, trying to push it into the sea, and resulting in extremely high per capita casualties for Israel.

I'm also not aware of any threat to use nukes by Israel playing a role in the actual conflict by the participants...so what good did Israeli nukes do in that conflict?

Ok heres the point!!! Israel’s nuclear deterrent has prevented the arabs from even starting a war.

See Above

The bottom line is that Israel has a nuclear ambiguous policy and its that policy that has prevented an all out war for its keeps the Arabs guessing and as such it makes them think twice about stating another yom kipper war!!!

See Above

Israel’s nuclear deterrent is A, to prevent a war and B, to counter balance their awesome numerical advantage.

See Above

all I will is that Israel not using it has defiantly brought positve benefits: which is, it hasn’t been attacked!!!!

Ummm...See Above

I personally believe that this whole situation is the toughest challenge that Israel has had to face in some while!!!

Agreed......I would rank portable toilet cleaner and Prime Minster of Israel as the two jobs I'd least like to have at the moment. Tough times ahead, but it's good to see people actually WANT the job...rather than running away screaming.

first of all Israel is a bad guy in the eyes of the world regardless of what it does.

I think it's BS......Israel has a HUGE diaspora of Jewish and Gentile supporters around the globe......without whom....Israel wouldn't exist due to their financial, political, and physcial support since 1948. So Israel isn't "always" the bad guy.....unfortunately it's being viewed as one right now.

Other than France and it's decision in the late1960's/early 1970's to kick Israel to the curb and side with the Arabs.....the West(particularly the US and Germany and at great economic expense) has clearly stuck by Israel:

Have you seen this photo?

http://www.lexnotes.com/misc/jacques_iraq1.jpg

This cracks me up.....what was it, 5-10 years after France sold Dimona to Israel? And they're changing sides and doing a deal with Saddam for Osirak..too funny

Didn't Germany recently "gift" a pair of German made subs to Israel to complete it's nuclear triad? Nice gift to a "bad guy":

http://www.dolphin.org.il/gallery/dolphin/images/group1_04.jpg

If Israel is "always the bad guy" it would have been pressured to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Agreement, pressured to disclose its arsenal, and pressured to destroy/renounce them....the US keeps ensuring it stays of the political agenda.

But overall, Israel and its supporters have done a much more effective job than their Arab opponents in the West in conveying their argument to the masses(my opinion, which I think is accurate). Remember, it's often not about right or wrong...but perception.

A huge potential problem for Israel is if the Arab nations(Iran in particular) are able to execute more effective "marketing" in changing global perceptions...if not the truth.

I'd be curious to hear your thought on whether you think Israel would be safer under the status quo(economically stagnant pseudo dictatorships in Arab States unable to afford the ever continuing arms race) or economically improving emerging Arab State democracies able to further accelerate military spending?

All I know is...I'm glad I live way the F down here......cause if you guys blow the joint up someday.....we'll probably die last.

Flagg

11-12-2003, 07:27 PM

Nuke Baghdad.
Might as well. Get all your blue on blue's done in one go.

What are you implying? Turn the place into a parking lot and then send in Wal-Mart and Sam's Club?

I don't think I quite understand...

IDFM203

11-12-2003, 08:27 PM

We've both had pretty long-winded posts...I'll "try" and keep this one short(er): phew and my responses will thus be shorter as well ;) :D

”Israel is a tiny nation that is out numbered on a statistical scale of 13 to one (or more then that) and as such the only thing that has prevented the arabs from starting another war is this nuclear deterrent which besides everything, serves as a sort of numerical balance to their large numbers.”

Israel had the bomb(air droppable and Jericho I) in 1973 and that didn't prevent Syria and Egypt from attacking, trying to push it into the sea, and resulting in extremely high per capita casualties for Israel. first of all it is not clear as to what Israel had then. It has only become clear in the 1980’s. At the time though most estimates by everyone was that Israel had a very limited nuclear capability.

Secondly, Israel had very limited nuclear capability in that war. All it had was enough to cause some damage to probably only one attacking nation. It most certainly did not have enough to wipe out every single Arab nation or to even cause much damage to any of them.

Its that wipe out deterrent that has prevented the Arabs from attacking again in trying to wipe out Israel. At the time of the Yom kipper war, Israel did not have that complete deterrent.

It has attained that since and that is the sole factor in why they haven’t attacked again since.

I'm also not aware of any threat to use nukes by Israel playing a role in the actual conflict by the participants...so what good did Israeli nukes do in that conflict? again it didnt have large amounts of nuclear weapons or enough to have a effective deterrent at the time.

Israel was invaded by 5 Arab countries at a time that Israel had a very small nuclear deterrent, one in which it could probably only target one enemy nation. That is not enough to scare off a five-nation attack.

Ok heres the point!!! Israel’s nuclear deterrent has prevented the arabs from even starting a war.

See Above yep see above indeed…………..

The bottom line is that Israel has a nuclear ambiguous policy and its that policy that has prevented an all out war for its keeps the Arabs guessing and as such it makes them think twice about stating another yom kipper war!!!

See Above again see above…..

Israel’s nuclear deterrent is A, to prevent a war and B, to counter balance their awesome numerical advantage.

See Above again see above…….

all I will is that Israel not using it has defiantly brought positve benefits: which is, it hasn’t been attacked!!!!

Ummm...See Above and yet agin, see abovbe indeed………

first of all Israel is a bad guy in the eyes of the world regardless of what it does.

I think it's BS......Israel has a HUGE diaspora of Jewish and Gentile supporters around the globe......without whom....Israel wouldn't exist due to their financial, political, and physcial support since 1948. So Israel isn't "always" the bad guy.....unfortunately it's being viewed as one right now. first of all we are talking about recent times. I say recent I mean the past thirty years……

Secondly while outside support has been very beneficial and it has helped in Israel’s existence, from the 1970’s till now that argument that without the world help Israel wouldn’t exist is simply wrong and untrue.

Other than France and it's decision in the late1960's/early 1970's to kick Israel to the curb and side with the Arabs.....the West(particularly the US and Germany and at great economic expense) has clearly stuck by Israel: after the 70’s only the U.S. has stood by Israel and rightfully so. The rest of the world has been very hostile towerds Israel, now of course there are exceptions and your Germany one is a good one but those are exceptions and not the norm.

Didn't Germany recently "gift" a pair of German made subs to Israel to complete it's nuclear triad? Nice gift to a "bad guy": first of all Germanys relationship with Israel and its ‘gifts’ are done for obvious and unique reasons. But to stress here, Germany actions are in stark contrast to the way the rest of the world treats Israel and I am not just talking about in the past five years or so.

If Israel is "always the bad guy" it would have been pressured to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Agreement, pressured to disclose its arsenal, and pressured to destroy/renounce them....the US keeps ensuring it stays of the political agenda. it is pressured by everyone. agian the U.S. prevents that.

My statement that Israel is the bad guy in the world no matter what it does and yet there are a few nations that don’t act that way, doesn’t mean that my statement is untrue. It just means that there are exceptions to what every one is doing. That is all. Ok so most of the world feels that way. (Not all due to the few exceptions)

But overall, Israel and its supporters have done a much more effective job than their Arab opponents in the West in conveying their argument to the masses(my opinion, which I think is accurate). Remember, it's often not about right or wrong...but perception. what?? That’s so laughable to even say such a thing. I mean that Europe poll says it all about which side is being heard better. The U.N.’s abysmal record at condemning Israel while NEVER condemning an Arab state that has acted against israel tells as to which side is being heard. Africas alignment with the arbs tells as to where Africa stands Except for the American public, the rest of the world has bought hook and sinker the arab view if it at all has even bothered to listened to the Israeli view.

I'd be curious to hear your thought on whether you think Israel would be safer under the status quo(economically stagnant pseudo dictatorships in Arab States unable to afford the ever continuing arms race) or economically improving emerging Arab State democracies able to further accelerate military spending? I am not this great lover of democracy in the middle east as a lot of American are. I don’t think that’s any solution for I just feel that if there were a democracy then the people would vote to have the same hostile policies as they do now. The only reason why the dictators are still in power is because they don’t stray too far from what the people want. That’s the reality of the Middle East.

All I know is...I'm glad I live way the F down here......cause if you guys blow the joint up someday.....we'll probably die last. well you and the rest of the world can prevent that from happening by preventing hostile nations such as Iran to acquire those weapons. Israel will only “blow the joint up” so to speak only after its attacked first or its total destruction is very near!!!!

Shalom :D

On a lighter note. I had this aussie in my unit. He had this phrase “shrimp on a Barbie” what does that mean???

StarvingStudent47

11-12-2003, 09:00 PM

Flagg: You asked questions. I answered them. If you did not personally believe the questions you were raising, then assume my answer was to the hypothetical person who DID believe so. Problem solved? Good.

You assert that Israel would use nukes if they faced massive invasion from Arab militaries. What about the Yom Kippur War?

I noticed you avatar.....I may be reading into it, but if you happen to be a strong supporter of Israel what is your opinion on Israel's role in assuring Iran doesn't acquire a nuclear capability?
What is Israel's role? Well Israel would be in imminent danger if Iran got nuclear weapons, just as the USA would. Both countries have a major stake in keeping nuclear arms out of Iran's hands, at least until Iran's government changes to something less radically fundamentalist. But I'm not sure exactly what you're asking. Are you asking me if Israel should take out Iran's nuclear reactors? Truth is, I don't care who does it. USA, Israel, Argentina, Cambodia--I don't care who does it as long as it's done. You know?

Flagg

11-12-2003, 10:37 PM

I had this aussie in my unit. He had this phrase “shrimp on a Barbie” what does that mean???

Shrimp (like Tiger Prawn) can grow pretty big down here.....about the size of a small lobster

the Barbie is the BBQ

Speaking of which we just had our first BBQ of the season two days ago...thank god for Southern Hemisphere summer.

Flagg

11-12-2003, 11:01 PM

You assert that Israel would use nukes if they faced massive invasion from Arab militaries. What about the Yom Kippur War?

Nope....If you read my last post to IDFM203 you'll see that I think Israelis possession of nukes DIDN'T prevent an attack on Israel and the most horrendous casualties suffered since the War of Independence in 1948.

What is Israel's role? Well Israel would be in imminent danger if Iran got nuclear weapons, just as the USA would.

And how exactly would that be different from Pakistan's possession of nukes? They've got them....they support terrorists, their military ranks include strong supporters of radical islamic fundamentalism, and they're an aggressive dictatorship...why aren't we running for our lives in fear of Pakistan?

Oh yeah...that's right..I forgot, they're "allies", at least for today, in the War on Terror.

Are you asking me if Israel should take out Iran's nuclear reactors? Truth is, I don't care who does it. USA, Israel, Argentina, Cambodia--I don't care who does it as long as it's done. You know?

No I don't know.....military strikes against Iran's nuclear ambitions would equate to a complete foreign policy failure.

Attempting to damage Iran's nuclear infrastructure would merely delay their ambitions, and likely solidify the current government's grip on the country and be counterproductive in the long-run.

Flagg

11-12-2003, 11:19 PM

Secondly, Israel had very limited nuclear capability in that war. All it had was enough to cause some damage to probably only one attacking nation. It most certainly did not have enough to wipe out every single Arab nation or to even cause much damage to any of them.

It wouldn't have taken much more than a half-dozen low-yield weapons to attack the armour spearheads in the Sinai and the Golan as well as leaving several warheads available to target Damascus, Cairo, Baghdad, Tehran, Tripoli, etc. in case of catastrophic failure on either front threatening Israel's existence.

I think we'll have to "agree to disagree" on this one.....

well you and the rest of the world can prevent that from happening by preventing hostile nations such as Iran to acquire those weapons. Israel will only “blow the joint up” so to speak only after its attacked first or its total destruction is very near!!!!

Hopefully it oesn't come to that and cooler heads prevail...meanwhile...I'll be hanging out way down here until you folks way up there can figure things out.

Cheers...

IDFM203

11-12-2003, 11:34 PM

“Secondly, Israel had very limited nuclear capability in that war. All it had was enough to cause some damage to probably only one attacking nation. It most certainly did not have enough to wipe out every single Arab nation or to even cause much damage to any of them.”

It wouldn't have taken much more than a half-dozen low-yield weapons to attack the armour spearheads in the Sinai and the Golan as well as leaving several warheads available to target Damascus, Cairo, Baghdad, Tehran, Tripoli, etc. in case of catastrophic failure on either front threatening Israel's existence. ... first of all your estimates are way too high for Israel at that time. All estimates at that time was that Israel probably had one or two working “bombs” and that was it.

This whole nuclear weapons against all these Arab cities was not in the cards for Israel didn’t have any such capability.
Remember the whole argument is about prevention and how Israel’s full nuclear deterrent has prevented the Arabs from starting another war in the past thirty years.

This argument is not about what it could have done during the war or not…….

That awesome deterrent factor was not fully in play in 1973 and as such the arabs did not fear any such deterrent for they knew that Israel didn’t have any, or on that level to deter a five nation attack.

I think we'll have to "agree to disagree" on this one..... ... well your not getting off that easy…….. ;) While perhaps at the end of the day so to speak we will agree to disagree, you still haven’t successfully addressed the fact that since Israel has had a full nuclear deterrent it hasnt been attacked. Your Yom kipper analogy is not a counter argument to that statement (as I have already explained above and in my other post)!!!!

Shalom.

GazB

11-13-2003, 01:40 AM

I believe the last time the US tried to pressure the Russians to stop helping the Iranians with the (Civilian) nuclear program it went along the lines of "Bill CLinton: Hey putin... if you don't stop that deal you have with the iranians we are going to stop our current $2 billion aid offer (ie a loan that incurs interest).... Vladimir Putin: Hey Clinton, this deal is worth $6 billion to us and we don't need to pay that back... even your economic advisors told us to tell you we will not stop this deal..."

aktarian

11-13-2003, 03:58 AM

huh?? No your timeline is a bit off here. Israel and Iran had good relations (well relatively speaking) before the 1980’s. anything after was at a small scale and it was on a covert scale

It was anything but small scale. Israel shared intel data with Iranians (e.g. for Iranian H-3 bombing raid, Osirak bombing....), sold them spares for planes and SAMs. this sales went on for long time, even after US started claping down on US sales to Iran

secondly the covert help that Israel did on behalf of the U.S. was in everyone’s interests. It was done for the U.S. first for the U.S. efforts to free those hostages. And then Israel perhaps continued it (there is no proof to this whatsoever) a bit in a theory of when two Muslim nations that have openly made Israel an enemy or instead fighting each other, well a continence of that is beneficial to Israel for it means that instead of fighting each other they would then turn their intention to Israel. I know that sounds harsh but that’s the harsh world that the middle east is in.

There is ample proof. Both Iranians and Israelis admit as such.

Just to clarify, Israel’s involvement with Iran in the 80’s was at a minimal. It was not decisive in any way or “good” as you put it.

It wasn't decisive but it went long way for Iran to maintain it's aircaft and SAMs operational, specially after mid-1980s.

But besides all that, Iran has been fighting Israel through its proxies for years and it has accelerated all that during the 90’s .

Yes, and when it started it didn't prevent Israel from helping Iran. Odd.

first of all, Iran has made Israel a sworn enemy and has vowed openly to destroy it. That’s a fact so to ask why this and why that is now in the hypothetical but the reality is that Iran holds Israel as an enemy, one in which it has vowed to detroy, even though Israel hasn’t done a thing to it.

Can Iran occupy Israel and liberate Jerusalem? No. So all they could do is to launch missiles at Israel and hit it's cities and get hit return. I seriusly doubt they would do that as they would gain absolutly nothing by it.

Secondly Iran views Israel and its goal for its destruction in the eyes of a radical Islam since in that all infidels as they term it must be eradicated from that land. In a radical Islam sense, in which Iran’s leaders are adherent too, the destruction of Israel as a Jewish state is one that they need to strive for and one in which they have been now doing for years.

Supporting Hezbollah to resist Israeli ocupation of Lebanon is one thing, soemthing that had impact. Attacking Israel wouldn't.

well they have also made it clear that they have offensive intentions with regards to Israel, now while of course they have perhaps legitimate defensive needs, they making their hostile and offensive intentions clear throughout all these years, tells the true intentions for these weapons.

Chinese made agresive intentions toward Taiwan clear. Does that mean they are about to attack?

I will sum it up that Iran wants these weapons for its personal defence as well as to use against Israel.

When a nation has hostile and offensive intentions, it simply cannot be allowed to acquire those weapons even if their defensive needs are just.

And who is to decide what countries can and cn't have? US? Israel?

Just out of curiosity though, what nuclear defence does Iran need to have now that Iraq is incapable of launching another war against Iran????

Shalom :D

Iran is surrounded by countries with nuclear weapons. I think about 1/3 of it's borders are nuclear free.

Flagg

11-14-2003, 12:06 AM

first of all your estimates are way too high for Israel at that time. All estimates at that time was that Israel probably had one or two working “bombs” and that was it.

That awesome deterrent factor was not fully in play in 1973 and as such the arabs did not fear any such deterrent for they knew that Israel didn’t have any, or on that level to deter a five nation attack.

I disagree, I found this:

During the 1973 Yom Kippur War, when Israeli forces were being driven back across the Sinai by the Egyptians, and were in jeopardy of losing the Golan to the Syrians, Israel's nuclear forces were reportedly put on heightened alert. This allegedly included placing a squadron of F-4Es on continuous alert, manned by Israel's most elite pilots, ready to strike with the country's nascent nuclear arsenal. Another report in Time magazine credits Prime Minister Golda Meir with ordering the nuclear weapons armed in preparation for a strike, though "Before any triggers were set, however, the battle on both fronts turned in Israel's favor. The 13 bombs were sent [back] to their desert arsenals."

If you even cut the 13 number cited down...

you still have a credible deterrent for:

stopping every critical battlefield breach

every Arab combatant capital

as well as one left over for a one-way trip to the Arab supplier's capital....Moscow p-)

considering the fact the Soviets had armed, trained, provided intelligence for the combined Arab forces, and having intelligence agents active in Israel,
the Soviets would have likely known of Israel's capability....yet this didn't prevent an attempt to push Israel into the ocean.

I still think Israel's deterrent didn't deter the Arabs.....think about it...it doesn't take more than a mere handful to liquidate the Arab threat permanently.

On another note:

what?? That’s so laughable to even say such a thing. I mean that Europe poll says it all about which side is being heard better. The U.N.’s abysmal record at condemning Israel while NEVER condemning an Arab state that has acted against israel tells as to which side is being heard. Africas alignment with the arbs tells as to where Africa stands Except for the American public, the rest of the world has bought hook and sinker the arab view if it at all has even bothered to listened to the Israeli view.

After Googling a bit more....I would have to concede( :oops: ) that Israel gets knocked around quite a bit internationally largely at the behest of Arab nations......but couldn't this be the "oil" talking, rather than actual views?

Because on a question of extraordinary magnitude(Israeli nukes) regarding Israel.....the "silence" has been deafening...many books have been written speculating ABOUT Israeli nukes, but what OPPOSITION to them has even hit Western media?

Even with US support I find it fascinating that it has received so little credible criticism.

I've NEVER seen a bloody word printed against them....

Unlike US and Soviet nukes where we all witnessed mass demonstrations regarding disarmament during the 1970s & 1980s....

Surely the argument of "well, people must realise the commonsense in Israel's nuke requirements" doesn't float.

StarvingStudent47

11-14-2003, 12:21 AM

Because on a question of extraordinary magnitude(Israeli nukes) regarding Israel.....the "silence" has been deafening...many books have been written speculating ABOUT Israeli nukes, but what OPPOSITION to them has even hit Western media?

Even with US support I find it fascinating that it has received so little credible criticism.

I've NEVER seen a bloody word printed against them....

Unlike US and Soviet nukes where we all witnessed mass demonstrations regarding disarmament during the 1970s & 1980s....

Surely the argument of "well, people must realise the commonsense in Israel's nuke requirements" doesn't float.

People wanted the USA and USSR to dismantle our nukes because we kept threatening to launch them at each other ;)

Remember that people rarely ask that Britain and France dismantle their nuclear arsenals. This is because Britain and France took a much "quieter" route--everybody knew they had them, but they didn't rattle their sabres about it. Israel has acted the same as Britain and France regarding nukes, and so it only fair that they are treated the same about it.

I mean, think about Khrushchev's speech at the UN where he took his shoe off, pounded it on the podium, and shouted "WE WILL BURY YOU!!!" If Yitzhak Rabin had pulled a stunt like that, I'm sure the world would be screaming for Israeli disarmament too.

Flagg

11-14-2003, 05:10 AM

Remember that people rarely ask that Britain and France dismantle their nuclear arsenals. This is because Britain and France took a much "quieter" route--everybody knew they had them, but they didn't rattle their sabres about it.

Incorrect...regarding both countries

(CNN) Cold War: Opposition to The Bomb:

During the years immediately following World War II, the mass movement for nuclear disarmament was strongest in Europe. In the mid-1950s, Britain was home to several such groups, including the H-Bomb National Campaign, the National Council for the Abolition of Nuclear Weapons Tests, and the Direct Action Committee Against Nuclear Weapons, or DAC.

But one of the most influential anti-nuclear groups, both past and present, is the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND). Founded in February 1958, CND -- along with DAC -- made international headlines several weeks later with a protest march from London to the British nuclear weapons facility at Aldermaston. The CND's annual Easter marches soon became major events, with tens of thousands taking part.

The CND demanded Britain unilaterally get rid of its nuclear weapons.

Also, I'm assuming you've heard of Greenpeace.....they were such a thorn in the side of France on the nuke issue, the French intelligence service covertly entered New Zealand, mined a Greenpeace boat planning on disrupting a French nuclear test, and murdered a crewmember in Auckland, NZ harbour 1986. Several French operatives were arrested.

http://www.greenpeaceusa.org/graphics/nuclear/rw_sunk.jpg

S'13

11-14-2003, 07:05 AM

Erik

11-14-2003, 07:24 AM

How should we deal with Iran's Nuke Program?

There are two ways to deal with it...

http://www.pakaviation.com/PVA/Library/AirPhotos/Military/PakAF_F-16/Thmb_F-16_Bombing.jpg

AND

http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/policy/vision/vis02/p100-a.gif

;)
Yes that is the only effective way rofl

History has shown us that violence and war are the best ways to **** things up p-)

S'13

11-14-2003, 07:27 AM

Yes that is the only effective way

History has shown us that violence and war are the best ways to f*** things up

Well it worked with the Osirak nuclear reactor back in 1981.
;)

StarvingStudent47

11-14-2003, 12:44 PM

Yes that is the only effective way rofl

History has shown us that violence and war are the best ways to f*** things up p-)

Why are you at MILITARYphotos.net if you feel this way?

IDFM203

11-14-2003, 01:06 PM

“first of all your estimates are way too high for Israel at that time. All estimates at that time was that Israel probably had one or two working “bombs” and that was it.

That awesome deterrent factor was not fully in play in 1973 and as such the arabs did not fear any such deterrent for they knew that Israel didn’t have any, or on that level to deter a five nation attack”

I disagree, I found this:

During the 1973 Yom Kippur War, when Israeli forces were being driven back across the Sinai by the Egyptians, and were in jeopardy of losing the Golan to the Syrians, Israel's nuclear forces were reportedly put on heightened alert. This allegedly included placing a squadron of F-4Es on continuous alert, manned by Israel's most elite pilots, ready to strike with the country's nascent nuclear arsenal. Another report in Time magazine credits Prime Minister Golda Meir with ordering the nuclear weapons armed in preparation for a strike, though "Before any triggers were set, however, the battle on both fronts turned in Israel's favor. The 13 bombs were sent [back] to their desert arsenals."

If you even cut the 13 number cited down...

you still have a credible deterrent for:

stopping every critical battlefield breach

every Arab combatant capital

as well as one left over for a one-way trip to the Arab supplier's capital....Moscow p-)

considering the fact the Soviets had armed, trained, provided intelligence for the combined Arab forces, and having intelligence agents active in Israel,
the Soviets would have likely known of Israel's capability....yet this didn't prevent an attempt to push Israel into the ocean.

I still think Israel's deterrent didn't deter the Arabs.....think about it...it doesn't take more than a mere handful to liquidate the Arab threat permanently. . first of all everything you brought down is on alleged report and its all circumstantial.

Secondly the point is that no matter what Israel had, at the time the arabs nor the rest of the world knew what Israel had and assumed that Israel had none or very little. The same was true for the Arabs

Of course they didn’t know for if they did know and Israel did have that deterrent then they would not have attacked. Saying that Russia had spies in Israel (which it does) means nothing for Israel’s nuclear capabilities was very well hidden from most Israeli’s let alone those Russian spies.

I mean you say the Russians would have likely known is as if you base that on seeing way to many James bond movies. No, they would at that time not have likely known. The most they or anyone else would have guessed was that Israel had some nuclear capability but not the full deterrent that has prevented the Arabs from striking again!!!

I mean think about it, if Israel had that full nuclear deterrent, then why would these five nations attack knowing that Israel can wipe them out??? The fact is that Israel had nowhere near that full deterrent and as such the five invading armies did not fear any such thing based on the knowledge that Israel did not have that full capability.

”what?? That’s so laughable to even say such a thing. I mean that Europe poll says it all about which side is being heard better. The U.N.’s abysmal record at condemning Israel while NEVER condemning an Arab state that has acted against israel tells as to which side is being heard. Africas alignment with the arbs tells as to where Africa stands Except for the American public, the rest of the world has bought hook and sinker the arab view if it at all has even bothered to listened to the Israeli view.”

After Googling a bit more....I would have to concede( :oops: ) that Israel gets knocked around quite a bit internationally largely at the behest of Arab nations......but couldn't this be the "oil" talking, rather than actual views? . ture about the oil but that’s perhps for the government policies, but even if that ture it is worng and as wee see that no matter what you attrubute it too, Israel is not being treated fairly as it should and that is worng. It is the bad guy regardless and perhps that has to do with the euopean love for arab oil but it doesn’t take away from that harshe fact of israel’s mistreatment.

Secondly besides their abysmal record of voting in the UN, the Arab and a lot in the European world hates Israel.

I mean that Europe poll only confirmed what we knew for years and as well as other factors, it all leads to bear true on my statement, that Israel is considered the bad guy no matter what. ( I mean I can write a whole thesis on the many example of this but I am afraid it will be too long to put here)

Because on a question of extraordinary magnitude(Israeli nukes) regarding Israel.....the "silence" has been deafening...many books have been written speculating ABOUT Israeli nukes, but what OPPOSITION to them has even hit Western media? . believe me the people for years always asking about the silence about Israel’s nukes makes more loud noise then any noise against France or Britain or the U.S. noise!!

There has been little opposition in the west to Israel’s nukes up to now but that too has changed. Yes indeed there is opposition to Israel’s nukes.

Even with US support I find it fascinating that it has received so little credible criticism. . yes because just like during the cold war there was little opposition to the U.S. nukes for the understanding of MAD so too the America people for the most part understand Israel’s need to have those weapons to simply deter the many enemies that outnumber it by a margin of 13 to one.

Unlike US and Soviet nukes where we all witnessed mass demonstrations regarding disarmament during the 1970s & 1980s.... . yes they wanted both to disarm but none was saying that one nation should disarm and not the other for that would be suicidal

With Israel, the Arab numerical advantage is like a nuclear weapon and as such Israel’s own nuclear weapons counters that numerical advantage. For Israel to destroy its nuclear weapons would be suicidal for it would almost surly be an invitation for the Arab’s to launch another attack.

Surely the argument of "well, people must realise the commonsense in Israel's nuke requirements" doesn't float. and no wonder why I feel you dont have a clue as to the realties of the middle east.!!!!! I guess its fortunate that you live in sunny Australia for you cant seem to understand what common sense in the Middle East. I guess just like I don’t claim to know what common sense down where you live I think you as well should not do the same for we are.

Shalom:D

IDFM203

11-14-2003, 01:07 PM

“ huh?? No your timeline is a bit off here. Israel and Iran had good relations (well relatively speaking) before the 1980’s. anything after was at a small scale and it was on a covert scale”

It was anything but small scale. Israel shared intel data with Iranians (e.g. for Iranian H-3 bombing raid, Osirak bombing....), sold them spares for planes and SAMs. this sales went on for long time, even after US started claping down on US sales to Iran and even in your response it shows the small scale. I mean Israel didn’t sell planes, it didn’t sell tanks, it didn’t sell major armaments or small weapons. No it sold some parts for some things and allegedly shred Intel (you have proof to that??).. That’s a small scale.

This sales ended by the mid to late 80’s. So from 1979 to that period, that is not considered a long time.

But besides all that, Iran has been fighting Israel through its proxies for years and it has accelerated all that during the 90’s .

Yes, and when it started it didn't prevent Israel from helping Iran. Odd. . ok let me help you out here. Its not odd for those sales were done by a few individuals on both sides and it wasn’t official policy. In the beginning perhaps it was a bit more covertly official but towards the end it was not.

I mean just like there are criminal Russian and Americans and Europeans so to there are criminal Israeli’s who sell illegally to foreign countries. Yes there have been some Israelis who have done so without government approval.

Iran has actively engaged through its proxies on a war on Israel when Israel hasn’t done a thing to it!!

Iran openly calls for the destruction of Israel when Israel calls for no such thing of Iran.

Iran has military parades with the march of Jerusalem name and missiles with all sorts of attack on Israel theme written on it.

To talk about that small and petty relationship in the 80’s as some sort of allowance for Iran to have these nuclear weapons or to somehow side track that issue is absurd.

Its like you cant see the forest because of the individual trees are blinding you.!!!

“first of all, Iran has made Israel a sworn enemy and has vowed openly to destroy it. That’s a fact so to ask why this and why that is now in the hypothetical but the reality is that Iran holds Israel as an enemy, one in which it has vowed to detroy, even though Israel hasn’t done a thing to it”

Can Iran occupy Israel and liberate Jerusalem? No. So all they could do is to launch missiles at Israel and hit it's cities and get hit return. I seriusly doubt they would do that as they would gain absolutly nothing by it. . well Iran’s religious leaders consider it a sin that there is infidels on that holy land. Wiping out the Jews of that land will surly sit nice with them!!!

well they have also made it clear that they have offensive intentions with regards to Israel, now while of course they have perhaps legitimate defensive needs, they making their hostile and offensive intentions clear throughout all these years, tells the true intentions for these weapons.

Chinese made agresive intentions toward Taiwan clear. Does that mean they are about to attack? the Chinese made aggressive intentions towards Taiwan to scare of Taiwan from declaring full independence, Iran has been making its intentions known for years even before they had these missiles and they are doing it now to show their people what their intentions are. The intentions to destroy Israel and to acquire those types of weapons that have that capability goes a long way in the Muslim middle east. This curries a lot of favour in the Arab Muslim world as well as their own radical Muslim population (the large percentage that is of them in Iran), which means a lot to them.

Secondly china might attack, just like Iran more then likely will do the same.. The ultimate safety of a nation cannot rely on these chances and likelyhoods for there is too much at stake (the ultimate survival)

I will sum it up that Iran wants these weapons for its personal defence as well as to use against Israel.

When a nation has hostile and offensive intentions, it simply cannot be allowed to acquire those weapons even if their defensive needs are just.

And who is to decide what countries can and cn't have? US? Israel? those that are threatened by them. Israel and to some extent the U.S. as well is threatened by it.

Just out of curiosity though, what nuclear defence does Iran need to have now that Iraq is incapable of launching another war against Iran????

Shalom :D

Iran is surrounded by countries with nuclear weapons. I think about 1/3 of it's borders are nuclear free. oh so which countries besides Israel, that surround iran have nuclear weapons and which ones are a threat to use them against Iran first

Shalom :D

Flagg

11-14-2003, 01:08 PM

Why are you at MILITARYphotos.net if you feel this way?

A MILITARY solution should be the FINAL solution, rather than the FIRST and ONLY solution suggested by most.....for that, you get:

http://www.pfunn.com/images/bfife.gif

The Barney Fife Citation

Now please hand over ALL of your ammunition...you are a danger to yourself and the rest of the world.

andyrew_21

11-14-2003, 02:30 PM

bomb the hell out of Iran, thats how to deal with it

Nizark

11-14-2003, 05:25 PM

OK ladies and gentlemen, FINAL THOUGHTS EVERYONE.
So far, bombing them is the leading answer, but there is also the economic sanctions that the EU could levy on them and UN sanctions, and...what else?

If we can throw in a sentence or two as your final solution for iran, it would be great.

Also, if you decide on military action, who should do it..US, Israel or Turkey? Yes, i said turkey..recently in the middle east newswire turkey called iran their main threat since the PKK disbanded this week. Or perhaps a triparte attack like UK.France.Israel did in the suez. Whatever you decide on, thank you all for your help.

Flagg

11-14-2003, 05:41 PM

Massive overt/covert aid for democratic/political reformists.

Safety guarantees for existing regime members from prosecution.

Military strikes only as an ABSOLUTE LAST resort.

S'13

11-14-2003, 06:22 PM

It is estimated that the Iranian reactor will start operating in 2005 (or before then). If so, time is of the essence. Once that reactor is operational it will be the point of no return. We could still destroy the reactor while it's operational, but such a thing would cause the release of radioactive substance into the Earths atmosphere.
This was the same problem Israel faced when planning the attack on the Osirak nuclear reactor.
An attack can be carried out from the air, like what was done by Israel in 1981. Or we could simply let the cruise missiles do the job.

GazB

11-15-2003, 12:31 AM

"I mean, think about Khrushchev's speech at the UN where he took his shoe off, pounded it on the podium, and shouted "WE WILL BURY YOU!!!" "

He meant that communism would outlast capitalism (ie if capitalism is gone then the communists will be left the task of burying it).

If it was a threat then it would be we will kill you all, or bury you alive.

It is estimated that the Iranian reactor will start operating in 2005 (or before then). If so, time is of the essence. Once that reactor is operational it will be the point of no return.

A breeder reactor that has the purpose of producing weapons grade plutonium can be as small as a van and can easily be hidden. It is the big ones that are designed for civilian power generation that are easy to spot.
The last attack on a nuclear program in the region was so successful... not. Driving it underground and making them break it up into widely seperated operations has just made targetting it harder.

StarvingStudent47

11-15-2003, 01:05 AM

"I mean, think about Khrushchev's speech at the UN where he took his shoe off, pounded it on the podium, and shouted "WE WILL BURY YOU!!!" "

He meant that communism would outlast capitalism (ie if capitalism is gone then the communists will be left the task of burying it).

Actually, my understanding was that he meant "our production of goods will bury your production of goods. Our economy will bury your economy." But that's irrelevant. At the time, everyone west of the Iron Curtain interpreted it as "we will annihilate you, so you better say your prayers."

If it was a threat then it would be we will kill you all, or bury you alive.

I disagree. I think "I will bury you" can be a death threat.