Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 46 to 52 of 52

Thread: No Good Military Option For Iran

  1. #46

    Default

    As far as Military options are concerned the most direct would be the best. pick a nuclear development site that is as far away from a civian center as possible. Fire a tomahawk on it with a 445 kiloton warhead. The site disapears, with minimal civilian casualties. Then demand unconditional surrender of Iran's nuclear materials to the UN. If they seemed to have joined the nuclear club, then I guess they can receive attention as well as give.
    Everybody would be to **** scared to do anything about a weapon like that being used in anger at an obviously military target. It would send a hell of a message, and it would probably kill less people than a conventional air campaign and raids on the ground to physically go in and pull the research apart.

    Wow a cogent argument for a nuclear war. I just scared myself.

  2. #47
    Senior Member Atlantic Friend's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Politically Dubious Uncle Cracka
    Age
    44
    Posts
    12,291

    Default

    Somehow I dont think 'cogent' best describes that argument.

  3. #48
    Senior Member SoSo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    2,626

    Default

    It's not an ideal solution, but you can't say an idea isn't cogent just because you happen to disagree with it. We may have reached a point where we have to start giving some consideration to even the more questionable options.

  4. #49

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SoSo View Post
    I can understand that people in countries hostile to American and Israeli interests would be glad to see one of our enemies aquire nukes, to deter what they see as our military adventurism in the region. Iran is our adversary, not theirs, so they don't see any downside to its development of these weapons.
    But I think nuclear proliferation is something we should all want to prevent if we can, since it's unlikely to end with Iran. I believe a nuclear-armed Iran will frighten many countries in the region, and cause them to want to arm themselves with such weapons. Imagine a Middle East, with several countries, some of them repressive and unstable, armed with nukes and delivery systems, with long-held animosities that could easily trigger their use.
    i agree with nuclear proliferation is not good but you forget the reason we have Iran wanting to have nuclear capability because Israel has nuclear weapons

    since the west which is allied with and will not press Israel to do anything about its weapons even though there's a US the worlds superpower of a 51st state guarantee of Israels security in that Israel will never be mortally attacked where the US will not respond so in that situation of great hypocrisy nuclear proliferation has already been set

    i also think its unlikely any other countries will go nuclear since turkey is a NATO member it ill not and Saudi being a US Allie will not and the others do not have the resources or capability to attempt anything

    so it will be Israel-Iran Mutually assured destruction until they negotiate out of it.

  5. #50
    Senior Member Atlantic Friend's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Politically Dubious Uncle Cracka
    Age
    44
    Posts
    12,291

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SoSo View Post
    It's not an ideal solution, but you can't say an idea isn't cogent just because you happen to disagree with it. We may have reached a point where we have to start giving some consideration to even the more questionable options.
    To be a tad brutal, that does horribly sound like "we're short of good ideas, so let's pick up a real bad one instead".

    The aforementioned cogent idea is to launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike, call any collateral civilian deaths minimal, and follow by ***** nuclear blackmail, on the basis that "everybody would be too **** scared to do anything about it".

    But I agree with Existentialfish on one point: that sure would send "one Hell of a message" all right.

  6. #51
    the Ralph Wiggum of Mp.net. timetraveller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    In a house
    Posts
    8,385

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kraf001 View Post
    I don't think any military can defeat our female ninja army anyways.... so bring it on!


    that is just as bad as that America wrestling tv show .. .. Plus i hate how they claim the Ninjitsu as a martial art when they know sfa of it's true origins .. It was films that took a folklore and turn it into entertainment

  7. #52

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Atlantic Friend View Post
    To be a tad brutal, that does horribly sound like "we're short of good ideas, so let's pick up a real bad one instead".

    The aforementioned cogent idea is to launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike, call any collateral civilian deaths minimal, and follow by ***** nuclear blackmail, on the basis that "everybody would be too **** scared to do anything about it".

    But I agree with Existentialfish on one point: that sure would send "one Hell of a message" all right.
    Well when you put it that way.. I for one am am glad I am not in power.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •