Iran Already Has Nukes?

[itgoesboom]

I think Art has, as usual, the best take one the situation.


rero360 said:

Again I think it needs to be stated that its the leadership of Iran that is troublesome, the vast majority of the populace is relatively pro west, or at least neutral, IIRC 75% of the country is below 30 years old, or some age near that, its only the old hardliners that are causing problems.

Rero,

That is true. I think the number is actually closer to 50% is under 30, but close enough. The problem is, those are the people that voted for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, because he promised that he would spread out the wealth from oil sales to the people of Iran. Ofcourse, he isn't able to do that, but he convinced all the young pro-western voters to vote for him, a hardline, anti-western candidate.

Those young voters, who we have been placing our hopes on, just went and did the worst thing possible for us (not that they really had a choice, all of the candidates were fairly hardline.)

I.G.B.

 

[AZLibertarian]

Based on nothing but the same ether everybody else is smelling around here, I'd say that Iran doesn't have nukes....yet. I have a hard time believing that the nutcase in charge over there wouldn't push the button himself on their first test firing...followed shortly thereafter with an attack on Israel.

However, I don't think we'll let Israel make a strike. I don't think they have the legs to pull if off in the first place, but it would completely coalesce the rest of the Mid-East against us. Not that everybody over there is our friend, but there is a fair amount of suspicion among the "Arab" Muslims towards the "Persian" Muslims, although not much of it is public.

Any attack we make will, I think, be strong on airstrikes, and short on land occupation. We'll take down their nuke facilities, their military, and much of their power grid. We may have to put in some unconventional ground troops, but they wouldn't stay long once their mission was complete. The intent of a US military action, would be to eliminate or delay their acquisition of nukes, and let democracy slowly creep over from Iraq. Putting in enough troops to bring them democracy today--a-la Iraq--just isn't possible. It would take far too many troops (probably require a draft here), and therefore isn't palatable.

 

[Gun_nut]

heres somthing i think iran has nukes to shoot at the Israleis or to attack us **probabble but not** or they have a secret allie to attack america *probly not* but this gives me all the more reasons to stock up on ammo..i say if they doo NATO should find something to do about it because the clock is ticking

 

[agricola]

The guns pointed at their heads don't mean anything with their new President in power. He is hoping for a confrontation and massive destruction in the hopes that it will bring about the messiah figure, the Mahdi.

I'd like to see the evidence you have for this.

Add into this the fact that he has called for the destruction of not only Israel, but the USA as well. That probably doesn't mean much to you in the UK, but that pisses me off quite a bit.

All of which is hardly unique in the Arab world, and it has a long been a staple of "demonstrations" in Iran since the revolution.

Well, I do believe in taking action against those who are wanting to and are capable of inflicting damage unto us.

Which would just be stupid; yes they can inflict damage on you, you can destroy them if they do. Thats why you have nukes.

 

[Art Eatman]

rero, you're right but you're irrelevant. (Me, I'm mostly irreverent.)

Just as the Iranian government doesn't have to deal with you and me, who could be hostile to the ideas of Bush and to the Israelis, our government and the Israelis have to consider the "probables" of the Iranian government--not those Iranians who would be friendly toward us.

Governments have to deal with governments, which is why we climbed in bed with so many (Bleep!) dictators during the Cold War years instead of the peoples themselves.

StatFor, by the way, thinks that the Iranian leadership is bluffing about the actual use of nukes. It is playing political word games to increase its own influence in the middle east.

Art

 

[itgoesboom]

I'd like to see the evidence you have for this.

Good introductory article: HERE

Wikipedia Link on who the figure is: HERE

There was another article out there, that talked about the President possibly being a member of a small sect within Shia Islam, and when I looked up what that sect was on wikipedia, it was a sect that believed they could bring about the end of the world by creating the proper conditions for the Mahdi to reapper. I can't find it now, but if I do find it, I will post that as well.

All of which is hardly unique in the Arab world, and it has a long been a staple of "demonstrations" in Iran since the revolution. .

Yes, but this is the first time that a hardline Muslim nation who has stated it's goals to be the destruction of America and Israel will have the ability to do it. Go read Art's post regarding that.

Which would just be stupid; yes they can inflict damage on you, you can destroy them if they do. Thats why you have nukes.

Once again, that only works against an enemy that isn't afraid to take damages. If they believe that an all out war would usher in the end of the world, and Islam would conquer all, then they are more than willing to go that route. We aren't dealing with logical minds here.

Ofcourse we could always ignore the threat. Appeasement worked so well when Neville Chamberlain did it, didn't it? Oh, wait, nevermind.

If an enemy is intent on destorying you when they become strong, you should not let them become strong. Conflict is inevitable anyways. Might as well destroy them while they are weak, or prevent them from ever becoming strong.

I would have thought you British folks would understand that now.

I.G.B.

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

It's certainly starting to look like a world war is inevetible. This is going to get incredibly ugly.

 

[itgoesboom]

It's certainly starting to look like a world war is inevetible. This is going to get incredibly ugly.

Lobotomy Boy,

I will agree with you there.

I don't see a peaceful way out of this mess, not with the new President of Iran. It seems that we had pinned all our hopes on the younger generation of Iranians, and then they elected this guy.

On the other hand though, I don't see a good military action that will work without putting America, and the rest of the world for that matter, at increased risk.

We are stuck between a rock and a hard place, with few options, and time isn't exactly on our side.

Word is that Israel is going to strike Iran if diplomacy doesn't succeed by March.

I.G.B.

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

Hmmm. Isn't March when the Iranian Oil Boursa is supposed to go online?

 

[itgoesboom]

Hmmm. Isn't March when the Iranian Oil Boursa is supposed to go online?

Yup.

There is also a report out that Iran already has Nuke materials, and is planning a nuke test in March as well.

I don't know about the truthfulness of the report though, since it was put out by a group opposed to the current Iranian Gov't.

I.G.B.

 

[SkunkApe]

Oh, nevermind.

 

[SIGarmed]

Interesting thoughts on the problem discussed elsewhere:

The fear is not that Iran would attack us, but that they would produce countless small nuclear devices and turn them over to the terrorists whom they support. These would then be smuggled into many major cities in all the western nations for detonation.

http://www.fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/

I should add that the proliferation of suitcase nuclear weapons would be just as much a security nightmare for a rogue state as any other. If Iran could make such a weapon, so could Israel from fissile material obtained from third party sources. If a suitcase nuke went off in Teheran, who would have done it, the Israelis or the Saudis? Both would have an ample motive. A suitcase nuke detonating in Islamabad could point both to Tel Aviv and New Delhi. But likely rogue states, unlike the US, would be vulnerable to a low rate attack -- it will only take 2 or 3 nukes to bring a country like Syria to the McNamara's 'knee'. The suitcase nuke game is not one which always favors smaller powers.

 

[Optical Serenity]

I still see absolutely no choice but to attack them. The vast majority of their population greatly supports us, but if they see us fail to respond to these idle or perhaps not so idle threats, they may lose faith. And unless we really want another guerrila war like Iraq, we need to hurry the heck up and invade.

I hope the Pentagon is working overtime galore right now with preparing for this.

George W., we are behind you 110%!

 

[Biker]

I still see absolutely no choice but to attack them. The vast majority of their population greatly supports us, but if they see us fail to respond to these idle or perhaps not so idle threats, they may lose faith. And unless we really want another guerrila war like Iraq, we need to hurry the heck up and invade.

I hope the Pentagon is working overtime galore right now with preparing for this.

George W., we are behind you 110%!

Hope you didn't include me in "we". Just so ya know...
Biker

 

[Helmetcase]

1. Nobody has claimed that Iranians were on the planes on 9-11. Only that Muslim Terrorists were on the planes on 9-11.

Just curious, do you know the difference between a Shia and a Sunni? Extra points if you can tell me which ones were on the 9/11 planes. I'm glad you're aware that no Iranians were on the planes; now, can you tell us why that's significant for even more extra credit? (hint: Islam isn't a monolith.)

3. You also seem to forget the bit of Iranian Terrorism where American Citizens were held hostage in 1979.

Was that really terrorism? Or just some angry people who resented a puppet oppressive govt that we installed over there and were happy to see it go, and took hostages?

4. You claim that Iranian's don't do suicide bombings. Guess what. 15,000 Iranians have signed up to be "martyrs" and to do suicide bombings. Also from the Washington Post

Show me the example of the Iranian suicide bomber. Still waiting. What was his name? Where did he bomb? Who did he bomb? Take your time. (Hint: you're going to be a loooooooooooooooooong time looking, I think he's somewhere near Jimmy Hoffa).

So far the only ignorance in this thread seems to be coming from the person who says that Iran isn't a threat.

Who said Iran isn't a threat? Sure they are. But they're not a threat worth invading. Even our own intelligence services think they're a decade away from having a bomb.

 

[Malone LaVeigh]

Like the prez tried to say once, "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice..."

This thing is transparent. If this country falls for this again, there will be no excuse. We'll deserve everything that happens to us.

 

[Helmetcase]

This thing is transparent. If this country falls for this again, there will be no excuse. We'll deserve everything that happens to us.

Heh. PT Barnum, Groucho Marx, and Woody Allen all famously quipped that no one ever lost money underestimating the intelligence of the Average American. "We just got bombed by some tribal Saudi madmen under the influence of some charlatans living on a mountaintop in Afghanistan!"--ok, let's invade Iraq! "Osama bin Laden is out to get us!!!"--ok, let's take out Saddam Hussein! We'll fall for just about everything I fear.

As Herman Goerring said awaiting the hangman at Nuremberg in 1946, "Tell the people they're under attack and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism. It works the same in every country."

 

[SIGarmed]

Heh. PT Barnum, Groucho Marx, and Woody Allen all famously quipped that no one ever lost money underestimating the intelligence of the Average American. "We just got bombed by some tribal Saudi madmen under the influence of some charlatans living on a mountaintop in Afghanistan!"--ok, let's invade Iraq! "Osama bin Laden is out to get us!!!"--ok, let's take out Saddam Hussein! We'll fall for just about everything I fear.

As Herman Goerring said awaiting the hangman at Nuremberg in 1946, "Tell the people they're under attack and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism. It works the same in every country."

[sarcasm]Yes it's really that simple.[/sarcasm]

 

[Optical Serenity]

Yes, its true, Iranians are not terrorists, nor do I think they ever will be. However, I do believe that they are a huge threat. I don't see them at all the same as the Arabic countries out there. (Yes, there is a big difference between Persians & Arabs).

Now, why do I think they are a threat? They possess a navy, air force, even special forces. They have a huge population (over 60 million) many of whom are within the age of being drafted. They have a large land area, and plenty of money. We also didn't demolish them one time in 1991 like iraq. I think Iran would be a much more difficult war to fight. Do I think we should invade them? Yes, at some point. Do I think there is really any good way to do it without a large amount of casualities? Nope.

The scariest scenario is if the Muslim world would actually unite. If Iran, Iraq, Libya, Egypt, PLO, etc etc etc would actually unite...Until then, its all in shambles...

 

[Helmetcase]

[sarcasm]Yes it's really that simple.[/sarcasm]
Well,...yeah, it is. And let's not ignore the elephant in the room--why are we even discussing it? Because when your credibility is strained, it's a little difficult to drum up support for what it would take to do anything other than lob Tomahawks at Iran.

 

[Art Eatman]

Optical Serenity, we're not talking about the "Gee, I wish I could go to a movie!" type of Iranian citizen. We're talking about the Iranian government, which has been a State sponsor of terrorism (money and training) since the fall of the Shah.

Is the guy who hires an assassin less guilty than the assassin?

Art

 

[WvaBill]

The Case for Invading Iran

This one is well worth mashing the link and perusing.

Like that little thing is going so well in Iraq.

 

[Biker]

Optical Serenity, we're not talking about the "Gee, I wish I could go to a movie!" type of Iranian citizen. We're talking about the Iranian government, which has been a State sponsor of terrorism (money and training) since the fall of the Shah.

Is the guy who hires an assassin less guilty than the assassin?

Art

Well, if hiring assassins warrants an invasion, we're due for numerous reasons.
For the most part, Iran's state sponsered terrorist money has gone toward terrorist acts against Israel (course, same with the Saudis).
I fail to see how and why this warrants military action on our part.
Biker

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

IIRC, Iran funneled explosives to Hezbollah for the embassy bombing in Beruit that killed a pile of U.S. Marines about 20 years back. If state support of terrorism called for a U.S. invasion of a foriegn country, we had a lot better excuse for it back then then today. Fortunately for the planet Ronald Reagan wasn't bat's-ass insane, unlike the leaders and many pundits today.

Of course there was the small matter of Iran having sent explosives to Beruit that it bought from Ollie North in exchange for money to be funneled to Nicauragua to fund the Contras, but that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish.

 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Like North Korea and Pakistan have. Like India has. Like Russia has. Like we have- oops, take us off that list.

Nope. Fact is, a country that has nukes has way too much to lose by using them. But they do make a great deterrent against a beligerent power.

To think that Iran would use them while all (except us) of the list above have refrained is to let the RNC control your higher brain functions.

This is absurd. I don't have a problem with France or Britain or the US possessing nukes. They're governed by mostly rational and friendly governemts. Iran is an entirely different matter.

Iran, as a country, may well have too much to lose. That doesn't mean their leadership (i.e. the folks who actually possess and control the bombs) wouldn't be willing to use them. Given his actions since taking office, President Ahmadinejad seems like he might just be crazy enough to try it. This is definitely NOT a good time to be a resident of Israel...

Frankly I don't care whether or not is is sensible for Iran to use its own nukes. I don't want them to have the choice. If this makes me a brainwashed RNC stooge, then so be it. It's far safer to be brainwashed by Karl Rove than to be threatened by a nuclear Iran.