NationStates Jolt Archive

Great. The ewseean government is actually thinking about using nukes in Iran. That is sure to ease world tensions...:rolleyes:


From The New Yorker: (http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact)

....The lack of reliable intelligence leaves military planners, given the goal of totally destroying the sites, little choice but to consider the use of tactical nuclear weapons. “Every other option, in the view of the nuclear weaponeers, would leave a gap,” the former senior intelligence official said. “ ‘Decisive’ is the key word of the Air Force’s planning. It’s a tough decision. But we made it in Japan.”

He went on, “Nuclear planners go through extensive training and learn the technical details of damage and fallout—we’re talking about mushroom clouds, radiation, mass casualties, and contamination over years. This is not an underground nuclear test, where all you see is the earth raised a little bit. These politicians don’t have a clue, and whenever anybody tries to get it out”—remove the nuclear option—“they’re shouted down.”......


How do you like?

Great. The ewseean government is actually thinking about using nukes in Iran. That is sure to ease world tensions...:rolleyes: ..even before I opened the thread I knew who it was (what country.. only one could consider such a thing.. only one has done such a thing)
Fascinating.

Even Bush wouldn't be stupid enough to use the bomb. It might be the only thing that would actually unite people against the U.S. I know Bush is idiotic but at least his advisors would have a little brain power. One would hope...

.....Fascinating.

Yep, that's the word.

We have the nukes. so let's use them! :fluffle:

Geez, we're such a bunch of wussies. :rolleyes:

Plus, it's just a few nukes. It's not like it's gonna blow up the planet or anything. :rolleyes: ;)

You're aware that the French have said they might do such a thing months ago?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4627862.stm

And we're supposed to fear Iran... :rolleyes:

Thank God i'm in Canada...

I already think Bush is a moron, but if he really does this... No, I don't want to think about it. Definately not.

Nookyooler .... it's pronounced Nookyooler ..... nookyooler ... [/homersimpson]

You're aware that the French have said they might do such a thing months ago?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4627862.stm

A good reason not to piss off France. A French nuke up the ass would silence the jokes would it not? ;)

“Every other option, in the view of the nuclear weaponeers, would leave a gap,” the former senior intelligence official said. “ ‘Decisive’ is the key word of the Air Force’s planning. It’s a tough decision. But we made it in Japan.”
I'm glad the people in charge of these kinds of important decisions are thinking carefully about using nuculear weapons, instead of, you know, just throwing shit out on a whim without any fucking forethought at all.

I'm glad the people in charge of these kinds of important decisions are thinking carefully about using nuculear weapons, instead of, you know, just throwing shit out on a whim without any fucking forethought at all.

Don't worry .... Bush has already made up his mind whether or not to do it. The voices in his head have already reassured him of his righteousness.

There will be a memo uncovered in about 2 years.

Even Bush wouldn't be stupid enough to use the bomb. It might be the only thing that would actually unite people against the U.S. I know Bush is idiotic but at least his advisors would have a little brain power. One would hope...Are you willing to bet on that? I'm not.

Are you willing to bet on that? I'm not.
No. Bush is a moron, but he's not that dumb.
I hope...

Are you willing to bet on that? I'm not.

You're going to give me an ulcer. :(

No. Bush is a moron, but he's not that dumb.
I hope...

Seconded.

No. Bush is a moron, but he's not that dumb.
I hope...
Oh, I think he is, and I think he's surrounded himself with enough sycophants that he'd get what he wanted if it came right down to it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/10/AR2005091001053_pf.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-first-use
http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/MultimediaFiles/Live/FullReport/7234.pdf (Full draft of US nuclear doctrine...60-something pages pdf-file)

Seconded.

Good. Someone agrees with me. Finally.

Good. Someone agrees with me. Finally.
Sorry, but where Bush is concerned, describing me as a pessimist is only the beginning.

Sorry, but where Bush is concerned, describing me as a pessimist is only the beginning.

Listen. Bush is dumb. I agree with that.

But he is not psychotic.

If he nuked Iran, the world would crush him. Flat.

Listen. Bush is dumb. I agree with that.

But he is not psychotic.

If he nuked Iran, the world would crush him. Flat.

we know that, but he doesn't. He thinks the world would thank him for "getting rid of an evil" and give him the nobel peace prize. Besides, he's getting more and more reckless now that he doesn't have to think about re-election. I wouldn't put it past him at this stage.

we know that, but he doesn't. He thinks the world would thank him for "getting rid of an evil" and give him the nobel peace prize. Besides, he's getting more and more reckless now that he doesn't have to think about re-election. I wouldn't put it past him at this stage.

To do that, he's have to be stupider than MustaphaMond516.

If he's done that... he has achieved something!

Great. The ewseean government is actually thinking about using nukes in Iran. That is sure to ease world tensions...:rolleyes:


From The New Yorker: (http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact)

....The lack of reliable intelligence leaves military planners, given the goal of totally destroying the sites, little choice but to consider the use of tactical nuclear weapons. “Every other option, in the view of the nuclear weaponeers, would leave a gap,” the former senior intelligence official said. “ ‘Decisive’ is the key word of the Air Force’s planning. It’s a tough decision. But we made it in Japan.”

He went on, “Nuclear planners go through extensive training and learn the technical details of damage and fallout—we’re talking about mushroom clouds, radiation, mass casualties, and contamination over years. This is not an underground nuclear test, where all you see is the earth raised a little bit. These politicians don’t have a clue, and whenever anybody tries to get it out”—remove the nuclear option—“they’re shouted down.”......

How do you like?
The threat of war breeds a greater insanity than does even the fact.

You're aware that the French have said they might do such a thing months ago?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4627862.stm

The difference being that the French would retaliate with nukes if they were attacked.
Now, correct me if I am wrong, but Iran as not attacked the US. Nor any other country in the past 100 years or so.

The difference being that the French would retaliate with nukes if they were attacked.
Now, correct me if I am wrong, but Iran as not attacked the US. Nor any other country in the past 100 years or so.

Uh... Japan? Pearl Harbor?

The threat of war breeds a greater insanity than does even the fact.

How so, ancient one?

I wonder if they have considered a conventional bombing campaign during which a nuclear bomb is dropped and passed off as a secondary explosion which justifies the strikes.

We are talking about quite ambitious masters of deception here.

Uh... Japan? Pearl Harbor?
He was referring to Iran making no attacks on foreign countries in the last 100 years, not the US being attacked.

He was referring to Iran making no attacks on foreign countries in the last 100 years, not the US being attacked.

Ah. From what I read he said Iran hasn't attacked the US nor has any other country in 100 years. I suppose I could have misread...

I wonder if they have considered a conventional bombing campaign during which a nuclear bomb is dropped and passed off as a secondary explosion which justifies the strikes.

We are talking about quite ambitious masters of deception here.

bush? master of deception? I'll be surprised if he managed to deceive a toaster. The wars are more due to the stupidity and ignorance of the general American public than anything.

The difference being that the French would retaliate with nukes if they were attacked.
Now, correct me if I am wrong, but Iran as not attacked the US. Nor any other country in the past 100 years or so.

The difference being also that France did not come up with the doctrine of pre-emptive defense. The idea is bound to spread though.

We are talking about quite ambitious masters of deception here.

Far too many people would have to be involved for it stay a secret.

The difference being that the French would retaliate with nukes if they were attacked.
Now, correct me if I am wrong, but Iran as not attacked the US. Nor any other country in the past 100 years or so.
It was obvious who he was talking about..."extremist views spreading in countries" and "countries using terrorist attacks" could mean anything. Plus, I'm pretty sure timing-wise it fit in with the breakdown of EU-Iran negotiations.

Great. The ewseean government is actually thinking about using nukes in Iran. That is sure to ease world tensions...:rolleyes:


From The New Yorker: (http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact)

....The lack of reliable intelligence leaves military planners, given the goal of totally destroying the sites, little choice but to consider the use of tactical nuclear weapons. “Every other option, in the view of the nuclear weaponeers, would leave a gap,” the former senior intelligence official said. “ ‘Decisive’ is the key word of the Air Force’s planning. It’s a tough decision. But we made it in Japan.”

He went on, “Nuclear planners go through extensive training and learn the technical details of damage and fallout—we’re talking about mushroom clouds, radiation, mass casualties, and contamination over years. This is not an underground nuclear test, where all you see is the earth raised a little bit. These politicians don’t have a clue, and whenever anybody tries to get it out”—remove the nuclear option—“they’re shouted down.”......


How do you like?


That's not the "nuclear option." That's the fucking nuclear option. Note the lack of ironic quotes.

Jesus H. Christ. I knew this motherfucker was going to end the world. I just knew it. Let that be a lesson to the next intelligent species to glean from our archealogically excavated remains. Never give someone who thinks that the world is going to end soon the ability to make it actually happen.

One former defense official, who still deals with sensitive issues for the Bush Administration, told me that the military planning was premised on a belief that “a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government.” He added, “I was shocked when I heard it, and asked myself, ‘What are they smoking?’ ”
I always respect a man who tells it straight. :D

That's not the "nuclear option." That's the fucking nuclear option. Note the lack of ironic quotes.
.....
oh well, I find it rather ironic actually...;)

And we're supposed to fear Iran... :rolleyes:

Which is probably the most ridiculous part of this whole thing.

One former defense official, who still deals with sensitive issues for the Bush Administration, told me that the military planning was premised on a belief that “a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government.”

Wow, just like how we rose up and overthrew the Bush Administration after 9-11, and impeached Roosevelt right after Pearl Harbor. If there's anything that divides a country, it's being attacked by outsiders.

Wow, just like how we rose up and overthrew the Bush Administration after 9-11, and impeached Roosevelt right after Pearl Harbor. If there's anything that divides a country, it's being attacked by outsiders.
Yeah, what is it about people that makes it so difficult for them to place themselves in the shoes of others? The US gets wtfpwned by an alien civilisation which wants us to worship some mould a holy man placed in a jar millennia ago, and people are going to be swayed by the force of their argument and see the light? My ass.

Iran lost a million men fighting Iraq and ended up renewing its nationalism for a generation. It sure as hell is not going to split into factions in the event of a US attack.

Which is probably the most ridiculous part of this whole thing.

Psst. There is an Iranian under your bed...

Psst. There is an Iranian under your bed...
AND HE'S A COMMUNIST!!! :eek:

By nuclear option, I believe that this is the sort of thing that they’re looking at using. Since the Bush regime got in they’ve gone full steam ahead with the development of limited nuclear weapons, especially the next generation of bunker busters.

What I’m guessing that they’re talking about is the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (sounds more like a suped up garden weasel doesn’t it?). It’s a 1.2 megaton warhead that pierces up to 20 feet of solid rock before detonating, creating the force of a 7 megaton earthquake. It’s a bunker buster that supposed to leave a 1200’ wide crater and destroy anything up to 1000’ underground. It also results in an estimated 300 000 tons of radioactive debris kicking up 15 miles into the atmosphere. They had a good article on these in Popular Science.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/rnep.htm

I'm having a tough time taking any of this seriously.

There is such a thing as the concept of mutually assured destruction. It is the theory of nuclear war, and the primary reason why such a war has not, and will never occur. The idea is thus: If one nation-- indeed, any nation, fires a nuclear weapon in the world today, the target nation, its allies, or any other nation which feels threatened by the discharge of a nuclear weapon will discharge its own arsenal at the attacker. This, in turn, will cause the attacker and its allies to discharge their arsenals at the nations which attacked it. The only possible outcome of nuclear war, thus, is the total and utter devastation of the planet.

For more: Wikiwiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutually_assured_destruction)

Every president is briefed on this at the beginning of their term in office by the secretary of defence. It is a very simple concept. No matter how much of a 'moron' Bush may be, he is aware of this concept and fully understands it. Therefore, I believe that the likelyhood of Bush, or any United States president authorizing the use of nuclear weapons, is vanishingly small.

That being said, any intelligent and responsible defence department would consider all options when faced with a nation such as Iran, which is possibly developing nuclear weapons. To do less would be abandoning the responsibilities of the defence department, i.e. to devise strategies of many kinds with which to defend the nation.

There is such a thing as the concept of mutually assured destruction.
Not if only one side has nukes. And that is the problem here.

Great. The ewseean government is actually thinking about using nukes in Iran. That is sure to ease world tensions...:rolleyes:


From The New Yorker: (http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact)

....The lack of reliable intelligence leaves military planners, given the goal of totally destroying the sites, little choice but to consider the use of tactical nuclear weapons. “Every other option, in the view of the nuclear weaponeers, would leave a gap,” the former senior intelligence official said. “ ‘Decisive’ is the key word of the Air Force’s planning. It’s a tough decision. But we made it in Japan.”

He went on, “Nuclear planners go through extensive training and learn the technical details of damage and fallout—we’re talking about mushroom clouds, radiation, mass casualties, and contamination over years. This is not an underground nuclear test, where all you see is the earth raised a little bit. These politicians don’t have a clue, and whenever anybody tries to get it out”—remove the nuclear option—“they’re shouted down.”......


How do you like?
IF this is true, then it is quite assinine to say the least.

Also IF the following is true, then the US is in violation of the UN Charter:

teams of American combat troops have been ordered into Iran, under cover, to collect targeting data and to establish contact with anti-government ethnic-minority groups.

This is insane thinking to say the least.

Not if only one side has nukes. And that is the problem here.
Yeah, and if both sides are bat-shit-fucked-in-the-head crazy, mutual destruction is assured.

This is so, so bad.

IF this is true, then it is quite assinine to say the least.

Also IF the following is true, then the US is in violation of the UN Charter:

teams of American combat troops have been ordered into Iran, under cover, to collect targeting data and to establish contact with anti-government ethnic-minority groups.

This is insane thinking to say the least.
"insane thinking"? You're only half right.

By nuclear option, I believe that this is the sort of thing that they’re looking at using. Since the Bush regime got in they’ve gone full steam ahead with the development of limited nuclear weapons, especially the next generation of bunker busters.

What I’m guessing that they’re talking about is the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (sounds more like a suped up garden weasel doesn’t it?). It’s a 1.2 megaton warhead that pierces up to 20 feet of solid rock before detonating, creating the force of a 7 megaton earthquake. It’s a bunker buster that supposed to leave a 1200’ wide crater and destroy anything up to 1000’ underground. It also results in an estimated 300 000 tons of radioactive debris kicking up 15 miles into the atmosphere. They had a good article on these in Popular Science.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/rnep.htm
Yep. The minute I heard about this program -- what, a couple years ago? -- I said, this is it, game over. Those sons of bitches are going use nukes on somebody. I mean, they spent all that money, they gotta prove it works. And those dumb-fucks in Tehran don't know enough to shut their stupid mouths and put on their best Little Nell victim routine for the UN and the world press to put up a shield of political pressure -- because, however much they're working towards the bomb, they don't have it yet -- but guess who does? George "Jesus Loves Me, This I Know" Bush and Dick "The Puppetmaster" Cheney. The only thing that ever stops these bastards is the threat that all their creditors might stop paying for their toys. We are so fucked.

Oh, well, maybe this new bomb won't work. Half their stuff doesn't.

Penetrator... :rolleyes:

Yeah, and if both sides are bat-shit-fucked-in-the-head crazy, mutual destruction is assured.

This is so, so bad.

uh oh...US vs. North korea...the brain cells of both governments combined does not exceed one...

Far too many people would have to be involved for it stay a secret.
There's a way to get around that--do something so unbelievably stupid that no one would believe that someone would actually plan it. Like dropping nukes on Iran.

Yep. The minute I heard about this program -- what, a couple years ago? -- I said, this is it, game over. Those sons of bitches are going use nukes on somebody. I mean, they spent all that money, they gotta prove it works. And those dumb-fucks in Tehran don't know enough to shut their stupid mouths and put on their best Little Nell victim routine for the UN and the world press to put up a shield of political pressure -- because, however much they're working towards the bomb, they don't have it yet -- but guess who does? George "Jesus Loves Me, This I Know" Bush and Dick "The Puppetmaster" Cheney. The only thing that ever stops these bastards is the threat that all their creditors might stop paying for their toys. We are so fucked.

Oh, well, maybe this new bomb won't work. Half their stuff doesn't.

Penetrator... :rolleyes:
Agreed.

Lets see now. The US attacked Iraq by pre-emption, under suspicion of them building a nuclear weapon and as such would be a "threat" to the US.

The US HAS nuclear weapons and is "threatening" to use them against Iran.

Logical conclusion would be that Iran would have the right to attack the US because of the US "threat"? Not that they would of course.

What is the possibility of China coming to Iran's defence if the US attacks Iran using a pre-emptive strike?

Also, Russia and China have been rather chumy lately.

The US could make one huge mistake attacking Iran.

Lets see now. The US attacked Iraq by pre-emption, under suspicion of them building a nuclear weapon and as such would be a "threat" to the US.

The US HAS nuclear weapons and is "threatening" to use them against Iran.

Logical conclusion would be that Iran would have the right to attack the US because of the US "threat"? Not that they would of course.

What is the possibility of China coming to Iran's defence if the US attacks Iran using a pre-emptive strike?

Also, Russia and China have been rather chumy lately.

The US could make one huge mistake attacking Iran.

WWIII is coming! *runs into her basement and hides*

The US could make one huge mistake attacking Iran.
To be honest, I think the military option is essentially off the table (although they'd never admit it) after that wargames the Iranians had. They have the equipment against which clear US superiority is simply not guaranteed, and the Administration will not risk major ships, or the oil traffic through the gulf.

By nuclear option, I believe that this is the sort of thing that they’re looking at using. Since the Bush regime got in they’ve gone full steam ahead with the development of limited nuclear weapons, especially the next generation of bunker busters.

What I’m guessing that they’re talking about is the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (sounds more like a suped up garden weasel doesn’t it?). It’s a 1.2 megaton warhead that pierces up to 20 feet of solid rock before detonating, creating the force of a 7 megaton earthquake. It’s a bunker buster that supposed to leave a 1200’ wide crater and destroy anything up to 1000’ underground. It also results in an estimated 300 000 tons of radioactive debris kicking up 15 miles into the atmosphere. They had a good article on these in Popular Science.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/rnep.htm

That'll be a bit difficult. Your own link says funding for the the RNEP has been cut off while it was still in the research phases:
On October 25, 2005 US Senator Pete Domenici indicated that negotiators working toward an agreement on funding for the Department of Energy for FY2006 had agreed to drop funding for continued research on the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP) project at the request of the National Nuclear Security Administration. Domenici is chairman of the Senate Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee and was leading the Senate contingent working with the House to reconcile differences in the FY2006 Energy and Water Appropriations Bill—among them funding for RNEP. Domenici indicated that at the request of the NNSA, the Senate has agreed to drop the $4.0 million it provided in its bill for the DOE national laboratories, including Sandia National Laboratories, to continue RNEP research. The House bill had no funding for RNEP. “The focus will now be with the Defense Department and its research to earth penetrating technology using conventional weaponry. The NNSA indicated that this research should evolve around more conventional weapons rather than tactical nuclear devices. With this department change in policy, we have agreed not to provide DOE with funding for RNEP,” Domenici said.

This article concurs. (http://cdi.org/program/document.cfm?DocumentID=3215&StartRow=1&ListRows=10&appendURL=&Orderby=D.DateLastUpdated&ProgramID=32&from_page=index.cfm)

WWIII is coming! *runs into her basement and hides*
Don't forget to shop before you hide:

What Preparations Can I Make for a Global Nuclear War ? (http://www.abbaswatchman.com/NEWS%20NUCLEAR%20PREPARATIONS.html)

That'll be a bit difficult. Your own link says funding for the the RNEP has been cut off while it was still in the research phases:


This article concurs. (http://cdi.org/program/document.cfm?DocumentID=3215&StartRow=1&ListRows=10&appendURL=&Orderby=D.DateLastUpdated&ProgramID=32&from_page=index.cfm)
Oh, so, apparently, it doesn't work. But on the other hand, they stopped $4.0 million? What was that -- their paper clip budget? You don't fund a PENETRATOR(tm) with no measly 4 mil.

WWIII is coming! *runs into her basement and hides*

Better kiss your ass goodbye.

WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!!! :eek:

Don't forget to shop before you hide:

What Preparations Can I Make for a Global Nuclear War ? (http://www.abbaswatchman.com/NEWS%20NUCLEAR%20PREPARATIONS.html)
Why is ABBA, the Scandanavian pop band, selling nuclear war survival kits to Christians? :confused:

Proof that Christians don't know how to sell things:
Originally posted by that nutty site:
Always remember that these instructions are meant mostly for the true believers in Christ as you can run but you can't hide from the Wrath of God. The Lord does say that all who heed these warnings and believe there will be a nuclear war should run and they will save their soul . This means they will not escape getting burned by the radiation but they won't die before they would get a second chance to repent and change their ways = save their soul.
Well, why should I buy their shit if my best bet for heaven is to die running?

Don't forget to shop before you hide:

What Preparations Can I Make for a Global Nuclear War ? (http://www.abbaswatchman.com/NEWS%20NUCLEAR%20PREPARATIONS.html)

I don't know if I would cry or laugh at that link...

Why is ABBA, the Scandanavian pop band, selling nuclear war survival kits to Christians? :confused:

Well, they haven't had a hit in a while, and as far as I know, there hasn't been an Australian film that featured them since "Muriel's Wedding."

I don't know if I would cry or laugh at that link...
Just try to enjoy each day, and then you can laugh, and/or smile. :)

Well, they haven't had a hit in a while, and as far as I know, there hasn't been an Australian film that featured them since "Muriel's Wedding."
Did you check out the links on the bar? One of them is labelled "Bliar". :)

As of early winter, I was told by the government consultant with close ties to civilians in the Pentagon, the units were also working with minority groups in Iran, including the Azeris, in the north, the Baluchis, in the southeast, and the Kurds, in the northeast. The troops “are studying the terrain, and giving away walking-around money to ethnic tribes, and recruiting scouts from local tribes and shepherds,” the consultant said. One goal is to get “eyes on the ground”—quoting a line from “Othello,” he said, “Give me the ocular proof.” The broader aim, the consultant said, is to “encourage ethnic tensions” and undermine the regime.
Yeah. Because this policy worked so well in Iraq. :rolleyes:

FFS. Even without nukes they're storing up the same crap they're having to deal with just across the border. Is the whole US military fighting on the same side? I think someone needs to check.

Don't forget to shop before you hide:

What Preparations Can I Make for a Global Nuclear War ? (http://www.abbaswatchman.com/NEWS%20NUCLEAR%20PREPARATIONS.html)


*Starts humming Dancing queen*

Even Bush wouldn't be stupid enough to use the bomb. It might be the only thing that would actually unite people against the U.S. I know Bush is idiotic but at least his advisors would have a little brain power. One would hope...
Thats one of the over a hundred things wrong with tyrancial rulers, they don't listen to their advisors, when one says something contrary to what the evil guy wants the the evil guy pretends to spare his life and then goes "PYSIC" and shoots them in the face.

To be honest, I think the military option is essentially off the table (although they'd never admit it) after that wargames the Iranians had. They have the equipment against which clear US superiority is simply not guaranteed, and the Administration will not risk major ships, or the oil traffic through the gulf.


The Iranian wargames were a propoganda stunt, much like half the shit Saddam did before the first Gulf War...shortly before he got his ass handed to him. Lets not forget that during the 80s, Iran got its ass handed to it at sea, by the USN. Operation Preying Mantis was spectacular for the fact, that Iran boasted a lot of stuff about stopping oil, and it didnt matter at all. Iranian superiority comes in the form of human waves...not in their technological might. :-T

Dear Goddess, what have my people done in electing this moron? Why don't we use daisy-cutters, anyway? They're powerful enough to have a freaking mushroom-cloud, MORE powerful than what we dropped on Japan, and completely NOT nuclear. Three of the bloody things ended the first Gulf War.

Nah. Our government has forgotten that we have conventional weapons that can do the job. It's nukes or nothing.

Somebody help me escape to Canada before this happens?

Dear Goddess, what have my people done in electing this moron? Why don't we use daisy-cutters, anyway? They're powerful enough to have a freaking mushroom-cloud, MORE powerful than what we dropped on Japan, and completely NOT nuclear. Three of the bloody things ended the first Gulf War.

Nah. Our government has forgotten that we have conventional weapons that can do the job. It's nukes or nothing.

Somebody help me escape to Canada before this happens?


Thankfully you arent in the military...although if you were I'm sure they would teach you that a daisy cutter is an above ground explosive weapon. The facility in which they are considering using a Bunker Busting tactical nuclear weapon(a device designed and funded under Clinton, not Bush. Bush only wanted to design something that would be more efficiant and actually capable of punching into the ground.) is underground..therefore using a Daisy Cutter, or the MOAB, would be 1)a waste of the weapon, and 2)a danger to the crew of the C-130 Hercules.

I'm off to send my own little...uh... "package" to the white house.
http://efnep.ucdavis.edu/images/Food%20Icons/Snacks/rold%20gold%20pretzels.jpg

The Iranian wargames were a propoganda stunt, much like half the shit Saddam did before the first Gulf War...shortly before he got his ass handed to him. Lets not forget that during the 80s, Iran got its ass handed to it at sea, by the USN. Operation Preying Mantis was spectacular for the fact, that Iran boasted a lot of stuff about stopping oil, and it didnt matter at all. Iranian superiority comes in the form of human waves...not in their technological might. :-T
Say what you will, but I've seen the footage, and the stuff clearly works. You can argue about whether or not they can produce it in masses, but with that sort of torpedoes, one single one will have a 100% chance of hitting a tanker trying to get from Arabia into the Indian ocean.

Which is enough to put everyone off the war talk.

Say what you will, but I've seen the footage, and the stuff clearly works. You can argue about whether or not they can produce it in masses, but with that sort of torpedoes, one single one will have a 100% chance of hitting a tanker trying to get from Arabia into the Indian ocean.

Which is enough to put everyone off the war talk.


Mass production runs into an issue, when the opposing nation is capable of bombing the factories which produce said weaponry. Then comes the ability to deploy said weapons. Can they do it underfire?Kinda difficult when you got a CVBG in the area, and a fuckton of ground based aircraft in strike range.

Mass production runs into an issue, when the opposing nation is capable of bombing the factories which produce said weaponry. Then comes the ability to deploy said weapons. Can they do it underfire?Kinda difficult when you got a CVBG in the area, and a fuckton of ground based aircraft in strike range.
This is all well and fine, as long as you talk about resolving wars issue by issue, but if confronted with numerous outbreaks, the task gets far more difficult, especially if others perceive a weakness.

Yeah, what is it about people that makes it so difficult for them to place themselves in the shoes of others? The US gets wtfpwned by an alien civilisation which wants us to worship some mould a holy man placed in a jar millennia ago, and people are going to be swayed by the force of their argument and see the light? My ass.

If the System Lords decided to invade Earth given current situations, getting rid of the Bush Administration would convince the planet's population that they are gods. :D

Iran lost a million men fighting Iraq and ended up renewing its nationalism for a generation. It sure as hell is not going to split into factions in the event of a US attack.

Indeed.

IF this is true, then it is quite assinine to say the least.

Also IF the following is true, then the US is in violation of the UN Charter:

teams of American combat troops have been ordered into Iran, under cover, to collect targeting data and to establish contact with anti-government ethnic-minority groups.

This is insane thinking to say the least.
Why are you surprised at this? It's standard operating procedure these days to have "boots on the ground" well before the start of any visible hostilities. There have been "boots on the ground" in Iran since well before the Gulf War.

If Bush does use nuclear weapons on Iran- and I do not see him being above making such a blatantly suicidal move- then the United States can only look forward to a collapse and New Dark Age as the rest of the world collectively turns on the country.

There have been "boots on the ground" in Iran since well before the Gulf War.
But then, an attack on Iran wouldn't happen for months and months, and targetting data at least might no longer be accurate.

Plus...if Iran is attacked, you can kiss the Shi'ites in Iraq goodbye as they take up the fight with the occupation, and anyone who assists them. Al-Sadr has said as much, and Al-Sistani is not going to hold him back this time - not if the Americans start bombing Iran.

Nuclear first strike is nothing more then "saber rattling" The people wouldn't stand for it. Well some would but the majority would not. Especially when it can't be shown that they have a capabilty to hit any US city on the map.

Do they even have the capability to hit the Eastern Seaboard?

The people have stood by and let them do everything else and from the view of many US citizens at least the White House is doing something horrible to foreigners for a change. I’m certain the last horrific series of decisions from the administration were thought of in much the same way, that they couldn’t be that stupid…

They’ll sell the bunker buster tag to the Media (FOX…cough…cough) and try to down play it as a minor tactical nuke with little or no radiation fallout. Perhaps someone will tag the phrase "Clean Nuke" or even "Environmentally Friendly Nuke." They’ll market it as saving American lives by not invading Iran and getting the US into a costly ground war against terrorists. Then they’ll dip Rumsfeld in gold and hang him around Cheney’s neck as a medal of honour.

The people have stood by and let them do everything else and from the view of many US citizens at least the White House is doing something horrible to foreigners for a change. I’m certain the last horrific series of decisions from the administration were thought of in much the same way, that they couldn’t be that stupid…

They’ll sell the bunker buster tag to the Media (FOX…cough…cough) and try to down play it as a minor tactical nuke with little or no radiation fallout. Perhaps someone will tag the phrase "Clean Nuke" or even "Environmentally Friendly Nuke." They’ll market it as saving American lives by not invading Iran and getting the US into a costly ground war against terrorists. Then they’ll dip Rumsfeld in gold and hang him around Cheney’s neck as a medal of honour.

Ehhh? It still contains the work nuke and if there is radiation fallout....well on a large scale versus the depleted uranimum rounds....I would really be stunned to see a majority of the nation thinking nothing of it.....

Ehhh? It still contains the work nuke and if there is radiation fallout....well on a large scale versus the depleted uranimum rounds....I would really be stunned to see a majority of the nation thinking nothing of it.....

Not if Brad Pitt and Angelique Jolie broke up on the same day they nuked Iran. Nobody would hear about it then. :)

IF this is true, then it is quite assinine to say the least.

Also IF the following is true, then the US is in violation of the UN Charter:

teams of American combat troops have been ordered into Iran, under cover, to collect targeting data and to establish contact with anti-government ethnic-minority groups.

This is insane thinking to say the least.In real terms It is an Act-of-War..

Nuclear first strike is nothing more then "saber rattling" The people wouldn't stand for it. Well some would but the majority would not. Especially when it can't be shown that they have a capabilty to hit any US city on the map.

Do they even have the capability to hit the Eastern Seaboard?
No. At the moment, they can hit Israel, Turkey and perhaps the Balcans, but with virtually no accuracy.

Better missiles are on the way, but I think the first one with the capability to hit the US would be the one they're allegedly planning to use to shoot a satellite into space, ie the Shahab 6 or 7 (they're at the finishing stages of developing the Shahab 4 now). And so they won't be able to hit the US for many years, as I understand it.

No. At the moment, they can hit Israel, Turkey and perhaps the Balcans, but with virtually no accuracy.You mean they can aim for Tel-Aviv and Hit Cairo? :D

I mean.. how much accuracy do you need for a nuke? even if they are off by a couple miles.. they would still flatten Tel-Aviv.

You mean they can aim for Tel-Aviv and Hit Cairo? :D

I mean.. how much accuracy do you need for a nuke? even if they are off by a couple miles.. they would still flatten Tel-Aviv.
Yes. But if they attacked Israel, they'd first have to get past the Arrow ABM system (soon to be the Arrow II).

Only the newest Shahab-3B might have a chance to do that.

And besides, having a nuke, and having a nuke small and advanced enough to fit on the tip of a Scud-sized missile are two different things.

No. At the moment, they can hit Israel, Turkey and perhaps the Balcans, but with virtually no accuracy.

Of course, one doesn't have to use missiles. Driving a minivan containing a nuke into hostile territory, and positioning it at a convenient place works just as well. It just takes a lot more time.

Of course, one doesn't have to use missiles. Driving a minivan containing a nuke into hostile territory, and positioning it at a convenient place works just as well. It just takes a lot more time.
It is also virtually impossible to do.

How would you put a nuke into a minivan, and then drive it across Iraq, across Syria or Jordan, and then into Israel - without being hijacked, stopped at a checkpoint, searched or otherwise held up?

This also feeds into the story about giving nukes to terrorists. That's ridiculous, because Iran's nuclear program has no religious background whatsoever. It's all about Nationalism, and nationalism doesn't care much for giving away one's most powerful weapon to unreliable religious crackpots with a history of failing the majority of their attempts.

And that is taking into account that the only Shi'ite terrorist organisation left (the boss of a former one is Al-Jaffari, now head of the Iraqi government) is Hezbollah, which has nothing to do with Al Qaeda.

So let's see.

The US, thanks to it's nuclear programme and it's nuclear weapons, may nuke and wipe out Iran, on the pretext that Iran has a nuclear programme, and is making nuclear weapons and it's leader talked of how another nation must be wiped out.

Anyone sense doublethink here?

If Iran being nuked is not bad enough, do you want to know how bad it could get?

North Korea, who in recent weeks have said 'pre-emptive' attacks are not only reserved for the Americans, (That's the dangerous precedent Bush set in attacking Iraq) may strike fearing an attack from the US.


If Iran is nuked by Bush, or whoever is President of the US at the time, the Shias in Iraq will join the Sunnis in the insurgency in Iraq, Hezbollah may start attacks against Israel, Israel may invade Lebanon, (again). Syria may join the affray, Egypt, facing a leadership change from within, may go for Israel to secure it's leadership by winning the support of it's people.

China, who get oil from Iran, and Russia, who get gas from Iran, may see the nuking of Iran as a indirect declaration of war by the US on strategic positions of Russian and Chinese interest, and may start some form of hostilities.

The Muslim world may just see this as one Muslim country attacked too far. Uproar, war against the US and US interests.

The rest of the world will turn against the US, not militarily, but diplomatically. Telling the US that it is on it's own in a war against Islam.

One Long Hot Summer.

Get the sun cream out, and hide in the shade.

And we're supposed to fear Iran... :rolleyes:

Yes, because using ultra-low-yield nuclear weapons on the score of 250-500 tons of TNT to destroy enemy military facilities is the same as obliterating an entire country, which is what Ahmadinejad threatened to do.

The US, thanks to it's nuclear programme and it's nuclear weapons, may nuke and wipe out Iran, on the pretext that Iran has a nuclear programme, and is making nuclear weapons and it's leader talked of how another nation must be wiped out.


Using low-yield nuclear weapons to eliminate a given amount of hardened facilities is not the same as totally wiping out a country.

Using low-yield nuclear weapons to eliminate a given amount of hardened facilities is not the same as totally wiping out a country.

Iran learned from the Israeli air strike on the Iraqi nuclear reactor, and that was to spread facilities across Iran.

The facilities are reportedly, dotted across Iran, which would make the use of more 'low-yield' nukes likely, if they want to nuke Iran and take out it's programmes.

Which would increase fallout with each hit, which could more or less wipe out the country.

Says who? We know some of the more modern low-yield weapons have very limited fallout.

Remember, we're talking bombs here which are 1/80th of what happened in Nagasaki in terms of power.

Yes, because using ultra-low-yield nuclear weapons on the score of 250-500 tons of TNT to destroy enemy military facilities is the same as obliterating an entire country, which is what Ahmadinejad threatened to do.

Let me detonate a 250kt nuclear warhead in your neighborhood sometime with an estimated fallout pattern measured in the hundreds of km. I'm sure you wouldn't mind a "small" amount of radiation if you survive the fireball.

Chernobyll irradiated a big chunk of the Ukraine. A bunker buster nuke would produce just about as big a fallout pattern with good winds. Remember, it detonates UNDERGROUND, sending huge amounts of radioactive debris into the air. The only way you'd get a nuke explosion underground without releasing that kind of debris is to get it to a depth impossible with air dropped munitions.

And since you like nukes so much, I'm sure you won't mind when NK decides that since the nuclear gloves are off, they could go ahead and turn much of Seoul or the DMZ into radioactive slag. It's only a 'small' amount of nuclear firepower after all. And against enemies at that too.

Once you take the nuclear gloves off, now that most major powers have them, you'll never be able to put them back. Remember the Cuban missile crisis?

Let me detonate a 250kt nuclear warhead in your neighborhood sometime with an estimated fallout pattern measured in the hundreds of km. I'm sure you wouldn't mind a "small" amount of radiation if you survive the fireball.


I said 250 tons.

Not Kilotons.

Oh, and:

http://www.nukewatch.org/media2/postData.php?id=234

Says who? We know some of the more modern low-yield weapons have very limited fallout.

Fallout all the same. Please do explain your theory on acceptable fallout levels to the Iranians when they begin dying from it.


Remember, we're talking bombs here which are 1/80th of what happened in Nagasaki in terms of power.

And we're talking about bombs which could be used repeatedly across Iran, negating how 'small' they are in individual terms.

The fallout from just one is still fallout, and wind can carry it a long way.

Yes, because using ultra-low-yield nuclear weapons on the score of 250-500 tons of TNT to destroy enemy military facilities is the same as obliterating an entire country, which is what Ahmadinejad threatened to do.

Right, so small nukes are ok? You seem to be a few cans short of a 6pack, kid.

1. Do we actually posess data about the fallout, impact, etc, of ultra-low-yield nuclear weapons?

2. Do you realize fallout is not merely dependable on the yield, for example there are modern nuclear weapons that have less fallout damage then the Hiroshima bomb while being much more powerful?

3.
And we're talking about bombs which could be used repeatedly across Iran, negating how 'small' they are in individual terms.

How would it 'negate' it?

You're assuming they will target EVERY Iranian site with a nuke (although I suggest nukes will probably be only used where no other means can do the job, given the terrible publicity), and that the sheer amount of nukes will be such as to equate the yield of a regular strategic weapon... I don't see evidence to that.

1. Do we actually posess data about the fallout, impact, etc, of ultra-low-yield nuclear weapons?

Well, we could ask those who advocate them, who would probably say they are 'clean', as in not doing 'much' damage, and we could ask those who study nuclear capabilities and it's likely fall out.

Who we really don't want to ask, is the poor sod who is in the vicinity of the fallout, as we may find out the effects as he/she suffers an appaling death. Ultra low yield nuclear weapon is still a nuclear weapon, and as I said already, fallout, no matter how small, can be pushed along by weather conditions.


2. Do you realize fallout is not merely dependable on the yield, for example there are modern nuclear weapons that have less fallout damage then the Hiroshima bomb while being much more powerful?

Please equate 'less' fallout damage, which is still fallout damage, to no fallout damage at all, by not using them.



3.How would it 'negate' it?
You're assuming they will target EVERY Iranian site with a nuke (although I suggest nukes will probably be only used where no other means can do the job, given the terrible publicity), and that the sheer amount of nukes will be such as to equate the yield of a regular strategic weapon... I don't see evidence to that.

Multiple sites in Iran, multiple strikes. The US may take the view that if they want to nuke these sites, they should do it in one go and hopefully deal with the publicitty from the one incident rather than wanting to do more later.

The number of nukes used will make the statement of 'less' fall out damage less likely, as the more used, will make fall out damage even more widespread.

This would intensify the 'less' fall out damage, which as I said before, is still fallout damage, by it's multiple use.

And as I also said before, just one used will still have fallout, and even small, will be directed by weather conditions.

In real terms It is an Act-of-War..


The amazing thing, it would need to be proven. Right now this is all speculation. There is no concrete evidence whatsoever. Boots on the ground could refer to spys, in which case, no its not an act of war.

Even Bush wouldn't be stupid enough to use the bomb.
NEVER underestimate the stupidity of Bush.:mad:

The amazing thing, it would need to be proven. Right now this is all speculation. There is no concrete evidence whatsoever. Boots on the ground could refer to spys, in which case, no its not an act of war.so If they find these "spyes"(undercover special ops).. are they protected by the Geneva convention.. or can they be executed (like other spyes)?

so If they find these "spyes"(undercover special ops).. are they protected by the Geneva convention.. or can they be executed (like other spyes)?

Its spies.

Though they are usually killed or just vanish, sometimes they are held as traitors and used to barter for others from the nation who has someone important for them and does an exchange. Its secretive indeed.

If Iran nukes every major city in the US damn right we'd hi them back. We're not going to say tehre is no way we would ever use nukes because we don't know what will happen. Short of a full scale nuclear exchange I highly doubt we'd use them.

...they are held as traitors and used to barter for others from the nation who has someone important for them and does an exchange. Its secretive indeed.If you have been paying attention.. In China, Iran, NK, etc -most of the time- they do not "exchange".. (Like you see on Hollywood movies).

There would be a quick Death sentence.. inmediately followed by an execution.. Several Mossad "spyes" have been executed in Iran (likely some of those were CIA or NSA..but it made no difference to the Iranians).

sometimes they are held as traitors ..also "traitors" would actually be any Iranian citizens collaborating with the Spies.. or Boots-whatever(special-OPs)..

So "spy" and "traitor" a 2 separate definitions

This is ridiculous. Nuclear weapons as a feasible option are a thing of the past; ancient history. They are completely unsuitable for the threat of terrorism. Nuclear weapons are only suitable for use in an all-out war against a country.

Pfft. Iran can't even nuke its own desert.

The difference between making fuel-grade uranium and weapons-grade uranium is in the number of centrifuge cycles. It really comes down to how long you spin the stuff.

There is no question that Iran genuinely wants to make uranium fuel. Russia is completing a nuclear power station in Iran right now. It will generate green carbon-free electricity. Oh no! :eek:

It comes down to trust. If the US sees a lack of trust on its part as a justification for a nuclear first strike, then the world really has to look again at its standing towards America.

oh you guys are getting all worked up over NOTHING

we are going to drop a few demonstration nukes on iran so we can effect "regime change".

remember how well that worked in iraq? same same for iran

after all we know how realistic it is to suppose that a big unprovoked attack will cause the population to stop supporting its democratically elected government. it happens all the time.

We have the nukes. so let's use them!

Geez, we're such a bunch of wussies.

Plus, it's just a few nukes. It's not like it's gonna blow up the planet or anything.


If one person uses nukes, they all will. It is a no win situation. Almost every country is allied to one side or another.

If we use our bombs then why not Israel on Pakistan? People will just think for themselves.

So let's see.

The US, thanks to it's nuclear programme and it's nuclear weapons, may nuke and wipe out Iran, on the pretext that Iran has a nuclear programme, and is making nuclear weapons and it's leader talked of how another nation must be wiped out.

Anyone sense doublethink here?

If Iran being nuked is not bad enough, do you want to know how bad it could get?

North Korea, who in recent weeks have said 'pre-emptive' attacks are not only reserved for the Americans, (That's the dangerous precedent Bush set in attacking Iraq) may strike fearing an attack from the US.


If Iran is nuked by Bush, or whoever is President of the US at the time, the Shias in Iraq will join the Sunnis in the insurgency in Iraq, Hezbollah may start attacks against Israel, Israel may invade Lebanon, (again). Syria may join the affray, Egypt, facing a leadership change from within, may go for Israel to secure it's leadership by winning the support of it's people.

China, who get oil from Iran, and Russia, who get gas from Iran, may see the nuking of Iran as a indirect declaration of war by the US on strategic positions of Russian and Chinese interest, and may start some form of hostilities.

The Muslim world may just see this as one Muslim country attacked too far. Uproar, war against the US and US interests.

The rest of the world will turn against the US, not militarily, but diplomatically. Telling the US that it is on it's own in a war against Islam.

One Long Hot Summer.

Get the sun cream out, and hide in the shade.
Replace the word "may" with the word "will" wherever it appears, and I think you've got it just right.

Let me detonate a 250kt nuclear warhead in your neighborhood sometime with an estimated fallout pattern measured in the hundreds of km. I'm sure you wouldn't mind a "small" amount of radiation if you survive the fireball.

Chernobyll irradiated a big chunk of the Ukraine. A bunker buster nuke would produce just about as big a fallout pattern with good winds. Remember, it detonates UNDERGROUND, sending huge amounts of radioactive debris into the air. The only way you'd get a nuke explosion underground without releasing that kind of debris is to get it to a depth impossible with air dropped munitions.

And since you like nukes so much, I'm sure you won't mind when NK decides that since the nuclear gloves are off, they could go ahead and turn much of Seoul or the DMZ into radioactive slag. It's only a 'small' amount of nuclear firepower after all. And against enemies at that too.

Once you take the nuclear gloves off, now that most major powers have them, you'll never be able to put them back. Remember the Cuban missile crisis?
And Ukrainian children are still being born with defects and still dying in extremely high numbers of supposedly rare cancers before they grow up because of the environmental contamination from Chernobyl.

The amount of world tensions that this would cause...yet I do think Bush is stupid enough to do it...way to have faith in our Commander and Chief.

Nuclear first strike is nothing more then "saber rattling" The people wouldn't stand for it. Well some would but the majority would not. Especially when it can't be shown that they have a capabilty to hit any US city on the map.

Do they even have the capability to hit the Eastern Seaboard?
Iran can't hit the US, but their friends in Russia and China can. So can North Korea, which long ago latched onto Bush's pre-emption policy as a green light for it to launch first strikes if it feels threatened, and long ago latched onto the "Iraq is just the first target" theory to declare that the US is planning to attack it. If the US nukes Iran (one of the countries on the theory's list), then North Korea will have everything it needs to justify war. Even if it really is too poor to attack the US, it can attack South Korea and neighboring US-friendly countries.

If the US attacks Iran, even with conventional weapons, we will be facing near simultaneous break-outs of hostilities on multiple fronts, along the lines of our regional treaties, as well as a global eruption of terrorist attacks. If we use nukes, we will have not one ally standing with us.

There is a big difference between threatening nukes, and actually using them. I seriously doubt that Bush would cross THAT line.

Iran can't hit the US, but their friends in Russia and China can. So can North Korea, which long ago latched onto Bush's pre-emption policy as a green light for it to launch first strikes if it feels threatened, and long ago latched onto the "Iraq is just the first target" theory to declare that the US is planning to attack it. If the US nukes Iran (one of the countries on the theory's list), then North Korea will have everything it needs to justify war. Even if it really is too poor to attack the US, it can attack South Korea and neighboring US-friendly countries.

If the US attacks Iran, even with conventional weapons, we will be facing near simultaneous break-outs of hostilities on multiple fronts, along the lines of our regional treaties, as well as a global eruption of terrorist attacks. If we use nukes, we will have not one ally standing with us.

I seriously doubt that any of those countries would directly attack us if we attacked Iran with conventional weapons. It would mean the death of any who tried. NK would only do it if they knew they were dead meat anyway and wanted to go out with a bang. China probably wouldn't attack us militarily, but economic warfare with them could still be deadly.

However, if we use nukes, all bets are off. Even if nobody struck at us militarily, they'd kill us economically. No oil from the ME or South America or Russia. No debt financing from China. No help of any kind from Europe.

I seriously doubt that any of those countries would directly attack us if we attacked Iran with conventional weapons. It would mean the death of any who tried. NK would only do it if they knew they were dead meat anyway and wanted to go out with a bang. China probably wouldn't attack us militarily, but economic warfare with them could still be deadly.

However, if we use nukes, all bets are off. Even if nobody struck at us militarily, they'd kill us economically. No oil from the ME or South America or Russia. No debt financing from China. No help of any kind from Europe.

Even that is a hard guess. Have they made that threat?

We probably won't find out until it happens.

Don't forget money motivates all and the US economy collapsing does affect others........

Nuke the site from orbit, its the only way to be sure.

There is a big difference between threatening nukes, and actually using them. I seriously doubt that Bush would cross THAT line.

Quite a few people doubted Bush would be re-elected, much less invade Iraq instead of keeping focus on Afghanistan and Bin Ladin as well. Don't expect much hope with this Administration.

Quite a few people doubted Bush would be re-elected, much less invade Iraq instead of keeping focus on Afghanistan and Bin Ladin as well. Don't expect much hope with this Administration.

Still no comparison. Invasion and war is repairable. A nuke strike is not(well not for a looong time).

NEVER underestimate the stupidity of Bush.:mad:

You mean misunderestimate, right? :p

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4893126.stm
UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has dismissed reports of a possible US nuclear strike against Iran as "completely nuts".
...
But Mr Straw told BBC One's Sunday AM show there was "no smoking gun" to justify an attack on Iran despite "high suspicion" over its nuclear work.

"We can't be certain about Iran's intentions and that is therefore not a basis for which anybody would gain authority to go to military action," he said.
Well, that puts that to rest, I'd say.

Thank burberry fucking bonnets.

Also - remember people - Bush might be stupid, but that's the point. The super-evil decisions are being made by the world's top marksman, Cheney.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4893126.stm

Well, that puts that to rest, I'd say.

Completely nuts, he said? In a way, yes.

I seriously doubt that any of those countries would directly attack us if we attacked Iran with conventional weapons. It would mean the death of any who tried. NK would only do it if they knew they were dead meat anyway and wanted to go out with a bang. China probably wouldn't attack us militarily, but economic warfare with them could still be deadly.

However, if we use nukes, all bets are off. Even if nobody struck at us militarily, they'd kill us economically. No oil from the ME or South America or Russia. No debt financing from China. No help of any kind from Europe.
Agreed on the nukes, but as for conventional weapons: How about simultaneous outbreaks of hostilities globally, caused by terrorists? How about a massive upswing in terrorism as recruitment skyrockets not only among militant Islamists but also among other, totally unrelated terror groups who will figure all bets are off with all governments and either try to push their revolutions or go out with a bunch of big bangs? And how about secret financing and equipping of these terror groups by NK, China, Russia, and others? How many Afghanistans and Iraqs can we handle at one time? And do you really think our European and Asian allies will help us out if we attack another country, regardless of what kinds of weapons we use? The US will be a rogue nation, a criminal nation, just like Iraq under Saddam. We will have no allies.

We will have no allies.
Well that part is right. The British Defence Secretary has repeatedly said military action against Iran was out of the question. When the UK government gives a firm "No" without any equivocation, you know you're alone.

Well that part is right. The British Defence Secretary has repeatedly said military action against Iran was out of the question. When the UK government gives a firm "No" without any equivocation, you know you're alone.

Yeah, but Jack Straw is the demonic watchmaker (Just get a pic of him!). That makes him kore important than the defense secretary, right? In any case, since when did we trust the New Labour/New World order government?

Agreed on the nukes, but as for conventional weapons: How about simultaneous outbreaks of hostilities globally, caused by terrorists? How about a massive upswing in terrorism as recruitment skyrockets not only among militant Islamists but also among other, totally unrelated terror groups who will figure all bets are off with all governments and either try to push their revolutions or go out with a bunch of big bangs? And how about secret financing and equipping of these terror groups by NK, China, Russia, and others? How many Afghanistans and Iraqs can we handle at one time? And do you really think our European and Asian allies will help us out if we attack another country, regardless of what kinds of weapons we use? The US will be a rogue nation, a criminal nation, just like Iraq under Saddam. We will have no allies.

What about the terrorist groups funded by the USA. Can you really trust the IRA at all?

You also have no allies other than your protectorates already, other than Britain (although that's the government liking you, the people really, really don't). David Cameron (the leader in 2008 methinks, he's a good leader even if I don't really want the conservatives in power) will middle-finger the USA and then who'll you have?

The Saudis possibly.

Replace the word "may" with the word "will" wherever it appears, and I think you've got it just right.

*nods* Perhaps I was being optimistic with my "may"s.

If the US attacks Iran, even with conventional weapons, we will be facing near simultaneous break-outs of hostilities on multiple fronts, along the lines of our regional treaties, as well as a global eruption of terrorist attacks. If we use nukes, we will have not one ally standing with us.

I would say the only ally America would have would be the right-wingers in Israel, who no doubt will be ecstactic at the attack on Iran, until the shitstorm comes their way.

NUCLEAR WEAPONS? Millions of innocent people will die, for what? It's just stupid dick waving and there are some very powerful and very stupid people who need to start living in the real world and realise that this isn't a game.
When I heard this on the lunchtime news I was so mad...How anyone could even consider this is beyond me...

However, if we use nukes, all bets are off. Even if nobody struck at us militarily, they'd kill us economically. No oil from the ME or South America or Russia. No debt financing from China. No help of any kind from Europe.

Sanctions tend to bite. Global isolation more so.

What about the terrorist groups funded by the USA. Can you really trust the IRA at all?

You also have no allies other than your protectorates already, other than Britain (although that's the government liking you, the people really, really don't). David Cameron (the leader in 2008 methinks, he's a good leader even if I don't really want the conservatives in power) will middle-finger the USA and then who'll you have?

The Saudis possibly.
No, you/we can't. :p We'll have nobody, and we'll deserve nobody. Even the Phillipines should be giving us the hairy eyeball by now. As an American, I'm here to tell the world that you can't trust Americans as far as you can throw them, and the way some of them have been eating, that's not very far.

Oh, and you think maybe the Saudis will stick by us? HA! If certain rich, stupid bastards in the US (and Britain and other places) hadn't "trusted" the Saudis (read: sold out their own interests for the sake of money), we might not all be in as deep shit as we are now, and I might not be staring aghast at my own countrymen, wondering when we turned into the bad guys.

I would say the only ally America would have would be the right-wingers in Israel, who no doubt will be ecstactic at the attack on Iran, until the shitstorm comes their way.
And don't get me started on those Israeli rightwingers, and their American counterparts -- possibly the most deluded people running around loose, imo. Have they ever actually listened to the things Bush and his ilk say? Andy Card just left as WH Chief of Staff and was replaced by Josh Bolton, and the very first report I heard about this on the news told me that Bush's nickname for Josh Bolton is "Yosh" because the president says he's "the top Jew in the White House." I almost fainted. If a private sector exec said something like that about a staffer, there'd be a total shit storm. I wanted to dismiss it as just bullshit gossip except that I've actually heard Bush on television say similarly inappropriate things about his other staffers.

These people are products of their class, and I am as certain as I can be that anyone who thinks there's going to be a seat at the Green Table for anybody named Wolfowitz or Condoleeza or Gonzalez is just frikkin kidding themselves. Likewise for anybody who thinks this coalition of rich WASPs and Rapturists are dedicated to the survival of the State of Israel. :rolleyes:

As an American, I'm here to tell the world that you can't trust Americans as far as you can throw them, and the way some of them have been eating, that's not very far.

LOL.


Oh, and you think maybe the Saudis will stick by us? HA! If certain rich, stupid bastards in the US (and Britain and other places) hadn't "trusted" the Saudis (read: sold out their own interests for the sake of money), we might not all be in as deep shit as we are now, and I might not be staring aghast at my own countrymen, wondering when we turned into the bad guys.

The Saudis own large parts of American businesses, don't they? They could seriously do some damage, if not already of course.

As to America being the bad guys, well, I only hope Americans reclaim their country, and sanity is restored, before a point is reached of no return.

And don't get me started on those Israeli rightwingers, and their American counterparts -- possibly the most deluded people running around loose, imo.

Absolutely.


Have they ever actually listened to the things Bush and his ilk say? Andy Card just left as WH Chief of Staff and was replaced by Josh Bolton, and the very first report I heard about this on the news told me that Bush's nickname for Josh Bolton is "Yosh" because the president says he's "the top Jew in the White House." I almost fainted. If a private sector exec said something like that about a staffer, there'd be a total shit storm. I wanted to dismiss it as just bullshit gossip except that I've actually heard Bush on television say similarly inappropriate things about his other staffers.

You should know Bush by now, surely.


These people are products of their class, and I am as certain as I can be that anyone who thinks there's going to be a seat at the Green Table for anybody named Wolfowitz or Condoleeza or Gonzalez is just frikkin kidding themselves. Likewise for anybody who thinks this coalition of rich WASPs and Rapturists are dedicated to the survival of the State of Israel. :rolleyes:

Or indeed, the survival of any of us.

LOL.



The Saudis own large parts of American businesses, don't they? They could seriously do some damage, if not already of course.

As to America being the bad guys, well, I only hope Americans reclaim their country, and sanity is restored, before a point is reached of no return.
The USA owes so much money to so many different countries, and borrows more every day, I'm surprised we still pay our taxes to our own government.

As for the future, I say hope for the best but prepare for the worst. I'll be voting this year and in 2008, but I'll also be looking at relocating to Canada, just in case.

Absolutely.


You should know Bush by now, surely.


Or indeed, the survival of any of us.
You got that right, friend.

I'm surprised by how many people take this seriously. The "nuclear option" in the US is being discussed for the same reason Chirac put it out on the table a few months ago: to scare Iran into backing down.

I'm surprised by how many people take this seriously. The "nuclear option" in the US is being discussed for the same reason Chirac put it out on the table a few months ago: to scare Iran into backing down.

With Chirac and France, the world can pretty much figure it's a bluff not to mention they explicitly declared the strike would only be defensive.

With Il Duhce George W Shrub, we don't have the luxury of assuming he won't consider using nukes as a "Pre-Emptive Strike" option.

I'm surprised by how many people take this seriously. The "nuclear option" in the US is being discussed for the same reason Chirac put it out on the table a few months ago: to scare Iran into backing down.
Here's the difference (http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact).
The attention given to the nuclear option has created serious misgivings inside the offices of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he added, and some officers have talked about resigning. Late this winter, the Joint Chiefs of Staff sought to remove the nuclear option from the evolving war plans for Iran—without success, the former intelligence official said. “The White House said, ‘Why are you challenging this? The option came from you.’ ”

The Pentagon adviser on the war on terror confirmed that some in the Administration were looking seriously at this option, which he linked to a resurgence of interest in tactical nuclear weapons among Pentagon civilians and in policy circles. He called it “a juggernaut that has to be stopped.” He also confirmed that some senior officers and officials were considering resigning over the issue. “There are very strong sentiments within the military against brandishing nuclear weapons against other countries,” the adviser told me. “This goes to high levels.” The matter may soon reach a decisive point, he said, because the Joint Chiefs had agreed to give President Bush a formal recommendation stating that they are strongly opposed to considering the nuclear option for Iran. “The internal debate on this has hardened in recent weeks,” the adviser said. “And, if senior Pentagon officers express their opposition to the use of offensive nuclear weapons, then it will never happen.”

The adviser added, however, that the idea of using tactical nuclear weapons in such situations has gained support from the Defense Science Board, an advisory panel whose members are selected by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. “They’re telling the Pentagon that we can build the B61 with more blast and less radiation,” he said.

..Chirac put it out on the table a few months ago...France Nuclear doctrine is called "Du plus faible au plus fort".. or something like that..

Basically they would nuke the US or Russia..it They attack France..
Also they would Nuke anyone attacking them with any WMD..

So.. in real terms.. they would never Nuke Iran unless Iran Nukes them first..

Chirac has not changed that policy.. He simply stated that Terrorists using WMD agains France would automatically doom the host Country..

Imagine if AQ managed to detonate a nuke on Paris.. from its Florida cell.

99 red ballons.. from a French submarine..

It shouldn’t make the difference but the sad truth is that the ownership of nukes has become the only true measure of sovereignty in the modern world. Without them you are always beholden to nations who have nukes. Given the political climate in the world, it would be fairer to refer to ourselves as living in the Nuclear Age, instead of the self righteous title of the Information Age.

The Bruce

We have the nukes. so let's use them! :fluffle:

Geez, we're such a bunch of wussies. :rolleyes:

Plus, it's just a few nukes. It's not like it's gonna blow up the planet or anything. :rolleyes: ;).....

yeah....

The USA owes so much money to so many different countries, and borrows more every day, I'm surprised we still pay our taxes to our own government.

I would be concerned that the taxes that do go to your government, go to the pentagon only.


As for the future, I say hope for the best but prepare for the worst. I'll be voting this year and in 2008, but I'll also be looking at relocating to Canada, just in case.

Indeed. The very best of luck to you mate. I fear you may need it I'm afraid.

With Il Duhce George W Shrub, we don't have the luxury of assuming he won't consider using nukes as a "Pre-Emptive Strike" option.

Well said.

I would be concerned that the taxes that do go to your government, go to the pentagon only.



Indeed. The very best of luck to you mate. I fear you may need it I'm afraid.
And by pentagon, of course, you mean Raytheon, General Electric, Westinghouse, IBM, Microsoft, Halliburton/Bechtel, ExxonMobil, BP, etc, etc, etc. :rolleyes:

And by pentagon, of course, you mean Raytheon, General Electric, Westinghouse, IBM, Microsoft, Halliburton/Bechtel, ExxonMobil, BP, etc, etc, etc. :rolleyes:

Yep.

Why are you surprised at this? It's standard operating procedure these days to have "boots on the ground" well before the start of any visible hostilities. There have been "boots on the ground" in Iran since well before the Gulf War.

It so happens to be in violation of international law. Not that you lot would care, but to some people it's still a bit more than an empty institution you can use and ignore as it fits your plans.

These "boots on the ground", as you so euphemistically put it, do not wear uniforms nor weapons, yet they seek to incite unrest and sponsor insurrection against a government that you might find uncomfortable for your intentions, but which is nonetheless a legitimate government. They are fifth-column combatants.

Do you know what you would call these "boots on the ground" if they happened to be Iranian and the ground they were on was in the United States?

Terrorists.

It so happens to be in violation of international law. Not that you lot would care, but to some people it's still a bit more than an empty institution you can use and ignore as it fits your plans.

These "boots on the ground", as you so euphemistically put it, do not wear uniforms nor weapons, yet they seek to incite unrest and sponsor insurrection against a government that you might find uncomfortable for your intentions, but which is nonetheless a legitimate government. They are fifth-column combatants.

Do you know what you would call these "boots on the ground" if they happened to be Iranian and the ground they were on was in the United States?

Terrorists.

Indeed, and they'd be locked up in Gitmo or whatever you coloquially call it, being tortured.

I hope your men recieve the same warm reception.

oh you guys are getting all worked up over NOTHING

we are going to drop a few demonstration nukes on iran so we can effect "regime change".

remember how well that worked in iraq? same same for iran

after all we know how realistic it is to suppose that a big unprovoked attack will cause the population to stop supporting its democratically elected government. it happens all the time.

The frightening thing is that I had to read this twice to realize it was sarcasm.

The frightening thing is that I had to read this twice to realize it was sarcasm.


The current madcap government of Iran is democratically elected.
The democratically elected effective government in Iraq ( will start to exist sometime soon after departure of US troops ) will be much the same.

Some folks *cough neocons* have a hard time understanding demographics outside their own country.

I do hope you weren't implying I was calling the Iranian government non-legitimate, the Iraq war successful, or the sky a pale color of pink. :)