NationStates Jolt Archive

So what do we do, just let them have their Nukes? Comon we have bunker busters, we can find the location of their lab and underground facilities and drop the bunker busters on them. We don't need an all out war with Iran, just an air attack to take out the facilities.

Edit: The OP is MINE! :D

VIENNA (AP) — The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency cautioned on Thursday that an attack on Iran over its refusal to freeze programs that could make nuclear weapons would be "an act of madness," in indirect warnings to the United States and Israel.

IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei also said Iran would likely be running close to 3,000 uranium-enriching centrifuges by the end of next month — a number agency officials have described as the point of no return in the start of a large-scale program

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-06-14-nuclear-iran_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip

Senator Lieberman non-withstanding. ;)

BTW.. I am no saying Lieberman is a madman.. I may think it, but I am not going to say it :D

Father wears his Sunday best
Mother's tired she needs a rest
The kids are playing up downstairs
Sister's sighing in her sleep
Brother's got a date to keep
He can't hang around

Our house, in the middle of our street
Our house, in the middle of our


I like madness...

This is blasphemy! This is madness!

Madness?
THIS
IS
POLITICS!

we have bunker busters, we can find the location of their labThese Labs are well protected underground bunkers.. the only viable bunker busters in this case are nukes.

and i am against the use of nukes on a country that has not attacked US

EDITed for Clarity.

The threat of force has to be there, but I'd never want to see an actual missile strike on Iran. Lieberman's a decent guy, but I think he's a jumping to a conclusion when it isn't yet necessary.

bunker busters are nukes.

Basically you are advocating the use of nukes against a country that has not attacked US

They aren't nuclear currently, just high explosive. But I think they're developing nuclear bunker busters.

rubber baby bunker busters.

So what do we do, just let them have their Nukes? of course.

unless you are advocating a worldwide ban of nukes..

any other policy you advocate is not morally sustainable.. and -in the long run- will turn most of the World against US.

of course.

unless you propose a worldwide ban of nukes..

Except for the fact that the UN has already made resolutions telling Iran to stop refining uranium, and the Non-proliferation treaty...

Trust me, no matter how much "Oh but the US has nukes and GWB, hypocrites" a nuclear armed Iran is a baaaaaaaaad thing.

Madness? This is SPARTA!

Yeah, that would be a terrible idea. You don't build a country up by attacking it, and you don't contain Islamic fundamentalism by invading a country and confirming all of the fears and propaganda that they have built up over the years. Wars aren't really a good venue for change, at least in the present day.

And the sun is big...whoop-de-freakin' doo

I refuse to comment on this thread. It is bad for my health. My doctor banned me from debating on Iran threads, especially if they have o do with attacking Iran. No more. People can be as stupid as they want, I'm staying out of it.

bunker busters are nukes.

Basically you are advocating the use of nukes against a country that has not attacked US

Uh, that's a negative ghostrider...

The original bunker-busters were non-nuclear...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bunker_buster

And the famed Gulf War bunker buster...

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/gbu-28.htm

Uh, that's a negative ghostrider...

The original bunker-busters were non-nuclear...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bunker_buster

And the famed Gulf War bunker buster...

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/gbu-28.htm

Heh. Thought so. ;)

bunker busters are nukes.

No.

We should just surrender and become Muslims.

Once Bush is gone this kind of stuff will calm down, these kind of speculations only happen when conservative tools like Bush are in office.

Yah, like clinton and blair wif the balkans.

Once Bush is gone this kind of stuff will calm down, these kind of speculations only happen when conservative tools like Bush are in office.

Once Bush is gone this kind of stuff will calm down, these kind of speculations only happen when conservative tools like Bush are in office.

O RLY?

What about the Iran Hostage situation back when Peanut boy was in office?

Once Bush is gone this kind of stuff will calm down, these kind of speculations only happen when conservative tools like Bush are in office.

Huh?

Are you that blinded by ideology?

O RLY?

What about the Iran Hostage situation back when Peanut boy was in office?

Clinton's preparations for war with the NK's...
Operation Desert Fox...
That whole Kosovo...thing...

Uh, that's a negative ghostrider...

The original bunker-busters were non-nuclear...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bunker_buster

And the famed Gulf War bunker buster...

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/gbu-28.htmLOL

You want to use WW2 technology against these underground bunkers?
You gotta be kidding me.

these bunker-busters can only penetrate 10-25 meters deep bunkers.

Heh. Thought so. ;)
No.We are talking Military grade underground Bunkers.

Not the 3 piggies houses (http://camswonks.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/2_pigs1_2.jpg) ;)

This is blasphemy! This is madness!

Madness?
THIS
IS
POLITICS!

TONIGHT WE DINE IN A RADIOACTIVE WASTELAND!

LOL

You want to use WW2 technology against these underground bunkers?
You gotta be kidding me.

these bunker-busters can only penetrate 10-25 meters deep bunkers.

The USA in World War 2 had GBU-28s?

LOL

You want to use WW2 technology against these underground bunkers?
You gotta be kidding me.

these bunker-busters can only penetrate 10-25 meters deep bunkers.

The ones we had in WWII were nicknamed "blockbusters," not bunker busters. ;)

LOL

You want to use WW2 technology against these underground bunkers?
You gotta be kidding me.

these bunker-busters can only penetrate 10-25 meters deep bunkers.

uh...

Saddam was king of making bunkers. All were destroyed by bunker busters.

Grand slam was WW2, the bunker busters we use now were originally made in the gulf war, and have since been developed further and reach better depths.

LOL

You want to use WW2 technology against these underground bunkers?
You gotta be kidding me.

these bunker-busters can only penetrate 10-25 meters deep bunkers.

I gave you a brief history of bunker-busting weapons, as well as a spotlight on the more modern GBU-28, you moron. You just can't read beyond the first paragraph, or the first link provided, for that matter.

SPARTA!

And here I thought iRan was a new shoe being developed by Apple.

THIS IS CAKETOWN!

Hey, ##OD, how about this one?

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/gam.htm

Developed 52 years after WWII ended! You happy yet?

I gave you a history of bunker-busting weapons, you moron. You just can't read beyond the first paragraph, or the first link provided, for that matter.if your buster cant penetrate the Lab inside the Iranian Bunker..
then your busters are irrelevant.

uh...

Saddam was king of making bunkers. All were destroyed by bunker busters.Iraq is not Iran


and have since been developed further and reach better depths.10-25 meters deep.

numbers. thats what you need to show.
meters of earth penetration.

if your buster cant penetrate the Lab inside the Iranian Bunker..
then your busters are irrelevant.

I'm not even advocating the use of such weapons in Iran!

Further, you don't need to penetrate to a subterranean lab, you merely need to sever connections to the surface, as well as sufficient shockwave to cause severe damage inside of such a facility.

Hey, ##OD, how about this one?

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/gam.htmI see a lot of irrelevant data.
but they dont even talk about earth penetration.

like I said:
the key number is :

proven earth penetration.

I see a lot of irrelevant data.

like I said:
the key number is earth penetration capability.

I have proven that there are deep penetrating non-nuclear weapons systems.

The GBU-28 and GBU-37 can both penetrate 20ft (6m) of reinforced concrete.

If it can do that, it can probably make it at least 50 feet through dirt.

That and, it doesn't HAVE to even get through the concrete, the detonation of such a large warhead would probably cause failure of the bunker's walls.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bunker_buster#Modern

I have proven that there are deep penetrating non-nuclear weapons systems.the busters you have put forward can panetrate 10-25 meters deep.

in this case (Iran) not even close to what would be needed.

The only bunker buster -in theory- capable of going deep enough are nukes..

and using nukes against a Country that has not attacked US.. is asking the World to unite against US.

Anyone else read this as
## IKEA: Attacking Iran would be 'madness'

Have we been reduced to govts openly listening to Big Business?
Where have the good ol' days gone where they told our politicians in seedy back rooms?

they are 10-25 meters deep.

in this case (Iran) not even close to what would be needed.

The only bunker buster -in theory- capable of going deep enough are nukes..

and using nukes against a Country that has not attacked US.. is asking the World to unite against US.

Look, we just lack the will. The west isn't scary. It has nothing to do with fuking stupid "how deep can our canihazcheezeburger" bombs go.

This all could be over in a fortnight if'n we wanted the blood on our hands.

I'm not even advocating the use of such weapons in Iran!

Further, you don't need to penetrate to a subterranean lab, you merely need to sever connections to the surface, as well as sufficient shockwave to cause severe damage inside of such a facility.

Exactly. That's the part that matters.

Look, we just lack the will.
...

This all could be over in a fortnight if'n we wanted the blood on our hands.yes I agree.. 300 was an entertaining movie.

but no I am not ready to nuke Iran.
and I am against any preemptive attacks.

yes I agree.. 300 was an entertaining movie.

but no I am not ready to nuke Iran.
and I am against any preemptive attacks.

I'm not saying we should nuke Iran either. In fact this could all be over without even stepping foot inside Iran.

I for one would not support it however.

Edit: Fuking I loved 300. It got my suppressed ghey on big time. And anyone who didn't like it is a repressed homosexual.

10-25 meters deep.

numbers. thats what you need to show.
meters of earth penetration.

25 metres is pretty deep.

Well Natanz is the only nuclear facility that is not inside a civilian population center, so in reality it's the only option for such an attack if the US doesn't want the whole world abandoning it (which it would anyway, but meh). Natanz was also built deep deep underground like a bunker, and it can withstand most bunker busters and other bombs. The only option would be heavy repeat penetration bombings, which would take quite a while to be absolutely sure it was damaged enough. This is also not mentioning it's pretty much assured the surrounding facility area has many hidden SAM and other anti-air/missile sites, this is because they know an attack would come there and they can concentrate their defenses in the only place a US attack could come from (given that the US only as the nuclear issue to chase Tehran on). This is also disregarding that Iran would most likely retaliate with their vast missile stocks, anti-ship, SSM etc, against US units in Iraq and ships in the Gulf, they could also encircle Iraq with Syria.

and I am against any preemptive attacks.

So, let's say Iran goes psycho, and says "In one week, we will nuke any nation that does not convert to Islam." You still wouldn't support a pre-emptive attack in Iran?

So, let's say Iran goes psycho, and says "In one week, we will nuke any nation that does not convert to Islam." You still wouldn't support a pre-emptive attack in Iran?

Wouldn't much matter what any of us thought then - one of our submarines would pop a nuke up their tailpipe so fast, they wouldn't have time to pray to Allah before all of Iran went all "mushroom cloud" looking. ;)

So, let's say the US goes psycho, and says "In one week, we will nuke any nation that does not convert to Christianity." You still wouldn't support a pre-emptive attack in the United States?

Yes.

So, let's say Iran goes psycho, and says "In one week, we will nuke any nation that does not convert to Islam." You still wouldn't support a pre-emptive attack in Iran?

No, I wouldn't. 'Cos that is the wrong way to do it.

Jesus, talk about dumbing down, don't they teach aesthetic terror in schools anymore. I don't know, it's all smash smash bang bang these days.

Yes.

Anybody who compares the United States to Iran is an idiot.

Anybody who compares the United States to Iran is an idiot.

How about we go by invasion records then.

Islamic Republic of Iran: 0
United States of America: God knows!

Anybody who compares the United States to Iran is an idiot.

Strawman AND ad hominem. Congrats, that was an extremely efficient way for you to lose an argument.

How about we go by invasion records then.

Islamic Republic of Iran: 0
United States of America: God knows!

Islamic Republic of Iran: 1 in fact.

Just because the Quisling Thatcher regime was too chickenshit to defend her citizens doesn't mean it wasn't an act of war.

Anybody who compares the United States to Iran is an idiot.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/62/Traffic_congestion_straw_man.png

No, I wouldn't. 'Cos that is the wrong way to do it.

Jesus, talk about dumbing down, don't they teach aesthetic terror in schools anymore. I don't know, it's all smash smash bang bang these days.

Well, we make sure it isn't just some religious bullshit that has no chance of happening.

If it turns out to be legit, yeah of course we should prevent them from doing it. Do you want them to kill possibly millions of people? One week is hardly any time to do anything diplomatic on a large scale, and the consequences of doing the strike to incapacitate Iran from nuking someone would be less then the consequences of them nuking someone, or in this case many countries since no one will willingly convert to Islam on a national scale.

Well, we make sure it isn't just some religious bullshit that has no chance of happening.

If it turns out to be legit, yeah of course we should prevent them from doing it. Do you want them to kill possibly millions of people? One week is hardly any time to do anything diplomatic on a large scale, and the consequences of doing the strike to incapacitate Iran from nuking someone would be less then the consequences of them nuking someone, or in this case many countries since no one will willingly convert to Islam on a national scale.

Given track records of unjustified invasion, military intervention and the like, the US is to be feared infinitely more than Iran, your a hypocrite.

Given track records of unjustified invasion, military intervention and the like, the US is to be feared infinitely more than Iran, your a hypocrite.


Where anywhere did I compare Iran to the US in that post?

I simply replied to what the course of action should be if a rogue state (A Islam-fascist Iran) were to make such a claim.

Where anywhere did I compare Iran to the US in that post?

I simply replied to what the course of action should be if a rogue state (A Islam-fascist Iran) were to make such a claim.

Step 1: Look up what 'fascism' means and don't use Dubya for a source.

Step 2: Compare what fascism is too corporate hegemony in the US, you may learn something.

Step 1: Look up what 'fascism' means and don't use Dubya for a source.

Step 2: Compare what fascism is too corporate hegemony in the US, you may learn something.

Fascism: aggressive foreign policy with some other nationalistic bullshit thrown in whilst saying "Commies are evil"


This is not a discussion on economics. Therefor step 2 is irrelevant to the conversation and topic at hand.

Fascism: aggressive foreign policy with some other nationalistic bullshit thrown in whilst saying "Commies are evil"


This is not a discussion on economics. Therefor step 2 is irrelevant to the conversation and topic at hand.

You mentioned fascism, now deal with it, fascism is a theory of political economy developed by Mussolini, if you can bring foward evidence comparing and contrasting Iran to fascist Italy and can make such a conclusion, I will look over it. Until you make that statement, I will assume your use of 'fascist' in reference to Iran is simply unsubstantiated Dubya rhetoric. You obviously know very little.

Well, we make sure it isn't just some religious bullshit that has no chance of happening.

If it turns out to be legit, yeah of course we should prevent them from doing it. Do you want them to kill possibly millions of people? One week is hardly any time to do anything diplomatic on a large scale, and the consequences of doing the strike to incapacitate Iran from nuking someone would be less then the consequences of them nuking someone, or in this case many countries since no one will willingly convert to Islam on a national scale.

The west holds literally tens of millions of Muslims hostage. They - because of their religious tolerance - hold zero hostages. (More or less). Stupid twunts.

They can be as bellicose as they want. At the end of the day, their little nuclear efforts will only end up killing more muslims than anyone else. If they want that on their conscience, then fine.

You mentioned fascism, now deal with it, fascism is a theory of political economy developed by Mussolini, if you can bring foward evidence comparing and contrasting Iran to fascist Italy and can make such a conclusion, I will look over it. Until you make that statement, I will assume your use of 'fascist' in reference to Iran is simply unsubstantiated Dubya rhetoric. You obviously know very little.


Yes, fascism has an economic part of it to. It also incorporates intense aggressive foreign policy, which was seen in Mussolini and Hitler (Nazism is an offshoot of fascism, with more xenophobic and race stuff, and even more aggressive policy).

I am using the fascist term in the sense that Iran is using aggressive foreign policy in this "If Iran went Psycho" scenario, whilst not using the economic output of it, which doesn't matter.

And please, enough of the stupid dubya junk, this has nothing to do with him at all.

Given track records of unjustified invasion, military intervention and the like, the US is to be feared infinitely more than Iran, your a hypocrite.

Except for the fact that the Iranian govt. is always telling the world that they will reign fire on the infidels.

I have no fear of the US; they attack rogue states and dictatorships.

The west holds literally tens of millions of Muslims hostage. They - because of their religious tolerance - hold zero hostages. (More or less). Stupid twunts.

Holds hostage? Yes, we force them to stay here and sure as hell don't give them the right to say shit like "Islam should be the only accepted religion on Earth." :rolleyes:

They can be as bellicose as they want. At the end of the day, their little nuclear efforts will only end up killing more muslims than anyone else. If they want that on their conscience, then fine.

I'm sure nuking New York, London, Paris, Berlin, Moscow and Sydney will kill MANY more Muslims than non-Muslims :rolleyes:

Except for the fact that the Iranian govt. is always telling the world that they will reign fire on the infidels.

I have no fear of the US; they attack rogue states and dictatorships.

And your a MTAE clone, so I won't take your comments seriously.

Do you want me to quote some US political rhetoric over the years to prove that rhetoric is not policy. And what exactly is a rogue state or a dictatorship, according to Dubya and others it's any state that opposes US hegemony. The US is a capital property dictatorship where political power is decided by elite business interests.

And your a MTAE clone, so I won't take your comments seriously.

Do you want me to quote some US political rhetoric over the years to prove that rhetoric is not policy. And what exactly is a rogue state or a dictatorship, according to Dubya and others it's any state that opposes US hegemony. The US is a capital property dictatorship where political power is decided by elite business interests.

What does the underlined sentence have to do with Iran?

Nothing, except for random slander.

And your a MTAE clone, so I won't take your comments seriously.

Do you want me to quote some US political rhetoric over the years to prove that rhetoric is not policy. And what exactly is a rogue state or a dictatorship, according to Dubya and others it's any state that opposes US hegemony. The US is a capital property dictatorship where political power is decided by elite business interests.

Maybe it is a state that has no political opposition, and enjoys killing its own people?

What does the underlined sentence have to do with Iran?

Nothing, except for random slander.

No, my point is that saying Iran is a fascist state (you have yet to substantiate this with anything but slander) and then holding the US up as a shining beacon of 'democracy' is false, as my comment pointed out.

And what exactly is a rogue state or a dictatorship, according to Dubya and others it's any state that opposes US hegemony.

It's a state that defies international law. Everybody know what a dictatorship, and they're not a particularly bad thing, unless they DEFY INTERNATIONAL LAW.

The US is a capital property dictatorship where political power is decided by elite business interests.

It's a representative democracy. Get over it.

Meh. Bomb the whole lot of 'em. Just a bunch of Muslims.

Guarantee you if they had the bomb we'd all be be dead..

No, my point is that saying Iran is a fascist state (you have yet to substantiate this with anything but slander) and then holding the US up as a shining beacon of 'democracy' is false, as my comment pointed out.

Where did I say the US was a shining beacon of democracy?

I WAS TALKING ABOUT THE "IF IRAN WENT PSYCHO" SCENARIO! :mad:

No, my point is that saying Iran is a fascist state (you have yet to substantiate this with anything but slander)

It's run by the Ayatollah, who bans anti-Islamic parties and candidates and controls all of the country's policies. Are we done here?

It's a state that defies international law. Everybody know what a dictatorship, and they're not a particularly bad thing, unless they DEFY INTERNATIONAL LAW.



It's a representative democracy. Get over it.

Defies international law, like the invasion of Iraq and a very long list of US violations (I will quote them all if you like).

Also, why does a candidate for President in the US need hundreds of millions of dollars to have a chance, why can't any person have a chance at it? Why do tiny elite business groups have more influence in politics than the common people? In need freedom in latent.

Defies international law, like the invasion of Iraq and a very long list of US violations (I will quote them all if you like).

Also, why does a candidate for President in the US need hundreds of millions of dollars to have a chance, why can't any person have a chance at it? Why do tiny elite business groups have more influence in politics than the common people? In need freedom in latent.

I too wish the old days would come back where anyone could run without having to be back by multi-billion dollar corporations...

It's run by the Ayatollah, who bans anti-Islamic parties and candidates and controls all of the country's policies. Are we done here?

Less slander, more evidence.
If you can prove that Iranian corporations (private enterprise) and a totalitarian state have merged into one giant bureaucratic entity then I will concede that Iran is fascist in the true Mussolinist meaning. Plus, the Iranian people elect their parliament in case you didn't know, they just elect candidates within the framework of political Islamism, that is alternate views of Islamic government. As I said many times before and made threads about, it sure wouldn't much sense for an Islamic Republic to have candidates who were anti-Islamic, as in against the Supreme Leaders political ideology, yes it's nominal restrictive popularism, but no more than capital despotism in America.

Am I the only one who finds it humorously ironic that Crackadaemon and Tater Factory are bitching at each other over how 3b1l the /\/\05l3/\/\z in I-r@|\| are?

Defies international law, like the invasion of Iraq and a very long list of US violations (I will quote them all if you like).

If the UN had any fucking balls, the world would have invaded Iraq for gross human rights violations.

Many of the US violations are either:

- To best defend themselves
- To do what the UN SHOULD be doing. Fucking cowards.

Also, why does a candidate for President in the US need hundreds of millions of dollars to have a chance, why can't any person have a chance at it? Why do tiny elite business groups have more influence in politics than the common people? In need freedom in latent.

Any person DOES have a chance at it.

If the UN had any fucking balls, the world would have invaded Iraq for gross human rights violations.

Many of the US violations are either:

- To best defend themselves
- To do what the UN SHOULD be doing. Fucking cowards.



Any person DOES have a chance at it.

I live in the US..hell I'm even in the Army..but you're last statement is false..every American born citizen does have the right to run for president..but unless you're endorsed by millionaires etc etc...you have a snow balls chance in hell of getting elected..

If the UN had any fucking balls, the world would have invaded Iraq for gross human rights violations.

Many of the US violations are either:

- To best defend themselves
- To do what the UN SHOULD be doing. Fucking cowards.



Any person DOES have a chance at it.

So the UN is cowardly, so the US is the only country that should define what isn't and is an international law and a violation of one. Great idea:rolleyes:

Second part, NO ONE except a tiny minority of elite rich interests have a chance at the US Presidency, do you see someone off the streets with no money winning the Presidency. This goes to the heart of elitist capital tyranny the world over, masquerading as popular rule when it is in fact a form of oligarchy.

Less slander, more evidence.

You know there was this THING called the fucking REVOLUTION, like 30 years ago, right? Where they put the fucking AYATOLLAH in power?

If you can prove that Iranian corporations (private enterprise) and a totalitarian state have merged into one giant bureaucratic entity then I will concede that Iran is fascist in the true Mussolinist meaning.

When has that EVER happened? God, it's like talking to a brick idiot.

Plus, the Iranian people elect their parliament in case you didn't know, they just elect candidates within the framework of political Islamism, that is alternate views of Islamic government.

Translation: I know that Iran is a Islamic dictatorship, but who cares, America is much worse, with it's freedoms and rights. God I hate freedom.

As I said many times before and made threads about, it sure wouldn't much sense for an Islamic Republic to have candidates who were anti-Islamic, as in against the Supreme Leaders political ideology, yes it's nominal restrictive popularism, but no more than capital despotism in America.

CAPITAL DESPOTISM? Jesus Christ. CAPITALISM is an ECONOMIC SYSTEM. ISLAMISM is POLITICAL AND RELIGIOUS IDEOLOGY.

Well not entirely true on the last part AP...you can win state elections particularly governor with far less money than you would need for a presidential one..in fact it is entirely possible for "joe blow" to win a governors race..then from there you can go off for the presidency...however it is virtually impossible for joe blow to simply just run for the presidential office..

So the UN is cowardly, so the US is the only country that should define what isn't and is an international law and a violation of one. Great idea:rolleyes:

The US ENFORCES international law that the UN has outlines. It's the UN that's not enforcing it.

Second part, NO ONE except a tiny minority of elite rich interests have a chance at the US Presidency, do you see someone off the streets with no money winning the Presidency. This goes to the heart of elitist capital tyranny the world over, masquerading as popular rule when it is in fact a form of oligarchy.

Nobody on the street has put their hand up. You have the right to run whenever you want, you have the right to start your own party, or run independently.

Uhh...

Am I the only one wondering why the fuck you're listening to the International Atomic Energy Agency for global policy advice?!

I live in the US..hell I'm even in the Army..but you're last statement is false..every American born citizen does have the right to run for president..but unless you're endorsed by millionaires etc etc...you have a snow balls chance in hell of getting elected..

And why is that? Because nobody will vote for you. It's not the system, it's the voters.

And why is that? Because nobody will vote for you. It's not the system, it's the voters.

No, it's called inequality of opportunity, the media and news (means of economic production) are in the hands of the elite and not the common people, so they will not equally represent the people and give them equal chance, only the tiny minority elite rich interests will get into power. That is not democracy.

I would encourage a read of this:
http://www.mathaba.net/gci/theory/gb1.htm#instrument

No, it's called inequality of opportunity, the media and news (means of economic production) are in the hands of the elite and not the common people, so they will not equally represent the people and give them equal chance, only the tiny minority elite rich interests will get into power. That is not democracy.

I would encourage a read of this:
http://www.mathaba.net/gci/theory/gb1.htm#instrument

I would agree. The poor do have a chance to get into the White House...

as much as I have the chance to win the lottery and be struck by lightning on the same day.

No, it's called inequality of opportunity, the media and news (means of economic production) are in the hands of the elite and not the common people, so they will not equally represent the people and give them equal chance, only the tiny minority elite rich interests will get into power. That is not democracy.

I would encourage a read of this:
http://www.mathaba.net/gci/theory/gb1.htm#instrument

Pfft. Commie rag.
Only thing worse than a Muslim is a Communist.

YES, IT IS.

See, in a democracy, anybody is free to run for president. Many who run for the office also happen to have friends in high places. Those friends are free to support their friends. Democracy.

See, that's not the way democracy is supposed to work. It may be closer to the Roman system of federalism, but it is not a true democracy.

In fact, the US system hasn't been a true democracy since the electoral college was invented.

Am I the only one who finds it humorously ironic that Crackadaemon and Tater Factory are bitching at each other over how 3b1l the /\/\05l3/\/\z in I-r@|\| are?

I don't chop people's heads off on the internet. So score one for me.

YAY me.

I guess that is a deep religious moment however, so I probably shouldn't make fun of it.

No, it's called inequality of opportunity, the media and news (means of economic production) are in the hands of the elite and not the common people, so they will not equally represent the people and give them equal chance, only the tiny minority elite rich interests will get into power. That is not democracy.

YES, IT IS.

See, in a democracy, anybody is free to run for president. Many who run for the office also happen to have friends in high places. Those friends are free to support their friends. Democracy.

Pfft. Commie rag.
Only thing worse than a Muslim is a Communist.

Wow. Way to make yourself look like a jackass.

The only reason why I left NSG for two months was this shitstorm of ad hominem attacks and this just took the cake.

Look, do you even have an argument here or do you just want to make yourself look bad?

Wow. Way to make yourself look like a jackass.

The only reason why I left NSG for two months was this shitstorm of ad hominem attacks and this just took the cake.

Look, do you even have an argument here or do you just want to make yourself look bad?

Communists and Muslims want to destroy America and Communist came closer. What's to explain?

And why is that? Because nobody will vote for you. It's not the system, it's the voters.

Well no one will vote for you because you're not going to be able to afford the name recognition and campaign advertising that the rich endorsed candidate can afford..

This is just here to be here:

After a bit of research, I found that the Iranian president has almost no power.

Here. Looky. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Schema_gvt_iran_en.png)

YES, IT IS.

See, in a democracy, anybody is free to run for president. Many who run for the office also happen to have friends in high places. Those friends are free to support their friends. Democracy.

Democracy in the form of universal suffrage is the essence of one person-one vote, when this is not mirrored in economic equality, then the system is not fair or democratic (the Greek translation: 'the common people rule'). If a tiny rich minority can wield political power beyond their numbers (in the concept of one person-one vote) then the system is elitist and not democratic.

Democracy in the form of universal suffrage is the essence of one person-one vote, when this is not mirrored in economic equality, then the system is not fair or democratic (the Greek translation: 'the common people rule'). If a tiny rich minority can wield political power beyond their numbers (in the concept of one person-one vote) then the system is elitist and not democratic.

Like I said if you follow the path of local government which isn't so heavily influenced by endorsements etc..and more people pay attention to them..I believe because state and local governments affect people's lives more directly and immediately more so than the national government which isn't always true but I believe a lot of people see it that way..anyways..build your way up to a state governor and you'll have a decent shot of becoming a presidential candidate..anyways..can we get back to the topic of Iran..now...?

See, that's not the way democracy is supposed to work. It may be closer to the Roman system of federalism, but it is not a true democracy.

In fact, the US system hasn't been a true democracy since the electoral college was invented.

EXACTLY MY POINT!

Communists and Muslims want to destroy America and Communist came closer. What's to explain?

They wanted to destroy capitalism, and "the West" is the symbol of capitalism. They didn't necessarily want to destroy America but, America, being the shining symbol of capitalism, is the reason why they targeted it. Ugh.

Look, if that's your argument, fine... It's bullshit, but fine. SAY THAT FIRST, THEN. Don't say "commie pig; you ppl are as bad as Muslims." That's not only racist but also an ad hominem attack and against the spirit of why these forums are held in the first place.

Second of all, do you even know what true Communism is?

Or are you just using the layman's term "Communism" to describe what really is "Marxist-Leninism?"

and on the bunker buster argument about not being able to penetrate deep enough..maybe 1 bomb won't do the trick but I guarantee you if we dropped em we'd drop way more than enough to ensure it got the job done..

DAMN you jolt and you're stupid time warp!

bunker busters are nukes.

Basically you are advocating the use of nukes against a country that has not attacked US

bunker busters are NOT nukes
they are smart bombs designed to hit a target hundreds of feet underground with a high explosive that destroys the bunker or watever is underground

bunker busters are NOT nukes
they are smart bombs designed to hit a target hundreds of feet underground with a high explosive that destroys the bunker or watever is underground

Y'know, I had actually thought that. Thank you for making me do my research.

He/she is right... Modern bunker busters use a form of a Fuel/Air munition to penetrate hard or soft underground bunkers.

Second of all, do you even know what true Communism is?


No I don't. And nor does anyone else. I think there is supposed to be this moment at which the state evaporates or something, and I've read tonnes of speculative fiction about it which makes it sound great. The problem is, I've never met a communist who actually wants to work towards it, so I've given it up as a pipe dream.

You don't build a country up by attacking it, and you don't contain Islamic fundamentalism by invading a country and confirming all of the fears and propaganda that they have built up over the years.

That would seem obvious, wouldn't it? Now why are so many people too dumb to realise something this simple?


After a bit of research, I found that the Iranian president has almost no power.


I thought everybody knew that, but a reminder from time to time is good. And good on you for actually doing a bit of research.

That would seem obvious, wouldn't it? Now why are so many people too dumb to realise something this simple?

I thought everybody knew that, but a reminder from time to time is good. And good on you for actually doing a bit of research.

Yeah. I did that a while back concerning Iran's role in the Iraq war, and I was curious to see the President's powers - I knew Iran was a theocracy controlled by one man, I just wanted to know what powers the President had.

I wish some users here would do some fact finding, though. :(

That would seem obvious, wouldn't it? Now why are so many people too dumb to realise something this simple?


Don't you dudes all have little numbers on your car license plate telling you exactly which department you come from?

No I don't. And nor does anyone else. I think there is supposed to be this moment at which the state evaporates or something, and I've read tonnes of speculative fiction about it which makes it sound great. The problem is, I've never met a communist who actually wants to work towards it, so I've given it up as a pipe dream.

Essentially, the state is meant to fade away as people live in a perfect harmonious communal society where the workers run themselves.

Communism assumes that humans are good beings. We're not. We're assholes.

The International Atomic Energy Agency should have no say in the matter. I mean did we ask UNICEF if we should invade Afghanistan?

The International Atomic Energy Agency should have no say in the matter. I mean did we ask UNICEF if we should invade Afghanistan?

Yup. I made that comment two pages ago and it went largely ignored.

Funny, ain't it? Next the WHO will tell us why attacking North Korea would be a bad idea.

I think OceanDrive is running low on good media.

Das Kapital isn't about communism...

Essentially, the state is meant to fade away as people live in a perfect harmonious communal society where the workers run themselves.

Communism assumes that humans are good beings. We're not. We're assholes.

You once again prove you know nothing, and have no read Das Kapital or any Marxist or otherwise books.

They wanted to destroy capitalism, and "the West" is the symbol of capitalism. They didn't necessarily want to destroy America but, America, being the shining symbol of capitalism, is the reason why they targeted it. Ugh.

Look, if that's your argument, fine... It's bullshit, but fine. SAY THAT FIRST, THEN. Don't say "commie pig; you ppl are as bad as Muslims." That's not only racist but also an ad hominem attack and against the spirit of why these forums are held in the first place.

Relax, guy. I was just messing around a little.
Welcome back, by the way. I think I vaguely remember not hating you? Maybe?

The International Atomic Energy Agency should have no say in the matter. I mean did we ask UNICEF if we should invade Afghanistan?

No, you don't ask anyone, not even your own people.

No, you don't ask anyone, not even your own people.

The US populus approved to go to war with Iraq...

Even democratic candidate John Kerry approved to going to war before it began.

What business is it of theirs? Do you really think it would be wise to share every piece of intelligence information with ever single voter, and have a vote before going to war? We wouldn't even have gotten involved in world war 1 if that were the case. People en masse don't know what's good for the country. That's why we have a Republic.

Relax, guy. I was just messing around a little.
Welcome back, by the way. I think I vaguely remember not hating you? Maybe?

Eh. I'm fairly hateable. I dunno.

Did you have a plebiscite?

Like i just said: "What business is it of theirs? Do you really think it would be wise to share every piece of intelligence information with ever single voter, and have a vote before going to war? We wouldn't even have gotten involved in world war 1 if that were the case. People en masse don't know what's good for the country. That's why we have a Republic."



Absolute democracy is absolutely insane.

The US populus approved to go to war with Iraq...


Did you have a plebiscite?

Did you have a plebiscite?

No, but it's a commonly known fact that the American populus agreed with an attack on Iraq, given the reasons that Bush laid out. It was a survey conducted only months after the war began asking "Would you have voted for the war (before it began, of course) if you could have?

Given the flood of information and news after the fact, do you really expect me to be able to find even the slightest bit of information about such an event?!

Don't you dudes all have little numbers on your car license plate telling you exactly which department you come from?

Yes, we do. 94 for my département. What's that got to do with anything?

It's not there to remind people where they live, you know.

Isn't the State indicated on US car license plates?

carter shoulda bombed iran

Uhh... Tehran?

Duh.

I have no fear of the US; they attack rogue states and dictatorships.

Then you're going to be in for a shock.

It's a state that defies international law. Everybody know what a dictatorship, and they're not a particularly bad thing, unless they DEFY INTERNATIONAL LAW.


Like the US?

The US is not a dictatorship and therefore doesn't need to abide by the same laws as oppressive dictatorships.

- To best defend themselves
- To do what the UN SHOULD be doing. Fucking cowards.


And the fueling of the Iran/Iraqi war was neither. Nor was installing Batista, or the Shah, or propping up the House of Saud which has massive humans rights abuses.

You fail.

The US ENFORCES international law that the UN has outlines. It's the UN that's not enforcing it.


Liar. The US doesn't even follow treaties it signs with countries like Canada cause it takes away their economic advantage.

So once again.

Liar.

The US is not a dictatorship and therefore doesn't need to abide by the same laws as oppressive dictatorships.

Do you seriously believe that?

By that standard, I can be a philanthropist, murder by the hundreds, and not be charged for it. Why? Because I'm not a tight fisted scrooge.

Well you can be a philanthropist, and murder by the hundreds but then you can't extort money from business partners. You have to pick 2 out of 3. Just don't push it and you get left alone.

People en masse don't know what's good for the country.

Minitrue and doubleplus thinkgood much?

Well you can be a philanthropist, and murder by the hundreds but then you can't extort money from business partners. You have to pick 2 out of 3. Just don't push it and you get left alone.

So....I'll start with you then kay? And no complaints. It's your standards after all.

As silly as it may sound, take a look at the world. Everyone gets away with one thing or the other. China has its human rights abuses, the US has Bush and the brits have their food. Everyone gets one write off.

As silly as it may sound, take a look at the world. Everyone gets away with one thing or the other. China has its human rights abuses, the US has Bush and the brits have their food. Everyone gets one write off.

Right. So equality is a myth. Freedom's a lie. The elite will ever be the only ones with power.

And one write off? Hah, don't make me laugh. The powerful get as many write offs as they can buy. Manifest Destiny? PNAC? Iran contra scandal? Sound familiar to you?

Putting in British food though? Are you off your rocker? Their food hardly matches massive human right abuses or warmongering.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

So what do we do, just let them have their Nukes? Comon we have bunker busters, we can find the location of their lab and underground facilities and drop the bunker busters on them. We don't need an all out war with Iran, just an air attack to take out the facilities.

Edit: The OP is MINE! :D

You (as in the US- you write like a Yankee hawk) may not want an all out war with Iran, but Iran might want an all out war with you.
From what you've written, you believe you can win a war with air power alone. Never the case. It did not work for the Allies in Europe (nor the Germans for that matter), didn't work in the Balkans, nor the Gulf ('91), nor the Israelis last year.
I don't think that nuking Iran would make the Iranians change their minds. They will do anything if their leaders say it's God's will.
You think too simply.
Maybe an all out war could work if the Western allies could deliver a catastrophic blow to all of Iran's military branches that they would never recover from, a sort of bloody nose tactic. But they still have the fanaticism the carry on no matter what. A whole range of factors must be considered before anything can be done.

The quality British food is a common subject of ridicule and fair game when used to add comedy to a dry political discussion.

You once again prove you know nothing, and have no read Das Kapital or any Marxist or otherwise books.

I've done the French and Russian Revolutions, and the ideologies behind them. So, please little girl, shut up.

"Bunker busting nukes" on the otherhand are something entirely different, and they have never been used.

bunker busters are nukes.

Basically you are advocating the use of nukes against a country that has not attacked US

no?

They are high explosive specially designed and shaped devices able to penetrate large amounts of matter.

A nuclear warhead is a nuke. Not an explosive device.

The dude (and everyone else it seems) is incapable of persuading Iran to stop uranium enrichment development.The dude admits,that something should be done ASAP or in 3 - something years Iran would have nukes.
But when the dude hears about military option he plays pacifist.
He wants to sit on two chairs at once.Anyway I understand him,he can't say attack MF-ers while you still can and he can't ignore iranian danger.So now and then he just spouts some banalities.

I love madness and politics. (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v723/Luporum/spartabyaaa.jpg)

25 metres is pretty deep.What did Mrs Potato tell you last time?
deeper.. deeper.. damn thats not deep enough. :D

The quality British food is a common subject of ridicule and fair game when used to add comedy to a dry political discussion.

Which doesn't negate the observation that equality is a myth, freedom's a lie and the elite will ever be the only ones with power.

Which means the people who buy that load of bull are prime grade suckers.

What did Mrs Potato tell you last time?
:D

Do you deliberately find ways to lower the IQ of everybody around you?

Do you deliberately find ways to lower the IQ of everybody around you?I am "exposing" your IQ.. Mr Potato. :D

If you think your IQ is low.. Dont try to fault me ;)

I am "exposing" your IQ.. Mr Potato. :D

If you think your IQ is low.. Dont try to fault me ;)

If my IQ is low, then yours would be somewhere between "rake" and "KFC drumstick".

Pfft. Commie rag.
Only thing worse than a Muslim is a Communist.

Didn't you hear? Neo-Nazis, Fascists, Communists, Muslims and evil have combined to form Evil Neo-Nazi, Islamo-fascist Commies!

If my IQ is low...LOL
keep in mind I am not saying "Mr Potato has a Low IQ"

You are suggesting "Darth Occean (dark jedi powers) is lowering your IQ".. along with everyone else !
:D

Second of all, do you even know what true Communism is?

Or are you just using the layman's term "Communism" to describe what really is "Marxist-Leninism?"

Or Stalinism

Y'know, I had actually thought that. Thank you for making me do my research.

He/she is right... Modern bunker busters use a form of a Fuel/Air munition to penetrate hard or soft underground bunkers.

Except even the best ones (that we know of) can only penetrate to a max of 40m (or was it 25?) AFAIK. Don't bunker busters used in a similar way to a torpedo (a 'bubble' which after expanding contracts under or diagonally to the target to wreck it)?

no?

They are high explosive specially designed and shaped devices able to penetrate large amounts of matter.

A nuclear warhead is a nuke. Not an explosive device.

Errrrr....... A 'nuke' uses a fission chain reaction which leads to a massive release of energy (explosion). It is an explosive device...

Except even the best ones (that we know of) can only penetrate to a max of 40m (or was it 25?) AFAIK. Don't bunker busters used in a similar way to a torpedo (a 'bubble' which after expanding contracts under or diagonally to the target to wreck it)?

Again, 40m is a fair distance. Think about it. Really think.

Like i just said: "What business is it of theirs? Do you really think it would be wise to share every piece of intelligence information with ever single voter, and have a vote before going to war? We wouldn't even have gotten involved in world war 1 if that were the case. People en masse don't know what's good for the country. That's why we have a Republic."



Absolute democracy is absolutely insane.

Switzerland is (I think...) an absolute democracy...

Either that or its direct.

And the fueling of the Iran/Iraqi war was neither. Nor was installing Batista, or the Shah, or propping up the House of Saud which has massive humans rights abuses.

You fail.

We supported Saddam in that war because it was to stop Iran from gaining large control of the ME. Iran or at least the ayatollah guy wanted to spread the great Islamic revolution through out the ME, which would be bad for the ME.

Problem was that Saddam was a crappy war commander.

Switzerland is (I think...) an absolute democracy...

Either that or its direct.

Sort of. There's a Swiss Parliament that passes laws, but regular citizens can put forth referendums to overturn these laws.

Again, 40m is a fair distance. Think about it. Really think.

On rethinking my post I don't think that it was 40m.

Except some of those sites were designed to be buried deep enough for the bombs to, at best, explode above the facility (which would be relatively ineffective).

Now dropping multiple bombs would be more effective but then you get into the problem of not only supplying those weapons but also have enough protection for the bombers.

Funny, ain't it? Next the WHO will tell us why attacking North Korea would be a bad idea.

Next we will have the IMF helping governments to run their economies in an effective way...

...I read the thread title as IKEA: Attacking Iran would be 'madness'.

;)

So what do we do, just let them have their Nukes?

Why not? The Americans have them, the Russians have them, the French have them, and those places are run by drooling idiots...I don't think the world would really notice one more group of power-hungry maniacs with nukes.

Wait, does this mean South Africa can have its nukes back?

Wait, does this mean South Africa can have its nukes back?in the long run there is two morally viable policies..
#1 Worldwide ban on nuclear weapons.
or
#2 Every state may have this weapons. (if they can afford the research + massive resources needed)

*Scrambles to get nuclear weapons for use in a rocket*

Again, 40m is a fair distance.non-nuclear 40 m ????

sold!

I mean WoW.. 40m !!!
I am impressed, what is the name of this miracle Bunker-Buster?

I wonder if the global dynamic will shift once Iran gets the bomb, or if they are on the verge of building one.

How about we go by invasion records then.

Islamic Republic of Iran: 0
United States of America: God knows!

Entirely irrelevant.

Entirely irrelevant.It IS relevant.

follow the green arrows.

For more than 40 metres, a 5k lb. bomb is used.

For thicker things, if we felt like it, we could use something like MOAB.

It IS relevant.

follow the green arrows.

No, no it isn't.

What would be important is if Iran had equal power projection capability to the US, but they don't. They are forced to act within the regional constraints. Even at that, they operate through their proxies, and utilize their proxies to carry out military operations and proxies.

I don't chop people's heads off on the internet. So score one for me.

YAY me.

I guess that is a deep religious moment however, so I probably shouldn't make fun of it.

Ah, the old Beheading copout.

When in the history of the world did Iran ever televise or tape a beheading of a Western hostage?

Answer... never.

For a bitter-ass athiest who claims to hate all religions equally you sure are acting like a member of the 'Sterilize the 3b1l /\/\05l3/\/\z' Deep Kimchiteers.

We supported Saddam in that war because it was to stop Iran from gaining large control of the ME. Iran or at least the ayatollah guy wanted to spread the great Islamic revolution through out the ME, which would be bad for the ME.

Problem was that Saddam was a crappy war commander.

It was also part of the tit for tat competition that the US had against the USSR, a bunch of fear mongering that was entirely unfounded. None of these actions in any way were done for the safety of the US or the UNs job. What this was all about was expanding and maintaining power influence worldwide.

None of that protecting the US bullshit. It's a power play, pure and simple.

For thicker things, if we felt like it, we could use something like MOAB.

Not really. Both the Daisy Cutter and MOAB are designed for surface scouring, not deep earth penetration. You'd probably turn surface entrances to slag, but that would at best be superficial damage.

we could just make a bunker buster about the size of those "earthquake bombs" and it would get down pretty far

Switzerland is (I think...) an absolute democracy...

Either that or its direct.

Sort of. There's a Swiss Parliament that passes laws, but regular citizens can put forth referendums to overturn these laws.

It's often described as a "half-direct democracy".

Direct democracy

Switzerland features a system of government not seen at the national level on any other place on Earth: direct democracy, sometimes called half-direct democracy (this could, or could not be correct as theoretically, one could state that the people have full power over the law). Referenda on the most important laws have been used since the 1848 constitution.

Any citizen may challenge a law that has been passed by parliament. If that person is able to gather 50,000 signatures against the law within 100 days, a national vote has to be scheduled where voters decide by a simple majority whether to accept or reject the law.

Also, any citizen may seek a decision on an amendment they want to make to the constitution. For such an amendment initiative to be organised, the signatures of 100,000 voters must be collected within 18 months. Such a popular initiative may be formulated as a general proposal or - much more often - be put forward as a precise new text whose wording can no longer be changed by parliament and the government. After a successful vote gathering, the federal council may create a counterproposal to the proposed amendment and put it to vote on the same day. Such counterproposals are usually a compromise between the status quo and the wording of the initiative. Voters will again decide in a national vote whether to accept the initiative amendment, the counterproposal put forward by the government or both. If both are accepted, one has to additionally signal a preference. Initiatives have to be accepted by a double majority of both the popular votes and a majority of the states.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Switzerland#Direct_democracy

Not really. Both the Daisy Cutter and MOAB are designed for surface scouring, not deep earth penetration. You'd probably turn surface entrances to slag, but that would at best be superficial damage.

Right... I didn't say "Use MOAB" (I know, I know... it's a surface fuel/air munition", hence the like there in italics.)

Something like MOAB and having the characteristics of a bunker buster and sophisticated electronics of normal guided munitions... only it would still sit in a C-17.

Senator Lieberman non-withstanding. ;)

BTW.. I am no saying Lieberman is a madman.. I may think it, but I am not going to say it :D

Who the hell died and made the IAEA security experts?

Who the hell died and made the IAEA security experts?

Apparently the collective IQ of America.

Apparently the collective IQ of America.

Brillian, national-based collective slurs.

And I repeat, IAEA are experts in atomic energy, not the workings of world militaries and the tactical/strategic advisability of bombing this or that.

Brillian, national-based collective slurs.

And I repeat, IAEA are experts in atomic energy, not the workings of world militaries and the tactical/strategic advisability of bombing this or that.

No, the point is, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that attacking Iran would be a bad idea.

No, the point is, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that attacking Iran would be a bad idea.

Proof of that statement?

Proof of that statement?

I don't see why I should even have to explain this, so I'll assume your just being an ass.

I don't see why I should even have to explain this, so I'll assume your just being an ass.

Why is attacking Iran 'madness'?

Is Iran posessed of some highly-powered ubermilitary?

Does it have nuclear weapons? What?

Why is flying aircraft/using long-ranged missiles to strike at Iran's nuclear program insane?

Why is attacking Iran 'madness'?

Is Iran posessed of some highly-powered ubermilitary?

Does it have nuclear weapons? What?

Why is flying aircraft/using long-ranged missiles to strike at Iran's nuclear program insane?

Because most likely Iran and Syria would invade Iraq, and they would unload their vast missile stock any time a target presented itself. Also, Natanz is most likely completely defending by SAM sites etc. Not to mention that the whole world would pretty much abandon the US, and the President who ordered it impeached.

Because most likely Iran and Syria would invade Iraq, and they would unload their vast missile stock any time a target presented itself. Also, Natanz is most likely completely defending by SAM sites etc. Not to mention that the whole world would pretty much abandon the US, and the President who ordered it impeached.


1. It is completely unclear if Iranian RADAR are even capable of detecting the kind of stealth aircraft America can field.

2. It's completely insane to think an American President would be impeached over such a thing - never had an American President been removed from office by impeachment.

2. It's completely insane to think an American President would be impeached over such a thing - never had an American President been removed from office by impeachment.No it isn't.
It's actually way past fucking due.

rubber baby bunker busters.

Don't make me laugh! I'm supposed to be pissed off about something on this thread, and now you've got me thinking about the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man!
:mad:

We should just surrender and become Muslims.

Troll!

2. It's completely insane to think an American President would be impeached over such a thing - never had an American President been removed from office by impeachment.

How about Johnson - wasn't he removed by impeachment or am I mis-remembering again? ;)

Edit: That's Andy Johnson, not LBJ, before I get the rolleyes. :p

How about Johnson - wasn't he removed by impeachment or am I mis-remembering again? ;)

You are.

This all could be over in a fortnight if'n we wanted the blood on our hands.
Just like the fucking Crusades were?

You are.

Hm. Okay then. :p

Edit: Fuking I loved 300. It got my suppressed ghey on big time. And anyone who didn't like it is a repressed homosexual.

To prove it, this is the part where we scream "Oh yeah i gotta get my OWN oracle! Those warted, crusty, syphilitic elders didn't deserve to slather drool on such a precious neck when i could be playin' spiderman across those perky little-" ....

So, let's say Iran goes psycho, and says "In one week, we will nuke any nation that does not convert to Islam." You still wouldn't support a pre-emptive attack in Iran?

It wouldn't really be "pre-emptive" at that point, now would it?

How about we go by invasion records then.

Islamic Republic of Iran: 0
United States of America: God knows!Where's the meat of the topic?
Do a comparison of countries that have utilized nuclear weapons on any other country, perhaps.

It's a representative democracy. Get over it.

Name by name, not by nature, squire.
:(

Something like MOAB and having the characteristics of a bunker buster and sophisticated electronics of normal guided munitions... only it would still sit in a C-17.

The daisy cutter is massive enough as it is. The MOAB even bigger. Putting it in a bunker busting container would probably overload the carrier plane to the point of usefulness as the Tsar Bomba.

2. It's completely insane to think an American President would be impeached over such a thing - never had an American President been removed from office by impeachment.
How about Johnson - wasn't he removed by impeachment or am I mis-remembering again? ;)

Edit: That's Andy Johnson, not LBJ, before I get the rolleyes. :p

1) Presidnets are not removed by impeachment, but by a conviction following impeachment.
2) Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were impeached, but not convicted.

The daisy cutter is massive enough as it is. The MOAB even bigger. Putting it in a bunker busting container would probably overload the carrier plane to the point of usefulness as the Tsar Bomba.

I think I read a story last year about a small number of ICBMs being converted to high explosive just for such a situation as Iran. Might've been something else, though.

In fact, the US system hasn't been a true democracy since the electoral college was invented.

QFF'nT.
*bows*

1) Presidnets are not removed by impeachment, but by a conviction following impeachment.
2) Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were impeached, but not convicted.

Right, I remember that now. I just remembered Johnson being impeached by both houses, while the Senate didn't go all the way with Clinton. Something like that.

1. It is completely unclear if Iranian RADAR are even capable of detecting the kind of stealth aircraft America can field.


Maybe, maybe not. But I doubt Iranian radar has any problems detecting American ships in the Gulf. And they have a lot, and I do mean a lot, of anti-shipping missiles.

Hello missile spam, goodbye carrier group.

And whatever oil tankers there are.


2. It's completely insane to think an American President would be impeached over such a thing - never had an American President been removed from office by impeachment.

I'm thinking more of a coup de tat. Or forced resignation due to mental stress (nutter).

Maybe, maybe not. But I doubt Iranian radar has any problems detecting American ships in the Gulf. And they have a lot, and I do mean a lot, of anti-shipping missiles.

Even if they do this and they succeed - which I doubt - that's not going to build them their atomic program back.


I'm thinking more of a coup de tat. Or forced resignation due to mental stress (nutter).


That's spelled as 'coup d'etat'.

DAMN you jolt and you're stupid time warp!

The coolest part is i'm reading this while i'm watching "Deja Vu" :D
And it actually makes the argument here more interesting.

Even if they do this and they succeed - which I doubt - that's not going to build them their atomic program back.


No, but they can rebuild it. No president on the other hand, is going to survive a devastating loss of a carrier group in the Gulf in the name of "preventing them from developing nuclear plants" when a fair bit of the country doesn't care if they do get nukes. This doesn't count what they'd do to US forces in Iraq, but I'm betting a lot of missile spamming and turning the insurgency there into a full blown war.

The next president is going to be a bit more circumspect.

No, but they can rebuild it. No president on the other hand, is going to survive a devastating loss of a carrier group in the Gulf in the name of "preventing them from developing nuclear plants" when a fair bit of the country doesn't care if they do get nukes. This doesn't count what they'd do to US forces in Iraq, but I'm betting a lot of missile spamming and turning the insurgency there into a full blown war.

The next president is going to be a bit more circumspect.

Might explain why some submarines are being converted to fire bunker-busting missiles - at least, that's what was "leaked" to the press at one point. :p

Are you kidding, of course a President that attacked Iran would get impeached, it's almost taken for granted.

I love madness and politics. (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v723/Luporum/spartabyaaa.jpg)

Is that Dean under all that?
Sad story is, that made spartans out to be more, as a standard, than almost anyone the U.S. has had in power in a long, long time.

Right, I remember that now. I just remembered Johnson being impeached by both houses, while the Senate didn't go all the way with Clinton. Something like that.

In the US, only the House impeaches, not the Senate, so neither could have been impeached in both houses. The Senate tries, and neither were conviceted by the Senate, as I said earlier.

In the US, only the House impeaches, not the Senate, so neither could have been impeached in both houses. The Senate tries, and neither were conviceted by the Senate, as I said earlier.

I still remember there being some difference. I think Johnson was nearly outed by the Senate in his time, by a wide margin but not wide enough voting to convict, while Clinton's impeachment fell apart almost completely in the Senate. Anyway, I just remembered it wrong, that's seems likely. :p

Uh...no. Bunker busters have two things in common. They're heavy. And they're tough. A GBU-28 weighs in at 2.2 tons, and that's without a rocket carrier and a diameter of 711mm. A Tomahawk on the other hand weighs 1440kg and has a diameter of .52 meters.

You'd probably have to convert a SSBN to just get them to fit.

And considering that bunker areas are likely to be heavy in AAA weaponry, not a good chance for a bunker buster missile from long distance to get in. Not when it's riding a big thermal signature.

All I remember is, submarines were being converted to do something in particular in case we had to attack Iran. The specifics, I'm not too sure on. It was mainstream news, though.

Might explain why some submarines are being converted to fire bunker-busting missiles - at least, that's what was "leaked" to the press at one point. :p

Uh...no. Bunker busters have two things in common. They're heavy. And they're tough. A GBU-28 weighs in at 2.2 tons, and that's without a rocket carrier and a diameter of 711mm. A Tomahawk on the other hand weighs 1440kg rocket and all and has a diameter of .52 meters.

You'd probably have to convert a SSBN to just get them to fit.

And considering that bunker areas are likely to be heavy in AAA weaponry, not a good chance for a bunker buster missile from long distance to get in. Not when it's riding a big thermal signature.

But then again, this is the same military branch that wanted to build fart bombs and gay bombs. I guess less silly aspects might draw their attention.

All I remember is, submarines were being converted to do something in particular in case we had to attack Iran. The specifics, I'm not too sure on. It was mainstream news, though.

launch 154 cruise missiles each

Senator Lieberman non-withstanding. ;)

BTW.. I am no saying Lieberman is a madman.. I may think it, but I am not going to say it :D


Practicing madness is right up George W's alley so look out ya all.

launch 154 cruise missiles each

Really? That's an ass-load of missiles, no matter who you're aiming at. :p "Aim Away From Face" might be an appropriate decal.

I still remember there being some difference. I think Johnson was nearly outed by the Senate in his time, by a wide margin but not wide enough voting to convict, while Clinton's impeachment fell apart almost completely in the Senate. Anyway, I just remembered it wrong, that's seems likely. :p


Again, it is the House that impeaches, not the Senate. Clinton's impreachment could not possibly have fallen apart in the Senate. He'd already been impeached when he was tried by the Senate - it doesn't work anyother way in the States.

Johnson was aquited only one vote short of the 2/3rds majority while Clinton was aquited by a much large margin. However, both aquitals were largely along party lines.

Again, it is the House that impeaches, not the Senate. Clinton's impreachment could not possibly have fallen apart in the Senate. He'd already been impeached when he was tried by the Senate - it doesn't work anyother way in the States.

Johnson was aquited only one vote short of the 2/3rds majority while Clinton was aquited by a much large margin. However, both aquitals were largely along party lines.

Aha, that's the thing I must have been remembering. Close call for Johnson.

Uh...no. Bunker busters have two things in common. They're heavy. And they're tough. A GBU-28 weighs in at 2.2 tons, and that's without a rocket carrier and a diameter of 711mm. A Tomahawk on the other hand weighs 1440kg rocket and all and has a diameter of .52 meters.

You'd probably have to convert a SSBN to just get them to fit.

And considering that bunker areas are likely to be heavy in AAA weaponry, not a good chance for a bunker buster missile from long distance to get in. Not when it's riding a big thermal signature.

But then again, this is the same military branch that wanted to build fart bombs and gay bombs. I guess less silly aspects might draw their attention.
The F-117 Nighthawk could never carry 2.2 tons, and considering Natanz is basically a nuclear bunker they would need heavy repeat bunker bombing over a substantial period to ensure it was destroyed, or damaged beyond reasonable repair. If they were using the BLU-109 it would have to be delivered via a F-15E Strike Eagle, which pretty much takes the stealth delivery off the table, especially considering that Natanz will most likely be under heavy radar surveillance with SAM sites and anti-missile defenses etc, I doubt a F-15E fleet would be able to carry out multiple bombing runs while under missile fire without being destroyed or unable to destroy Natanz, or get close to bombing range.

In that scenario I would imagine the US would have to use stealth bombing attacks on the missile defenses, which could be very effective if they knew the targets, but most likely the sites are hidden themselves and it would become trial and error for the stealth bombers. In which case it would take hours using small munitions bombing around Natanz and the missile sites, and then the F-15E Strike Eagles could do the repeat raids with the bunker busters. This would take hours, and would remove the element of surprise very very quickly, meaning of course Iranian retaliation against the delivering carriers, most likely with Kirovs, spamming anti-ship missiles, etc etc. And all this is considering that Iranian radar systems can't detect stealths, which maybe untrue considering the Chinese made stuff they have been importing.

Why would we use the F-117A when we have the B-2 Spirit?

Why would we use the F-117A when we have the B-2 Spirit?

Oh forgive me then, I forgot about that aircraft.

Still, it can't carry a GBU.

Oh forgive me then, I forgot about that aircraft.

Still, it can't carry a GBU.

Actually it can carry several. It can also carry better GBU-37s and upgraded EGBU-28s.

launch 154 cruise missiles each

Cruise missiles are a far cry from bunker busters though.

The F-117 Nighthawk could never carry 2.2 tons

Actually, it can. Just.

5 cruise missiles = 5,000lbs
1 bunker buster = 5,000lbs
154 cruise missiles = 154,000lbs

I don't think it would matter at that point.

5 cruise missiles = 5,000lbs
1 bunker buster = 5,000lbs
154 cruise missiles = 154,000lbs

I don't think it would matter at that point.

Actually, it would. You still wouldn't be able to touch the facility with standard cruise missiles no matter how many times you hit it. You'd only do superficial damage.

Those cruise missiles are more likely an attempt to suppress anti-air defenses and allow for non-stealthed airstrikes I suspect.

Actually, it would. You still wouldn't be able to touch the facility with standard cruise missiles no matter how many times you hit it. You'd only do superficial damage.

Those cruise missiles are more likely an attempt to suppress anti-air defenses and allow for non-stealthed airstrikes I suspect.

prove it
you launch a gps guided tomahawk with a 1,000lb explosive penetrator
another one
another one
another one
x 151 more
even if only 5% of them hit the same spot, which is more than likely due to satellite guidance, thats 7,000 lbs of explosives eroding the earth in rapid succession. As good as any single bomb.

The cruise missiles are probably not going to be used for that, and I actually never suggested that it was the reason the subs were there, but its still possible. But why would you do that when you have purpose built gbu-28s and 37s dropped from high altitude stealth b-2s?

prove it
you launch a gps guided tomahawk with a 1,000lb explosive penetrator
another one
another one
another one
x 151 more
even if only 5% of them hit the same spot, which is more than likely due to satellite guidance, thats 7,000 lbs of explosives eroding the earth in rapid succession. As good as any single bomb.

So the crucial question is: has anyone in the Bush administration ever played Worms?

Maybe, maybe not. But I doubt Iranian radar has any problems detecting American ships in the Gulf. And they have a lot, and I do mean a lot, of anti-shipping missiles.

The Iranian g'ment may have bought the newest Russian AA system. That one probably could target an F-22 (it might be able to target the B2 when close) and would definately be able to target any carrier based aircraft the U.S can field at long distance. EDIT: Except a navalised F-22. That would need to come closer.

launch 154 cruise missiles each

That wouldn't do anything more than take out a surface entry/security area. Even then it is a given that they would have some kind of tunnel network to be able to escape through.

prove it
you launch a gps guided tomahawk with a 1,000lb explosive penetrator
another one
another one
another one
x 151 more
even if only 5% of them hit the same spot, which is more than likely due to satellite guidance, thats 7,000 lbs of explosives eroding the earth in rapid succession. As good as any single bomb.

That might work...if the rest of the earth around it was frozen. Cruise missile impacts would drive some dirt up, and force the rest downwards, compacting it. The remainder would settle again on the crater, and the dirt around would collapse the deeper you made the hole.

The effects will be a lot less than you think.

It's like firing 500,000 rifle bullets at a tank and hoping that at least one may get through.


But why would you do that when you have purpose built gbu-28s and 37s dropped from high altitude stealth b-2s?

Dunno. You were the one who suggested it after all?

All I remember is, submarines were being converted to do something in particular in case we had to attack Iran. The specifics, I'm not too sure on. It was mainstream news, though.
launch 154 cruise missiles each



launch 154 cruise missiles eachCruise missiles are a far cry from bunker busters though.


you actually are the one who suggested it








------------



Its more like firing 154 tomahawks at an underground bunker...

if you want an analogy; its like 25mm rounds shooting at a T-72, instead of 120mm rounds. But we all know that both weapons kill T-72s. They have dozens of different types of tomahawk warheads, from sub munition launchers to anti-ship to high explosive to nuclear and everything in between

and who said anything about dirt? haven't you ever looked at a topographical map? were talking mountains made of dense crystalline rock

The F-117 Nighthawk could never carry 2.2 tons

Yes, the mighty F-117 with a combat casualty - or two - against missile system designed in the '60s used by the mighty Serbian army.

Good thing they're retiring the fiasco.

And while B-2 has bit over a decade of developement advantage...the radar*s* are 20-30 years newer...

Besides, losing even a single B-2 isn't an option: Unit cost of 2.2 billion $ with technology that you really don't wan't give to your (imaginary?) opponents.

The Phoenix Militia: It would be more like trying to shoot 5mm subsonic rounds at a tank.

The biggest site is actually buried in the more sandy areas.

Not a fair analogy since the GBU-28 and the Tomahawk's warhead both basically act as gravity bombs
\


---
The F-117A that was shot down by the Serbs was shot down because it flew over the same spot every night for a week and they knew it was coming.

you actually are the one who suggested it

Pardon? I said they were a far cry from bunker busters, hence, they would not function well in the bunker buster role. How did you translate that to me suggesting they be used as that?


if you want an analogy; its like 25mm rounds shooting at a T-72, instead of 120mm rounds. But we all know that both weapons kill T-72s. They have dozens of different types of tomahawk warheads, from sub munition launchers to anti-ship to high explosive to nuclear and everything in between


Nuclear options are out. High explosive is the closest thing you've got, with anti-armor caps. They won't do the job.


and who said anything about dirt? haven't you ever looked at a topographical map? were talking mountains made of dense crystalline rock

Which somehow wouldn't collapse on the newly created hole?

And much of the rock would be converted into dirt and dust.

The whole idea is unworkable, and really, this argument is moot. Even you agree its a lousy idea.

The newest lot of Iranian planes probably could take on an F-16 or F117 (carrier based F18 would more than likely be out of their league).

The tomahawk is a missile. It doesn't act as a gravity bomb

The point is that tomahawks a relatively weak against the kind of buried facilities the Iranians have. GBU-28 would be like a kinetic AP projectile and would be able to penetrate though even it probably won't be able penetrate to the point where it would be effective.

The tomahawk is a missile. It doesn't act as a gravity bomb


When a basic tomahawk reaches the end of its flight, it noses up, stalls out and falls on the target, like a gravity bomb. There are some variants that fly right into the target on a lateral angle also.

---

The Iranians are going to have to deal with our entire B-2 fleet running round the clock sorties with GBU-28, 37 or EGBU-28s. F-22s and F-18F Super Hornets would mop the floor with what they have left of an airforce as well. Their newest planes are 25 years old at best.

When a basic tomahawk reaches the end of its flight, it noses up, stalls out and falls on the target, like a gravity bomb. There are some variants that fly right into the target on a lateral angle also.

Ah, I must have been thinking about the varient.

The Iranians are going to have to deal with our entire B-2 fleet running round the clock sorties with GBU-28, 37 or EGBU-28s. F-22s and F-18F Super Hornets would mop the floor with what they have left of an airforce as well. Their newest planes are 25 years old at best.

I imagine the Iranians are keeping tabs on where the US fleets stationed in the Gulf are and have coordinates of known US airbases tapped into their MRBMs. They'd lose an air battle most likely, but they'd exact a huge price for it.

MRBMs are not going to be effective against ships that can move on the water. Assuming we don't wait till they have nuclear warheads in them.

MRBMs are not going to be effective against ships that can move on the water. Assuming we don't wait till they have nuclear warheads in them.

Are you being deliberately misleading?

The US has airbases in Iraq and Jordan I believe. Iran can reach both with their MRBMs. The anti-shipping missiles are supposed to be used to hit the carrier groups in the gulf, which they can do from Iranian shores.

The newest lot of Iranian planes probably could take on an F-16 or F117 (carrier based F18 would more than likely be out of their league).The Iranians are not even try to with their the warplanes.
The US own the Air.. thats a given.

Iran will strike back in asymmetric ways.
Iran will try to draw Israel and .. as a consequence the Arab states into the conflict.

Oh forgive me then, I forgot about that aircraft.

Still, it can't carry a GBU.

Uh, actually, it can. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-2_Spirit#Specifications_.28B-2A_Block_30.29)

EGBU-28 (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/gbu-28e.htm)

I never did get around to posting this earlier, ##OD-eleted, but when you demanded ground penetration, this is it. 30.48 meters of penetration, with a non-nuclear bunker-busting weapons system.

EGBU-28 (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/gbu-28e.htm)

I never did get around to posting this earlier, ##OD-eleted, but when you demanded ground penetration, this is it. 30.48 meters of penetration, with a non-nuclear bunker-busting weapons system.

How far would it go through sand?

prove it
you launch a gps guided tomahawk with a 1,000lb explosive penetrator
another one
another one
another one
x 151 more
even if only 5% of them hit the same spot, which is more than likely due to satellite guidance, thats 7,000 lbs of explosives eroding the earth in rapid succession. As good as any single bomb.

The cruise missiles are probably not going to be used for that, and I actually never suggested that it was the reason the subs were there, but its still possible. But why would you do that when you have purpose built gbu-28s and 37s dropped from high altitude stealth b-2s?

Your ignoring the fact that Natanz is built 8 meters underground and protected by a concrete wall 2.5 meters thick, itself protected by another concrete wall. In 2004, the roof was hardened with reinforced concrete and covered with 22 meters of earth. And that's only preliminary reinforcement, god knows how much more they have done since this whole fiasco started. Also, you continue to ignore the fact that it would be incredibly hard for US aircraft to locate anti-air and missile defenses that must be hidden near the facility etc, plus the fact that in all likelihood the new Chinese radar systems they imported can most likely detect B2's etc, ignoring other technologies they may have since imported. Your also ignoring that the delivering US carrier group would leave itself open for anti-ship missiles, which Iran has vast stockpiles, plus Kirov attacks, and ignoring also the vast political implications, I think given the political climate in the US over Iraq, that the populace wouldn't tolerate a war against Iran, ignoring also that Europe and the world would just abandon the US in such a case.

So again, even foe a IAEA official, the estimate is good by any standards.