It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by The Vagabond
Originally posted by jajabinks
Oy... here we go again. What in the (sanctified fornication) is so difficult about my name? Now in this case at least somebody has seen fit to highlight the fact that they're doing it in purpose, but it would have been nice to do it in a more clever fashion. (secretly I chuckled when one member started calling me "vagabanned"- at least that one had a meaningful implication.)
has it ever occured to him that the mere suspicion that Iran may already have nukes already gives Iran the strategic and diplomatic advantages he claims they might obtain.
Suspicions don't give you the ability to shatter an opposing army if they defeat your conventional forces. Suspicions are not enough to chase America out of the gulf. Suspicions are not enough to make moderates in the region start distancing themselves from America for fear of backing the wrong side.
If you think the chatter that they might already have a few weapons is a big deal, wait until they've got sufficient weapons and means of delivery to hold UAE, Iraq, Saudi, Turkey, Israel, and eventually Europe hostage.
If the Taepo Dong 2 can do what it's supposed to and ends up in Iranian hands, we're going to be dealing with something completely unprecedented. We're talking about hardliners without much to lose having a defacto veto over any action by any nation or even the UN in Southern Asia, North East Africa, the Middle East, etc. Diego Garcia, Israel, Parts of Europe: these are just a few noteworthy locales where survival will become contingent upon cooler heads prevailing in a radical theocracy which loves to threaten genocides.
I'm not saying that Iran will launch them the minute they get them. I'm not saying they'll launch them for no good reason. What I am saying is nothing done by Iran or any group allied to Iran will be subject to international law unless the security council is willing to risk a nuclear confrontation.
If a viable and far-reaching Iranian nuclear program is tested and confirmed, Iran will have the leverage to set OPEC's prices virtually unilaterally, and nobody who isn't willing to risk a missile crisis can do anything to stop it. Can you contend with any hint of seriousness that a nation like Iran, which god knows has not gotten a fair shake from the Western World, and which above and beyond that is politically dominated by religious fanaticism, would hesitate for one moment to take actions which can nearly ruin the global economy, starve and freeze millions, and turn any semblance of order in this world on its head, if it gives them a chance to get back at those who have raped them?
Now I admit there is no moral highground to be had for the Western world. I've often liked to joke that the reason Europe has dominated the last 500 years ago, despite being johnny-come-lately in terms of having the ability, is because most powers which had the opportunity in the past just weren't as vicious or as greedy.
Be that as it may, there is no coming back with the argument that Iran has a right to arm itself and prepare itself to do widespread harm to invididuals who had no direct role in hurting them earlier.
Nuclear proliferation is dangerous. A nuclear Iran is in a position to be particular dangerous. They have every motive to do it and very little motive not to. Things have not come anywhere near as bad as they have the potential to be in a worst case scenario, and that makes this the best possible time to exhaust every peaceful alternative and do it sincerely, and then, but only then, if necessary, resort to force before the worst case scenario draws near.
Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Anyway.. just going through the possibilites.
Originally posted by DaFunk13
While it is valid that military action between Israel and Iran would be crappy regardless of US involvement, it is also worth mentioning that it WILL NOT involve my friends dying, or future terror attacks on our soil.
I have said it a lot...
NOT OUR FIGHT!
Any nuclear attack on Israel by terrorists, or Pakistan, Russia or China will result in Israel’s surviving land, air and submarine carried or based missiles being used against Arab and Muslim capitals. A particularly devastating attack (including with chemical or biological weapons) might result in possibly in a full scale "Samson Option" attack on European and Russian targets. The latter of course would result in Russian retaliation against the United States, perhaps its punishment for not having done enough to protect Israel.
Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Ok. So all the talk I'm hearing is that we plan on invading or bombing the crap out of Iran and soon. Who out there believes this will happen? Who out there believes there's a good reason to?
Together these bombs caused over two-hundred thousand casualties.
Originally posted by 27jd
I'm talking about escalation to worldwide nuclear war. In the event of a major attack on Israel, Russia and what Israel considers "anti-semetic" Europe may be targeted in their "Samson option." In the event Russia is nuked, then they nuke us, and vice versa. I never said Iran could hit us directly, but since ECK and others are listing worse case scenarios, so am I. And that is definitely a possible scenario. Even in the best case scenario involving a nuclear exchange between Israel and Iran, things would be very ugly.
EDIT to add: Ten million? Where did you get that number?
[edit on 12-1-2006 by 27jd]
However, Americans should consider carefully Israel's nuclear weapons and its threats to use them if the United States ever withdraws its full backing or if Israel is otherwise endangered or attacked. Threats include retaliatory -- or even preemptive -- attacks on Muslim, Russian and even European targets. Israel considered the Soviet Union an enemy backer of Arab nations and thinks the new Russia only a tad more trustworthy. Any attack on Russia, of course, would quickly bring massive retaliation against Israel's greatest ally -- the United States. No doubt this is a major reason U.S. political leaders approach Israel with fear and respect -- and rarely punish it for its violations of U.S. law, United Nations Resolutions, the Geneva Convention and a variety of other treaties.
As mentioned on this nuclear war home page, the U.S. government already threatened to use nuclear weapons, and even went on full nuclear alert, to prevent any "Soviet aggression" in the Middle East, especially to protect Israel in its pre-emptive and defensive wars of 1956, 1958, 1967, 1973, 1979 and 1982. Had there been some sort of technical hardware or software accident, or misinterpretation of evidence, any of those alerts could have resulted in a full scale nuclear war killing most Americans.
However, just as threatening to Americans, and the world, is Israel's aggressive stance towards using its own 200 to 400 nuclear weapons -- ones which it has never formally admitted exist. These weapons can be deployed by air, missile or submarine to almost any place on earth. Therefore it is important for people to learn about Israel's nuclear programs and Israel's many threats to use them.
BERLIN, Germany (CNN) -- Britain, France and Germany have called for the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog to refer Iran to the Security Council over the country's atomic ambitions.
Foreign ministers from the European Union's three biggest nations -- the so-called EU3 -- met Thursday following Iran's moves to restart its nuclear program.
"Our talks with Iran have reached a dead end," German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier told reporters after meeting with his British and French counterparts, Jack Straw and Philippe Douste-Blazy, and EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana.
Originally posted by DaFunk13
But you do realize that our friend Israel is making as much noise as Iran is right?
Oh yeah, the U.S., the country everybody is accusing of playing world cop and claiming will be attacking Iran alone or with Israel, etc.
Originally posted by xmotex
Plenty of countries want to prevent Iran getting the bomb, and I think sanctions and diplomatic action will recieve wide support. On the other hand, few will support and fewer will participate in any military "solution."
Even the UK has ruled it out.
Tony Blair delivered his strongest warning to Iran last night, saying Teheran would not be allowed to become a "threat to our world security".
He hinted that the West might have to resort to force. The Prime Minister said western allies would meet in the next few days to decide how to react after President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad called for Israel to be "wiped off the map".
A telling response came from Moscow, which suggested it may no longer be able halt western attempts to report Iran to the United Nations Security Council over fears that Teheran is secretly trying to build nuclear weapons.
"I have to admit that those who insist on transferring the Iranian nuclear dossier to the United Nations Security Council have received an additional argument to do so," said the Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, during a trip to Jordan.
The argument is not whether anyone wants Iran to get the bomb: it's whether anyone thinks war over the issue is justified or worthwhile. I think Iran getting the bomb would be a bad thing. As it was in North Korea. I also think military action is likely to lead to more problems than it solves. As it would have in North Korea.
Please show me your source, besides others' and your own assumptions, that France, Germany, or anybody says they will not participate in military action.
Personally, I don't have any bad gut feelings about Kim with a few nukes, others may disagree.
Originally posted by xmotex
OK. Here's the UK ruling it out:
Military action against Iran 'inconceivable', says Straw
As far as France and Germany participating in any military action, all I'll say is don't hold your breath
Hmmm, one of the common justifications for going to war with Iran has been the current Iranian presiden't threats towards Israel.
NK is a regime that has issued threats to the US that make anything Iran has said seem absurdly tame by comparision, on a fairly regular basis.
But we're supposed to be terrified of Iran, despite the fact that a nation that already does have nukes, and the means to deliver them, threatens to use them on us on a nearly monthly basis.