It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why Not to Bomb Iran

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 12:21 PM
link   
A very thought-provoking article, written by the only non-American author on the U.S. Army's required reading list for officers.


www.forward.com...


Given the balance of forces, it cannot be argued that a nuclear Iran will threaten the United States. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's fulminations to the contrary, the Islamic Republic will not even be a threat to Israel. The latter has long had what it needs to deter an Iranian attack.

Should deterrence fail, Jerusalem can quickly turn Tehran into a radioactive desert — a fact of which Iranians are fully aware. Iran's other neighbors, such as Russia, Pakistan and India, can look after themselves. As it is, they seem much less alarmed by developments in Iran than they do by those thousands of miles away in Washington....



Thoughts?




posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 12:45 PM
link   
I'm not, never have been, and never will be affraid of Iranian missiles landing in downtown Boston.

I am however terrified of the poeple who will (not may) end up with Iranian made nukes however.

There is not one person on the planet that can deny the Iranian President is very vocal about his desire to end the existance of Israel and the West, he openly states it on a regular basis. Iran wants a restoration of the caliphate and sharia law, this cannot be refuted.

Iran would have no issue's what so ever handing over compact nuclear devices to blatant threats and enemies of the west (I.e terrorists). Thats the problem. They support terrorists with conventional weapons and money right now, what makes you think they wont share more powerfull tech?

And that cannot happen.

For one source, no matter how credible they are, to overlook this threat is foolhardy.



posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 12:45 PM
link   
I am relieved that this is required reading.

At the same time I am confused. Why does it seem like "They" want "us" to think just the opposite? IMO, it seems like everything the media spouts lately (including our new favority movie) is just to drum up support for an upcomming conflict, probably with Iran, Syria, Hamas, or all of the above.

Is it just my perception or was I conditioned by the drumroll prior to our little trist in Vietraq?



posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 01:05 PM
link   
He does make a number of very valid arguments, however, a few stand out to me as not quite up to snuff:


Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's fulminations to the contrary, the Islamic Republic will not even be a threat to Israel. The latter has long had what it needs to deter an Iranian attack.


This is, of course, BS. The Iranians have long been supporters of Hamas, among other organizations. It would be fairly simple to slip a compact device or three to one of said organizations, and poof! Tel Aviv and Jerusalem are wiped off the map. They might deter direct Iranian strikes, but what then? Any retaliation on Israel's part would be responded to in kind by Iran. While it might cost this madman Tehran, I have no doubt in my mind he would sacrifice any number of lives to destroy Israel. He has said as much, and supported as much for years.


Iran's other neighbors, such as Russia, Pakistan and India, can look after themselves. As it is, they seem much less alarmed by developments in Iran than they do by those thousands of miles away in Washington.


One might suspect that this would be because the Russians at least have traditionally been arms suppliers to the entire region. India and Pakistan have generally kept out of Iranian affairs as far as I know. Why would they be worried about something that doesn't concern them in the least? Theorically, Iran could start a worldwide Jihad.

I'd support the Israelis supplying intelligence as far as the bombing goes...because at least Moassad has had recorded intelligence sucesses in the last five years.

DE



posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 05:44 PM
link   


There is not one person on the planet that can deny the Iranian President is very vocal about his desire to end the existance of Israel and the West, he openly states it on a regular basis.


The American president is also quite vocal in expressing his intention to attack/ invade any country of his choosing for reasons usually vague or unclear. Looking at the military might of both countries, I'd be more afraid of Bush.


Iran would have no issue's what so ever handing over compact nuclear devices to blatant threats and enemies of the west (I.e terrorists).


Just like the US didn't hesitate in handing over compact nuclear devices to enemies (or should I say) of the east.



posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 07:02 PM
link   
Hmm Pakistan exported nuclear centrifuges to Iran but they're a declared US 'ally', their leader is a dicator and yet is never criticised / Pak is not invaded in the cause of 'democracy' ??!

North Korea has nukes and significant regional reach but are left alone?

Nothing at all to do with nukes or terrorism - it's about US economic need for oil and blood

Why not bomb the US instead and save the World?


Sep

posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by skippytjc
I am however terrified of the poeple who will (not may) end up with Iranian made nukes however.

There is not one person on the planet that can deny the Iranian President is very vocal about his desire to end the existance of Israel and the West, he openly states it on a regular basis.


And there is not a single person on this planet, who has read Iran's constitution, who doesn't know that Iran's president does not have any jurisdiction over the defence of the country and this jurisdiction belongs wholly to Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei. Therefore bringing Ahmadinejad into this conversation serves no purpose.


Originally posted by skippytjc
Iran wants a restoration of the caliphate and sharia law, this cannot be refuted.


Sharia law has been bent in Iran. Many aspects of it are against the law there. And resorting caliphate means a Sunni rule over the entire Islamic world. I don’t think that is on top of the agenda of Iran's Shia government.


Originally posted by skippytjc
Iran would have no issue's what so ever handing over compact nuclear devices to blatant threats and enemies of the west (I.e terrorists). Thats the problem. They support terrorists with conventional weapons and money right now, what makes you think they wont share more powerfull tech?


A question I ask you every time I see you responding with such a post is: why haven't they given chemical or biological weapons to terrorists? By your logic Tehran should have started delivering tons of chemicals and biological weapons to the Hamas or Hezbollah in the 80s when they gained the capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction. But they didn’t. May I ask why? If the hardliner Khomeini refused to give terrorists WMDs and the more moderate Khamenei has resisted giving it to them for 17 years, what makes you think that somehow everything will suddenly change?




[edit on 24-4-2006 by Sep]



posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 08:13 PM
link   
Jakomo, a very good article; well reasoned, for the most part, though some seems to be a re-hash of like arguments that have been proliferating the internet since things heated up between the U.S. and Iran.

I do agree with DeusEx's mention regarding Israel.

One thing that struck me as odd by the author of the article was this:


The main countries to feel the impact of a nuclear Iran will surely be those of the Persian Gulf. This is not because Tehran is likely to drop a bomb on Kuwait or the United Arab Emirates; rather, the Iranian regime may feel less constrained in dealing with its neighbors across the Gulf.

What Martin van Creveld fails to include or mention are those European nations that fall under the Iran nuclear 'umbrella' that are equally concerned as the U.S.






seekerof



posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by AccidentallyOnPurpose


There is not one person on the planet that can deny the Iranian President is very vocal about his desire to end the existance of Israel and the West, he openly states it on a regular basis.


The American president is also quite vocal in expressing his intention to attack/ invade any country of his choosing for reasons usually vague or unclear. Looking at the military might of both countries, I'd be more afraid of Bush.



Oh I love this......



yes, we can compare bush to the Iranian psychopath, adolf hitler or joseph stalin......


He is however a businessman, and as such he sees Iran having a far more dangerous weapon than nukes.

It's oil.

Once again a rival competitor in the oil market, and bush prepares his hitmen.

I have said before, and I will say it again......Bush is a gangster! (crime lord)
removing rival businesses.



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 07:44 AM
link   
Seeker:

The main countries to feel the impact of a nuclear Iran will surely be those of the Persian Gulf. This is not because Tehran is likely to drop a bomb on Kuwait or the United Arab Emirates; rather, the Iranian regime may feel less constrained in dealing with its neighbors across the Gulf.


I don't think others in the Persian Gulf would feel threatened by a nuclear Iran. Of course, I am sure Israel would be a little nervous, but even they would know that Iran could actually do nothing without guaranteeing its' own destruction.


Sep: Great post!




-j



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sep
[...]By your logic Tehran should have started delivering tons of chemicals and biological weapons to the Hamas or Hezbollah in the 80s when they gained the capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction. But they didn’t. May I ask why? If the hardliner Khomeini refused to give terrorists WMDs and the more moderate Khamenei has resisted giving it to them for 17 years, what makes you think that somehow everything will suddenly change?


Excellent point IMO Sep......Have a WATS


Edited to shorten quote..

[edit on 25/4/2006 by 5ick8oy]



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 07:59 PM
link   
You get a WATS from me too, the partridge in a pear tree is a given ofcourse.



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 08:16 PM
link   
there are a lot of nukes out there, and they dont get used. thats probably because it would be madness to start stting them off.

if we look back at whos done the most nuclear damage in history it becomes apparant that it will probably be the same nations that will continue to do so. maybe other nations think that they DO need these kind of weapons to protect themselves from the same threat.

we are only scared because we are continually told to be. a preemptive nuclear strike would be a massive mistake. only a madman could support such an action



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 04:32 AM
link   
Maybe a repost... but Israel, Pakistan, India, Russia, and N. Korea have nukes. Why pick on lil' ol' Iran for wanting a piece of the plutonium berry pie?


Because she has oil, stupid.


-S



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 09:24 AM
link   

You have voted Sep for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.


A brilliant and accurate post Sep. Well done.


Sep

posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 11:06 PM
link   
Thanks people. And here is another sentence so it’s not a one liner.



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 01:07 AM
link   
Sorry for making it hard to follow, I was trying to mirror Seps statements with my responses. Im deleting this post till I can get some info together and research into what Sep is saying. Thanks Luda.
[edit on 4/27/2006 by ludaChris]

[edit on 4/27/2006 by ludaChris]

[edit on 4/27/2006 by ludaChris]



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 07:08 AM
link   
Luda can you edit your post again please it's very hard to follow what point you're trying to make.
The point remains Iran had chem capability and Hamas / Hezbollah didn't so you 'leakage' argument doesn't stand up.

Sep good point, unlikely to convince the Fox sheep but worth a try.

It's very strange that the policy of MAD / retaliation which has prevented anyone firing a nuke since 1945 is considered to be irrelevant where Iran is concerned.

Obviously Russians / Chinese are smart enough to get this point but it appears that Arabs / Islmic people are just too damned dumb to understand the reality of using nukes?



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 08:10 AM
link   
This may sound crazy but personally I believe that more damage would be done to the country who uses a nuke than the damage done by the nuke itself. Would Iran or any of its agents risk nuking Jerusalem given the subsequent International reaction --- not to mention obliterating the very core of their religious heritage? As has been elegantly pointed out above, none of the countries that have entered the nuke club have actually used a nuke. Any country that did would be isolated for a very long time.

You know how the USA is perceived internationally at the moment? How just about everyone hates us and enjoys seeing us struggle? Well imagine how quickly that anger would be focused on any country responsible for nuking another country. It would be a PR disaster of cataclysmic proportion. Not to mention any military retaliation that might follow.

That said, it is a fact that conventional weapons cannot sufficiently damage the majority of the Iranian nuclear infrastructure (because it is mostly far underground). That means any attack by the USA would necessarily require the use of tactical nukes. Such an act by the USA would compound our International problems and decimate what little PR value we have left. We would be hated not just because we are the only country to have ever used nukes (at that point 3 times) but because of the hardships other countries would suffer when Iran shuts down oil traffic from the Gulf. We're freaking out now with gas inching above $3/gal --- imagine $10/gal or more.

Should Iran develop and subsequently use a nuke the moral imperitive would be on our side. The population of the country would be squeezed economically and socially. They would be isolated. They would likely come to hate and very possibly rebel against their own government. No other country of importance would dare be associated with them because of their moral stain. Yes, there would be the casualties of the nuke. But those casualties would be Iran's moral burden.

For these reasons I vehemently oppose attacking Iran. I believe it is exactly what they want us to do.



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 12:55 PM
link   
As soon as the first bombs start dropping on Iran, Osama bin Laden will be celebrating. This would be the biggest recruiting tool Al Qaeda has ever dreamed of.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join