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.

 

Pre-emptive Nuclear Strike On Iran.Yae or Nae?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 03:38 AM
link   
Harkining back 2 the world's head in the sand attitude towards the undisguised massive arming of germany/japan i wonder how many lives could have been spared had the world community took these signs of things 2 come seriously and acted.With the stakes much higher and the weapons/deathtoll much higher i wonder if history is about 2 repeat itself...

[edit on 25-8-2006 by Xfile]




posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 06:08 AM
link   
I'm afraid it's too late. As you said, the world's had it's head in the sand and stood by for 60 years of the most massive military buildup ever witnessed. Nobody's capable of stopping the inevitable now.



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 06:19 AM
link   
There's nothing going on in Iran to even come close to the Axis buildup before WW2.
Iran has almost no offensive capability whatsoever.

The idea is ridiculous.
All this hysteria is lots of fun and very exciting I'm sure... but to kill millions because we're afraid of what Iran might do (if they even had the ability to do much, which they don't) is totally insane.

There's only one country building up a military capable of taking over the planet.
There's only one country where people are seriously considering nuclear first strikes.
And it's not Iran.



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 06:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
but to kill millions because we're afraid of what Iran might do (if they even had the ability to do much, which they don't) is totally insane.


Indeed. With the 20/20 vision of hindsight so many things could be avoided. In the present it just don't work. A preemptive strike is just a strike. No more.

Good post xmotex



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 08:10 AM
link   
20/20 hindsight?Lesson from history.Similaraties:idealogical threats of genocide is enough dont u think?But what is obviously missed is that ideology wants ALL NON MUSLIMS MURDERED.And i believe will commit any atrocity 2 do so.And im the insane one?Has the hot sand damaged ur brains as U AND UR NON SHIA NATIONS ARE ON THE LIST ALSO.OSTRICH MENTALITY...



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
Iran has almost no offensive capability whatsoever.


Huh? Xmotex are you serious? Why does Iran need ballistic missiles capable of reaching England, why do they need nuclear capable cruise missiles with VERY long range? The rest of you post is simplistic at best but this point is just simply not true.



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
I'm afraid it's too late. As you said, the world's had it's head in the sand and stood by for 60 years of the most massive military buildup ever witnessed. Nobody's capable of stopping the inevitable now.
Is it?All the prophecies ive read say the future is not pre-ordain but dictated by the actions(inactions)of the present.



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Huh? Xmotex are you serious? Why does Iran need ballistic missiles capable of reaching England, why do they need nuclear capable cruise missiles with VERY long range? The rest of you post is simplistic at best but this point is just simply not true.


Why does the US need them?

Why does Russia need them?

Why do France, China, the UK, India and Pakistan, need them?

Why did Brazil and South Africa think they needed them?

The answer to all of the above is "defence"

Now ask your question again. Only this time do it with logic applied.



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 08:31 AM
link   
Yeah except that according to xmotex Iran is not seeking offensive capabilities and they have very little, this is bogus. If your standard is the US or Russian then Iran will never have that level of capability but it does not mean they have very little either.

As for the other countries, I don’t care; this is about Iran and their intentions/capabilities. They are saying one thing and doing another.



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 08:36 AM
link   
The next country to use a nuke is going to become an instant international pariah. The ramifications of that could be far more devastating and far reaching than even being hit with a nuke. Every country on this planet knows with 100% certainty that even IF they could mount a nuclear assault against the United States they would be utterly destroyed. Even IF all of our air launched and silo-based nukes were eliminated (unlikely in the extreme especially from such a great distance) and even IF none of our allies responded, our SLBM nuclear capabilities alone would erase Iran and substantially devastate any other country before they even knew what hit them.

So no, we don't need to nuke Iran and drive the United States further into the international black hole that we currently find ourselves in. Take a lesson from Israel's recent (non-nuclear) attempt to 'protect itself'.



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 08:37 AM
link   
I think the choices are: (and they are both bad)

1. Pre-emptive strikes on Iran's nuke sites AND leadership.

or

2. Retaliation strike on Iran after they've nuked Israel.

Which one would be worse? Both gone, or just Iran?
I think that the worst that could happen after a pre-emptive strike on Iran would be that the entire middle east would be pissed off at the US and Israel, but lets face it, aren't they already?
Nothing to lose, gas up the Enola Gay.



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 09:05 AM
link   
Nuclear weapons are not required.

A few MOAB's on the presidential palace and where the mullahs are would do it.

Then, give the Iranian peoples a chance to come up with a government that would benefit their country and populace as a whole instead of having a few with evil intent running the country.

Along with that, the Iranian peoples would have the choice of tearing down the "peaceful" nuke plants/enrichment facilities or suffer a few more MOAB's at those sites.

Why the heck are we so bashful about cutting off the head of the snake?

Any government who spends 30 - 40 million dollars per month to foment terrorism doesn't deserve to remain in power.



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 09:23 AM
link   
Desert dog, that sounds like the plan!
I say activate plan "snake head!"



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 09:45 AM
link   


Huh? Xmotex are you serious? Why does Iran need ballistic missiles capable of reaching England, why do they need nuclear capable cruise missiles with VERY long range?


Why do they need them? They don't need them. They want them, for national pride, because they consider themselves a regional power, and these are the kinds of weaponry other regional powers (Israel, Pakistan, India, Saudi Arabia) have.

And no they have no offensive conventional capability at all - no long range bombers, no sealift capability worth mentioning, very little airlift capability...

The comparison to the Axis powers buildup before WW2 is ridiculous - Iran is in no position to go marching across the Middle East in wars of conquest. It's not going to happen.

The regime in Iran is awful, but I am so sick and tired of the threat being radically overstated as an excuse for people venting their sick little fantasies of mass murder - frankly I think anyone who goes around advocating this kind of crap deserves a round of .45 ACP to the temple.



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Why does Iran need ballistic missiles capable of reaching England, why do they need nuclear capable cruise missiles with VERY long range? The rest of you post is simplistic at best but this point is just simply not true.


This article gives a breakdown Of Iranian forces:

The Iranian Conventional Forces - 2/18/2005 milnet.com

If Iran is out to conquer the region maybe the better get some new tanks and planes, rather than relying on these low levels of old dilapidated garbage they have now.

Offense is only good if you have the forces to back it up, otherwise long range missiles are just "threat defense" to deter attack. Historically, Iran hasn't started a war since the middle of the 19th Century. So now we are to believe suddenly they all have become suicidal, insane and void of reason. They said that about Russia once too and they actually had formable force levels, were as Iran looks more like pre-Nam cheese whiz.

I suppose if we threaten Iran long enough with obliteration, they will build up their forces...for even the gentlest of dogs will turn violent, if you kick it enough. For now, it's time to cherry-pick raw intelligence and cook it up into a Straussian polemical goulash, and then slop it out to politicians and the masses.

So who wants a bowl of fool stew?

Leo Strauss' Philosophy of Deception



[edit on 25-8-2006 by Regenmacher]



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 09:53 AM
link   
So, go murder the leaders of another nation, and anyone within a couple of miles proximity, because you don't agree with them. Just who is the terrorist here?


Honestly, some people seem to be so scared these days, jumping at shadows, slavering at the prosepct of shiny American bombs killing brown people who, at some point in the future, may or may not say something bad.



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 09:59 AM
link   
Yea. Kill the heads of state. It's an excellent plan. And one that has worked SO well for us in Iraq and Afghanastan. Ooops. Or maybe not.



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 10:27 AM
link   
Rite.iran just annouced it was prepared 2"SACRIFICE HALF OF IRAN 2 DESTROY ISRAEL"I REST MY CASE IN THIS THREAD...



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 10:46 AM
link   
I would not want to be on record as saying that a pre-emptive strike on Iran should never be considered, but I will say that a nuclear strike should absolutely not be considered unless our backs are up against the wall and our death is imminent. Then we would have no choice.

Unleashing the nuclear holocaust would be the end of the world as we know it. Regardless of how localized the strike might be. Believe me folks, you do not want those dogs to be unleashed.



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 10:51 AM
link   
Agreed JSO... some people seem to think that we could launch a nuclear attack and that would be the end of it. Far, far from it. That would be only the beginning of a page in history that would cause catastrophe for the United States in ways we can't even imagine.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join