|
reply posted on 4-10-2007 @ 03:58 PM by Harlequin
|
reply to post by 4thDoctorWhoFan
Again i ask you to view the short you tube video of a 100kt nuclear device buried at a shallow depth of 300 feet.
this is deeper than any nuclear bunker buster would penetrate.
the cloud of highly radioactive debris spread along the ground for 5 miles in either direction and the main cloud rose to 12,000 feet after breaching
the surface.
about a strike against an operating nuclear reactor;
it is believed Russia has an end game option ( as well as bio weapons) to elimiate all life in the USA - with 2 dozen warheads.
each warhead would land at an operating nuclear reactor.
and lastly
Iran allready HAS a working nuclear reactor - supplied by the USA
en.wikipedia.org...-Iran_nuclear_co-operation_in_the_1950s_and_60s
wikki yes but nice and short - in 1967 the US supplied to Tehran a 5MW reactor - also with the Highly enriched Uranium to run it - the reactor and
fuel is still there to this day.
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 4-10-2007 @ 04:55 PM by Blaine91555
|
Wow! A little bit of the daily Iranian anti-US Propoganda and you folks have us in Nuclear War. Lets hope cooler heads than these have their finger on
the button.
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 4-10-2007 @ 05:01 PM by docklands
|
If the west ever declare an all out war on Islam, I will be 1st in line to join. Iran, Syria, Saudi, Kuwait, Eqypt, all are corrupt nations with a
singular mindset of evil Islam doctrine of belittling women and non-Islamists and Islamic conquest.
Costly to wage war on Iran? How much is one nuclear bomb cost? We have a few thousands last time I check.
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 4-10-2007 @ 05:27 PM by kindred
|
As far as the Bush admin is concerned, they have an unlimited supply of money when it comes to bombing the crap out of countries and killing thousands
of innocent people.  I'm not even going to waste my time replying to the warmongers on this thread, as they talk absolute crap, which is
something they seem to have an unlimited supply of.
[edit on 4-10-2007 by kindred]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 4-10-2007 @ 05:40 PM by 4thDoctorWhoFan
|
Originally posted by Harlequin
Again i ask you to view the short you tube video of a 100kt nuclear device buried at a shallow depth of 300 feet.
this is deeper than any nuclear bunker buster would penetrate.
I think nuclear bunker busters usually range from 1 to 30 kilotons and are not in the 100kt range. However, I am not certain of this and don't feel
like looking it up at this moment but I will a little later.
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 4-10-2007 @ 06:19 PM by DINSTAAR
|
the US, in regard to funds could afford the war (it would be easier if Congress could balance their budget).
in regards to war and warfare we could afford it (since the Iraq blunder, US will not move without a LARGE international backing).
also if we ever did go to war with them, we would do it just as easily under a Democrat administration as a Republican (they are all war mongers).
Reps and Dems are both controlled by the Israeli Lobby (AIPAC). just look at
this and you will see many
dems including mrs. clinton on the yea side of the iraq war.
the only reason democrats are going against the war (now) is because the administration failed and they want the votes.
what the US can afford to do is pull out of Iraq, stay out of Iran, and stop giving money to the israelis for them to fight their wars. this would
help our relations with iran DRASTICALLY. (they may not even hate us anymore)
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 4-10-2007 @ 06:19 PM by EBE154
|
the U.S. attacks Iran ->
Iran will attack Israel / U.S. Military in Iraq and around the globe with massive use of suicide squads ->
Israel will join the U.S. led war against Iran ->
Syria will choose its side and help Iran ->
meanwhile China will make its final move towards Taiwan ~
and sooner or later russia will declare war on the U.S. / Israel if they do not immediately stop their own 'agenda' in the middle east. crusade if
you will...
and there we are ladies and gents:  •WW3•
this scenario is closer than you think [...]
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 4-10-2007 @ 06:53 PM by SoFunkyMe
|
reply to post by FredT
very intresting what if thay try and thay loose money whats gona happen to america a big drop on the country it will be hopeless
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 4-10-2007 @ 08:34 PM by Anderi
|
reply to post by 4thDoctorWhoFan
You "Generals" are making the same mistakes again...
You assume that because you use conventional means that Iran will use conventional means.
You say you have air power but how do you counteract some fanatic camped out behind a sand due with a 30 year old Soviet rpg waiting to pick off a jet
with a lucky shot as it passes by on a bombing run?
You say you have naval power but how do you counteract a speed boat at midnight packed with sea mines or tnt running into your spotter ship and then a
second one ramming your aircraft carriers?
It was proved that at ground level the insurgent hiding in a bombed out building's basement using a map drawn in the dust on the floor, with bits of
debris as markers was tactically equal to to the marine with satnav, laser guided bombs and the bradley fighting vehicle as backup.
The problem is you guys think that the middle east is filled with women wearing tents living in 10,000 year old stone houses, wearing towels on their
heads and racing camels up and down sand dunes.
You're now dealing with fanatics that started getting ready as soon as Iraq was hit.
The problem is that they're absolutely sure that they're right. And you're absolutely sure that YOU'RE right.
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 4-10-2007 @ 08:41 PM by 4thDoctorWhoFan
|
reply to post by Anderi
Sorry but you are wrong because its a total different scenario then whats happening in Iraq. You do realize that a RPG cannot reach one of our planes
when they are on a bombing run right? In fact, the person will be dead before he realized he is being attacked.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 4-10-2007 @ 09:11 PM by AotearoaSon
|
Originally posted by docklands
If the west ever declare an all out war on Islam, I will be 1st in line to join. Iran, Syria, Saudi, Kuwait, Eqypt, all are corrupt nations with a
singular mindset of evil Islam doctrine of belittling women and non-Islamists and Islamic conquest.
Ignorance is bliss.
Change the countries names to U.S.A., England (Great Britain), Australia and the religion to christianity and see that that fits just as well...
belittling women?...try the catholic church
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 4-10-2007 @ 09:34 PM by dbates
|
 
Originally posted by AotearoaSon
belittling women?...try the catholic church
Sorry, but your comparison doesn't come close to reality. I lived in Saudi Arabia for over 4 months. The Catholic church doesn't come close to the
level that Islam does. Catholic women can drive cars, show their face in public, vote, use the front door of a resturaunt, and talk to men who are
not their blood relative. Islamic women can't do any of the above.
In Saudi Arabia, women aren't even allowed to sit in the front seat of a car if it's just her and her husband. She sits in the back seat while the
goat sits up front. That's not an analogy. It's the literal truth that I saw countless times.
So keeping with the topic, the U.S. can't afford the current war that they are in, but that doesn't stop them from carrying it out. Iran's
minister's words have as much weight as Baghdad Bob's. It's entertainment but has no bearing on what happens in reality.
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 4-10-2007 @ 11:59 PM by AotearoaSon
|
reply to post by dbates
ok, sorry, i was being as generalistic as the poster I was replying to and as generalistic as your reply to me. Maybe a qualifier like 'some' would
be much better than blanketing all muslims as wahabis.
Islam is a deeply complicated religion and there are many sects. Some of them are nasty, some of them are nice...much like christianity, and there are
christians who think that women should be seen and not heard, as well.
Back to the topic: Iran has a long history, the U.S.A. has a short one.
This headline is probably part of the whole propaganda game played by both sides.
[edit on 5-10-2007 by AotearoaSon]
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 5-10-2007 @ 01:47 AM by DarkMile77
|
It's kind of scary how some of you talk about using a Tactical Nuke like its no big deal.
The idea of any, and I do mean any country using a nuclear weapon scares the $%!t out of me.
Now maybes its because when I was a child in the early 1980s I was scared to death by all the talk of the impeding nuclear Holocaust.
I don't know.
But I'm I the only one here, at the age of 30 still gets a cold shiver down the spine at the site of a large mushroom cloud ?
I'm not going to get into the debate about Iran and should my country America invade or not.
But please do not adopt such a cavalier attitude about using Nuclear weapons.
As a species we can not afford that type of apathy.
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 5-10-2007 @ 02:10 AM by BitRaiser
|
reply to post by DarkMile77
Agreed.
Advocating the use of nuclear weapons is just flat out ignorant.
I do believe there are situations that could arise that would make the use of nuclear weapons a legitimate option, but only as a necessary evil
preformed with great conscientiousness and regret. Even then, a necessary evil is still evil.
Beyond that, the warfare cheerleader squad makes me sick in general. It's easy to call for bombing people when you're safe behind your keyboard.
This ain't a game.
In war, one thing is assured... innocent people WILL die.
War (and violence in general) should only EVER be a last resort. Those who can't see that are a hindrance to the human race.
[edit on 5-10-2007 by BitRaiser]
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 5-10-2007 @ 03:06 AM by Timmyboi23
|
www.nationalpriorities.org...
This link will show you how fast the cost of war is rising.
 Summary of Iraq War Cost Estimates
CBO estimated the following costs for an Iraq war:
Initial deployment of troops: $9 billion to $13 billion
Conducting the war: $6 billion to $9 billion per month
Returning forces to US: $5 billion to $7 billion
Temporary occupation of Iraq: $1 billion to $4 billion per month Please visit the link provided for the complete story.
usgovinfo.about.com...
Now Iran is gonna need a hella lot more then this to even get close to keeping some sort of order. If the FED keeps printing money to accomadate the
cost of war, then they will cause major inflation and eventually we will see a depression worse then 1929.
Since a new topic has come up on this thread, Everybody is forgetting the fact that Iran does have some Allies and Russia is the country that is
helping them build their reactor. Now let just say that Russia decided to stay the course with Iran and forsake any type of any polical or economic
friendliness between us: whose to say they will not send a couple of Tsars our way? They definately have the ICBM's to do it.
[edit on 5-10-2007 by Timmyboi23]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 5-10-2007 @ 05:03 AM by Dallas
|
Iran's foreign minister: "U.S. can't afford another war"
I'm not sure lack of capital matters in another war for the USA.
Neutron or nuclear, some, including me, are convinced the USA has a delivery machine capable of at least mach 9 and is cloaked.
If that's true premptively, the war would be over minutes after the go ahead. This includes simultaneous targets. Any weapons launched from Countries
prior to being removed from further aggression, would be eliminated on the machines return to north America or others sent up to monitor & destroy
incoming wmd.
Dallas
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 5-10-2007 @ 05:05 AM by Harlequin
|
reply to post by 4thDoctorWhoFan
im sorry but you are wrong
www.fas.org...
the largest RNEP considered was 1.2MT and all the weapons would have at least been 100kt or more - there is a common miscomception about these weapons
that they are somehow `clean` and `safe` to use - this is very sadly not the case - they are designed to send shockwaves through the ground to
collapse structures - the fireball etc and cloud will still be very much in evidence leavinf very much radiation and fallout in the area (and
downwind) - there is a video on fas.org link which is the DoD explanation of how they work.
thankfully RNEP got cancelled.
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 5-10-2007 @ 05:34 AM by Dallas
|
reply to post by Timmyboi23
I would think it's due to Irans 'Alies', something hasn't been done already to shut-down any future threat of their nuclear weapon ambition. After
the posturing though the under-table bargaining has or will take place by the 'powers' and quite-possibly an uninhibited plan will play out.
Dallas
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 5-10-2007 @ 07:28 AM by johnnyrobbo
|
if it wasnt for china you would be finished you all talk like nazis your time is nearly over the trouble is your the only nation that has used atomic
bombs on people and knowing your insanity when you know your beat you will take the rest of the world with you. you war mongering rat bags you are
modern rome take a look at yourselfs
|
copyright & usage
|
 |