US/Israel discuss Iranian attack "red-line"...., page 1
Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 4 times
Topic started on 29-12-2011 @ 12:26 PM by CALGARIAN
The Obama administration has assured Israel privately that the US would strike Iran if its nuclear program cross certain "red lines," The Daily Beast reported Wednesday, adding that at the same time Washington was trying to convince Israel not to attack Tehran unilaterally.


www.ynetnews.com...


Couldn't imagine what these "red-lines" could possibly be?...
Supposedly the IAEA has already found "evidence" of a Nuclear Weapons Programme. Would the Iranian military actually have to test a weapon?

If the reports are accurate, we should find out what these would consist of.


reply posted on 29-12-2011 @ 12:37 PM by TDawgRex
reply to post by CALGARIAN


Much like North Korea, these "Red lines" are pretty much arbitrary. Once NK detonated a test nuke, the options for preventing them from obtaining them in the first place flew right off the table. New options had to be drawn up.

If Iran were to do the same, rhetoric may ratchet up a bit, but all sides will rethink previous plans.

I hope.



reply posted on 29-12-2011 @ 01:55 PM by Prokofiev
reply to post by damingus



IF they had the bomb, i really doubt they would actually consider using it (against whoever, even US). you think they're stupid? it would be, not WWIII, but the freakin end of the world.

i don't believe ANY country would be the first (second?) to use it. Maybe Israel, but i doubt it.

Let Iran have the bomb. If US has it anyone can have it.


reply posted on 29-12-2011 @ 01:59 PM by yourmaker
Originally posted by Prokofiev
reply to post by damingus



IF they had the bomb, i really doubt they would actually consider using it

i don't believe ANY country would be the first (second?) to use it. Maybe Israel, but i doubt it.

Let Iran have the bomb. If US has it anyone can have it.


the US is the only nation to have used it offensively yet they are allowed to retain an arsenal.

of course they would consider using it if they went through the work of creating it.
especially for some kind of vendetta where they expect to die in a retaliation.

it's all speculation, another iraq fable for this generation to succumb to.


reply posted on 29-12-2011 @ 02:35 PM by Mkoll
reply to post by yourmaker


About us using it offensively: It was awful and terrible on an unspeakable scale, but compared to an invasion of Japan itself, the use of the bomb saved millions of lives on both sides, civilians included. And also, the strategic bombing of civilians was nothing new in that war


reply posted on 29-12-2011 @ 03:01 PM by Prokofiev
reply to post by Mkoll


1. They could have dropped the bomb in a deserted area, it would still scare the # out of them

2. they could have bombed only one city

3. they could have made the bomb explode in the ground, it would have absorved a great part of the shock. but no, it exploded 300-500m above the ground, so the damage would be maximum (or "optimized").

it didn't save lives, it killed about 200 000 (in 5 seconds more less).

by the way, for those who saw John Pilger's "The War You Don't See":

Mr. Pilger acuses US intelligence of knowing, prior to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, that Japan would surrender anyway, with or without the bomb. Has this ever been discussed on ATS? (probably yes, so please post the link if you can).



reply posted on 29-12-2011 @ 03:15 PM by LittleBlackEagle
Originally posted by CALGARIAN
The Obama administration has assured Israel privately that the US would strike Iran if its nuclear program cross certain "red lines," The Daily Beast reported Wednesday, adding that at the same time Washington was trying to convince Israel not to attack Tehran unilaterally.


www.ynetnews.com...


Couldn't imagine what these "red-lines" could possibly be?...
Supposedly the IAEA has already found "evidence" of a Nuclear Weapons Programme. Would the Iranian military actually have to test a weapon?

If the reports are accurate, we should find out what these would consist of.


is it like the evidence of WMD's in iraq? lulz


reply posted on 29-12-2011 @ 03:29 PM by Mkoll
reply to post by BRAVO949


I had no idea, but it would make sense that the Japanese would want to surrender considering their strategic position. It also would make sense for us to have hit a deserted, or at least less densely populated area. I wonder what the motivation to continue with the bombings was?


reply posted on 29-12-2011 @ 03:32 PM by Prokofiev
reply to post by Mkoll


i assume they had 2 reasons: to show the russians their newly aquired "toy" and to test the effects of a nuclear explosion in a civillian population.

remember the post-war propaganda "Radiation sickness does not exist!" ?


reply posted on 29-12-2011 @ 03:45 PM by BRAVO949
Mkoll,

I wish I could give you a quick accurate answer as to why they did drop two bombs and as what's his name or her name above said they dropped it at the optimal hieght to kill as many people as possible and destroy as much as possible - but I can not tell you exactly why.

It is not for searching for the reason, either. I have. I have been to Hiroshima and like millions of visitors have stood right at ground zero. At that time I believed the war-time BS propaganda.

Some say it was about warning the Russians - maybe, I don't know.

I don't think it had anything to do with Japan though and why they insisted on dropping the second bomb so soon after is another issue. It is as if they did not want the Japanese to surrender before they got a chance to kill more Japanese civilians.

As you can read anywhere Hiroshima was not an important military target - at all - actually. You could say it simply was not a military target and they is why it had not been bombed.

Some experts say that they selected it because it had not been bombed and was therefore a "clean" site on which they could test the effectiveness of a nuclear bomb.

Like a perfectly clean white canvas upon which they wanted to splash the blood and burnt fleash of close to 100,000 souls.

A true f---ing holocaust.

By not prosecuting the last war's war criminals on both sides we guarantee more wars to come.

Propaganda is the biggest threat to each of. Bombs are only dropped and guns are only fired after our brains and hearts have been atacked with BS lies.

Originally posted by Mkoll
reply to post by BRAVO949


I had no idea, but it would make sense that the Japanese would want to surrender considering their strategic position. It also would make sense for us to have hit a deserted, or at least less densely populated area. I wonder what the motivation to continue with the bombings was?



reply posted on 29-12-2011 @ 03:48 PM by BRAVO949
The exact definition of terrorism, right?

"The use of force or threat of force against a civilian population for advancement of a political cause or ideology."

all of the above

Originally posted by Prokofiev
reply to post by Mkoll


i assume they had 2 reasons: to show the russians their newly aquired "toy" and to test the effects of a nuclear explosion in a civillian population.

remember the post-war propaganda "Radiation sickness does not exist!" ?

Pages:     ^^TOP^^