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.

 

One reason Iran wouldn't nuke Isreal

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 06:41 AM
link   
One reason I believe Iran wouldn't nuke Isreal is simple and one I haven't came across one ATS, I don't think they would do it if they had the capabilities simply because it's Holy land I mean the repercussions of a nuclear attack itself would devastate a country now imagine doing that to a land that a big percentage of the planet hold as sacred to their belief system one way or another.

In a nutshell maybe they will attack Isreal, I wouldn't blame them atm as the threats are going both ways but desecrating the Holy land will be a big no no in my eyes.

Iran is also a bit late in playing the nuke card anyways, too many people have them it's one of the reasons nuclear war has never happened. Why in whoever gods name would you want to annihilate your enemy to be only annihilated yourself, it defies the point and you won't reap the benefits of your evil dead.




posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 06:44 AM
link   
reply to post by RAY1990
 


Iran will never use such weaponries on Israel or any other nation unless one was used on it; Israel would do likewise.

Iran is not some despot Arab nation; Iran is Ayran, their leaders are highly intelligent and educated just as Israel's is.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 06:45 AM
link   
reply to post by RAY1990
 


You could add about another 100 reasons to that list.

The main one being right now, Iran has no nuclear weapons.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 06:57 AM
link   
If Iran had a nuke, something being refuted, they would use it in self defense...
If the do not have a nuke, they will not ever be allowed to produced any and only allowed to purchase them on the market...
However using one, or any, would ultimately lead to the doom and demise of Iran...is presumed...
So, again, revert back to previous, is that Iran will nuke Israel, if attacked, if they have any to do so with...




posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 06:58 AM
link   
How about ......... "they drop a nuke one day and THEY get the fallout the next" Wouldn't THAT be a good enough reason for them not to?



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 06:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by bluemirage5
Iran is not some despot Arab nation; Iran is Ayran, their leaders are highly intelligent and educated just as Israel's is.



Racism much?
edit on 3-6-2012 by babloyi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 07:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Physic
 




If Iran had a nuke, something being refuted


It's not just being refuted, they don't have one as agreed by everyone, even their enemies. There isn't even conclusive evidence of a programme to produce one.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 07:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by bluemirage5

Iran is not some despot Arab nation; Iran is Ayran, their leaders are highly intelligent and educated just as Israel's is.


Highly intelligent and believe there are no gay people in Iran?

Any country with islamic faith wouldn't mind being nuked and sent to heaven because of war. Forty virgins and all that crap.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 07:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Peruvianmonk
 


I cannot believe Iran could not have purchased any nukes or material, to make any nukes over the years, as that really sounds bizarre to me, as it has been around 70 years since the technology has been, being used in warfare and for a country not to have it, at their disposal, by acquiring from outside sourced elsewhere, or manufacturing in house, only seems logical presumption.

Imagine 1000's of drones set up and armed with missiles ready to launch that have a mix array of weapons, dirty bombs or warheads of nuclear material, hydrogen bombs, neutron and some Spent uranium fuel DUI's and cluster bombs and other food for thought, being armed and ready to launch that have courses and routes, and destinations all programed in and just need to launch them, as the stuxnet and flame, suggestive of the nature of war now being played.

Statement should be or could be, "Why Iran does not need to nuke anyone"



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 07:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Physic
 


Yes if they had nukes using them would be the demise of Iran, but I also believe if they nuked whoever it would be a reactive attack not a "one day I woke up and Isreal was gone" kind of attack



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 07:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Peruvianmonk
 


...posted in response above is preponderance of purchasing power, could present Iran with nuke or would not be surprise if they were gifted one or more...a trap or set up, being considered in the scenario, of course..or maybe Russia, trusts them with some of theirs?



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 07:10 AM
link   
reply to post by steve1709
 


Just another good reason why the wouldn't do it if they could



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 07:11 AM
link   
reply to post by RAY1990
 


Israel has same approach on matters, as wake up one day and no more Iran, so can see same tactics and strategy being used, as far as timeline of battle, quick and overnight targets eliminated..



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 07:12 AM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 


Do you truly believe everyone in Islamic countries are extremest nuts?



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 07:18 AM
link   
reply to post by steve1709
 


yea, Iran does not need nukes, cause they use legal weapons of warfare that are allowed on the field and in...not breaking the rules like known aggressors....

Iran only need just blow up Israels nuke weapons and reactors site locations per-preemptive, or if attacked...
That would take care of Israel for sure and be lot worse the Fukushima.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 07:20 AM
link   
If Iran had a few gifted or bought nukes it won't be many with modern day anti missile tech what would be the chances of delivery of said nuke, plus the rumours of american laser tech? unlikely in my eyes

If they do have nukes they will be borrowed and only to be used in certain circumstances e.g. MAD scenario, all out war in other words


That's also a big IF but that being said we the UK gave Pakistan nukes and I remember reading something about Isreal assisting south Africa with development of ballistic based nukes and may of gave them some not sure about that one, so yes there's a chance nukes are in Iran somehow
edit on 3-6-2012 by RAY1990 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 07:23 AM
link   
reply to post by RAY1990
 

yea, if China sold them a few dozen at discount price and some of the technology the cloned, Iran does not need to do anything, other then sit back and relax and keep cloning



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 07:29 AM
link   
reply to post by RAY1990
 


Explanation: S&F

I made a thread on the reverse of this issue [the how Iran could nuke the holy land] that you may be interested in having a look at!

[Through the Looking Glass] Samson and Delilah Redux! (by OmegaLogos posted on 11-11-2011 @ 07:12 AM) [ATS Middle East Issues Forum]

Personal Disclosure: I hope that helps!



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 07:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by RAY1990
reply to post by jiggerj
 


Do you truly believe everyone in Islamic countries are extremest nuts?


No, I believe the people in power are extremist nuts. The rest are just sheep like everywhere else in the world.
edit on 6/3/2012 by jiggerj because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 02:48 PM
link   
Iran won't strike a nuclear missile at Israel, why would they conduct such a hairbrained operation if the weaponry can be transferred to a loyal proxy, such as Hezbollah or Hamas? The danger of Iran having nuclear technology is not the tenuous and scanty prospect of the use of said technology by the Iranian state itself, but rather the utilization of nuclearly enriched materials by Iran's cells abroad against Israeli or international targets. It has been positively confirmed that Hezbollah operates in proximity to the Mexican border; would you take the chance that a nuclear device will be employed close to or inside American soil? The operative conclusion stemming from the aforementioned realization is that the Iranian nuclear program has to be abolished, lest a catastrophe of an international scale will occur.

As for your remark that Iran wouldn't risk ravaging the so-called "holiland": first of all, this claim is anything but new. Secondly, it's wrong: the Islamic mentality allows inflicting bane to Muslims if it serves the purpose of Jihad, so you shouldn't expect this objective-centered enemy to treat its adversaries with any form of dignity and decency, much less respect their religious sentiments. Iran will annihilate the Palestinians -- their Muslim brethren -- just to invoke maleficence to their perceived Israeli enemy. But again, let me repeat this once again for the mentally-challenged: the basis for the opposition to the Ayatollahs' nuclear program is not the slim risk that in some indefinite future Iran will decide to turn Israel into a drainage via a direct capitalization of an atomic bomb, but rather the arrival / smuggling of nuclearly enriched materials to the hands of terrorist organization such as Hebollah, Hamas, or even Al-Qaeda, who will then proceed to employ said materials in order to extirpate, say, a city which belongs to the "infidels".

Some believe that Israel does not deserve its own nuclear weapons. Without addressing this claim in lenght, let me remark that the danger posed to the world by Israel's nuclear reactors is miniscule tody compared to the danger it will pose when Israel turn into a theocracy. However, whether or not Israel's reactors constitute any danger to the international community, it is irrelevant when addressing the Iranian affair; two wrongs (regardless of whether or not Israel's nuclear program is indeed 'wrong') don't make a right; and so there's no reason to mention Israel's nuclear program when discussing the Iranian issue, and the preceding claim regarding the legitimacy or illegitimacy of Israel's nuclear program has been brought forth for the sake of its dismissal alone, not for its relevancy to the discussion and not for its refutation / validation.

Every opportunity ought to be seized to remind the global community of the dangers posed by Iran's nuclear program: a) the transfer of the nuclear weaponry into the control of terrorists; b) the subversion of the balance-of-power as well as (and more so) of the balance-of-terror hitherto established in the Middle-East; c) the fortification of the Ayatollas' grip over the Iranian citizenry, i.e. the strengthening of the Iranian regime; and d) the propaganda potential of such a nuclear achievement and its sway over the Islamic as well as the non-Islamic worlds. This argument, with all its reasonings, culminates in the conclusion that the Iranian nuclear program has to be abolished, the sooner the better.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join