It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


The case against a Nuclear Armed Iran.

page: 1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

+30 more 
posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 11:13 AM
This is a thread I've been doing a little here and there with for quite some time and finally decided to wrap up as a break from a larger one I'm working on now.

It also seems timely as the debate about attacking Iran preemptively is heating up and hardware is being moved to forward positions. It's getting downright serious and more than a bit scary.

I don't personally believe there is legitimate basis for it.

So, it's from this position that I've really looked hard at it and put as much time as I've needed to satisfy myself that the idea of Iran going nuclear is really pretty absurd. I've held this belief quietly for awhile now because it's not a position that can be easily supported in a reply post. Here though, I'd like to lay out precisely why I think this is a dog and pony show, leading to a result worse than Iraq turned out to be for us.

The entire premise of Iran building Nuclear Weapons requires that they have someone to use those weapons on.

There is only one realistic possibility in any scenario that makes sense in the real world. Israel. Without a target to actually use them on and make the threat in a credible way, there is no point to making the weapons. The resources as well as cost would be patently insane.

Iran has FAR too much to lose in simply building them as a deterrent as others have before. SO....It's with the Target I'll focus this.

The idea Iran would use a nuclear weapon on Israel is absolutely, certifiably insane. Let's start with what I've finished up with creating this morning:

Part 1: The Basic Problem of Physics and Distance

I've worked out distances using Google Earth and the measurement tools. The statistics and demographics are from a couple different sources which are cited at the end.

Now let's first establish a ground rule for the discussion.

We're starting from the assumption, as supplied by Western Governments, that Iran is developing weapons on their own and not simply being given advanced Russian designs which can do everything and more out of the box, so to speak. As such, we must assume they have crude designs and not the "Dial-A-Yield" and more advanced surgical nuclear weapons. That being said....

Nuclear Weapons have two characteristics that make them either perfect or impossible to use in the real world. The first is the immediate range of the effect and short term mortality rate from exposure. Second comes the fall out from everything that used to be on the ground, going far into the sky...and gravity does it's thing as the weather patterns direct it.

* - The Distance at Detonation

I started by creating a map of my own based on the basic colored outlines of a PD graphic because I haven't seen much to show how SMALL this area truly is in overall context to this discussion. The edge of Greater Tel Aviv is less than 20 miles from the edge of Greater Jerusalem by the maps. As the map shows the entire nation INCLUDING the West Bank is only 43 miles across at one point. This is a small neighborhood and very densely populated for things like Nuclear Weapons. Here are a few graphics from the U.S. Nuclear program and related research to show what the effects actually are as opposed to Hollywood versions. It's sobering when looking at the map above.

First, a graphic overview:

Next, lets look at a blunt assessment of physical effects.

There are figures for smaller weapons as well, although again, I don't believe we are accepting the premise Iran has the technology to make small, compact and highly specialized weapons, are we? If so, and if they have access to the Russian work of many decades for trial and error, we're already in deep trouble. I'll continue on the premise they don't, but this gives the chart for reference.


and finally, what damage and ranges would they see in physical structures?

The graphics shown above do a pretty good job of showing what Nuclear Weapons do and most importantly, how far they do it.

This is key to why I do not believe Iran is building them. The purpose in ever being willing to go to war against Israel is not simply to kill the Jews. That's idiotic and childish. The people running nations aren't operating at that level or they would't be operating at all. It's the land and specifically, the very critical religious sites which exist for Islam in the Holy Lands. Secondary would be the Palestinians, but decades of a very spotty history of regional help to them leaves that motive questionable and likely never enough by itself.

So if everything goes perfectly with their launch, flight and guidance systems for impact to a very tight tolerance, we can see it will kill people in the very near term out as far as 15 miles from the blast. Now recall, that is a radius, not a straight distance. 15 miles makes for a 30 mile circle. So, by looking on my first map for relative distances, the circle of immediate destruction from just one of them would easily cross the distance between both Territories or from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem........and the most important sites the entire war would be meant to capture and keep.

If the guidance systems did NOT work perfectly on what amount to untested systems here, they could VERY easily obliterate the very Holy Sites they were doing this to save.

* - The Distance After Detonation

The first section is only relating to those who will be hit in the seconds and moments following a detonation. The second problem with a Nuclear Weapon is at least as large for any potential action by Iran. Fallout is simply a part of the process if destruction on the ground is intended.

First, let's get the interesting graphic up first.

In a nuclear blast, what goes Up goes FAR FAR UP.

..and what comes down, comes down a LONG WAY downwind. Wind speed and conditions make all the difference, but I wouldn't recommend Jordan for a few years, to say the least.

and finally, some context as to what the above numbers actually mean.

Now I imagine it depends a great deal on weather and that was not reassuring. Depending on time of year, the fallout is either likely to blow Northeast or South/Southwest? Perhaps someone who lives in that area can clarify what the weather maps show for winter/summer wind patterns but here is a map I was able to find for reference.


+7 more 
posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 11:13 AM
Moving on, the geography would oddly act as a favor to Israel's neighbors for possibly containing something....but to the extent that worked, it would just further obliterate what the whole effort is supposed to be for. This is what I mean about Geography and elevation.

Now Part 1 has been focused on the physical effects of nuclear detonations and how, by that alone, the result would be self defeating to the extent that even making them with this theater as the only reasonable target is a waste.

Given the dedication of resources and sheer cost for any nation pursuing them in this day and age, it's absolutely not worth it for a single target area which the above considerations would turn any "victory" into a defeat within the same moment of time. To whatever extent those in Iran might accept the destruction of certain sites on those lands, I dare say the other Billion plus Muslims would have a few things to say about it, at the very least.

Again, we've only looked at the effects in what would be INTENDED and if everything goes WELL....and finally, no one considers the rest of what it would mean.

Part 2: The Political Realities Of Rash Actions

* - Israeli Arabs/Muslims

Now this concern comes in two forms and it's refering back to the graphics for the map I created with population numbers added. Israel is not just Jews and it's not just Palestinians. There are a large number of Israeli Arabs. As little as this is mentioned in Western media, they live in Israel, hold Israeli citizenship and live very productive lives.

These aren't Palestinians with work permits but full fledged citizens who are also Arab and Muslim. The source I used placed the number at 16.9% of the overall Israeli population and some Israeli sources claimed 25%.

Either way, it's a large number of Arabs to incinerate in a nuclear first strike. Those are just the Arabs living inside Israel itself.

* - Palestinians and Neighbors

There are over 4 million more in the Territories and a large number beyond them in Jordan and Southern Syria. Iran would outright kill, sicken or seriously injure almost every single one of those people. Again, my map and plenty others online show the true confines of the area being talked about. A few nukes....literally a FEW....and Israel is simply covered within the effect areas.

I'm not buying the idea that the Ayatollah would do that. This isn't Saddam Insane off on a bender. The Ayatollah is someone I don't personally like...on any level..whatsoever. I never forgot 1979...and that's that. I'll never forgive 1983, either.

Having said that though, he's the direct leader of the Shia sect of the Islamic Faith. It's akin to the Pope, as a Shia explained in terms I'd culturally relate to. The Muslim version of the Pope, as we'd think of it, wouldn't likely act so quickly without carefully considering all the angles...for lack of a better word.

So...Someone in that position would so easily Obliterate...

- The Jews (okay..I'll buy that one..maybe ),

- The Israeli Arabs (ehh...okay?),

- The Palestinians along with Hamas and Hezbollah (Okay, now we're getting silly),

- Finally a fair chunk of the populations of Jordan, Syria and maybe Iraq and Egypt...depending on quirks of the weather patterns?

Are the people saying this feeling alright? Perhaps they're suffering a fever? It seems so absurd when looked at in clear light, doesn't it?

Nope... I'm not buying it a bit. Iran simply has everything to lose and nothing to gain. Politically, as this part is dealing with, it's 100% downside. Even if they hold their own and survive the war, their nation will be in shambles...


+6 more 
posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 11:13 AM
Part 3: Nuke the entire land area?

Now there is a fairly simple issue to deal with here. It's simple but it's real serious and it's not something Iran would likely laugh off.

Who would Iran nuke, assuming they were making some? Tel Aviv? Surely not Jerusalem. Dimona? I'd say that spot is a given and would experience nuclear digging too. Where else though? Iran would never deliberately drop nukes straight into the West Bank, right?

Well... They'd have to.. If Nuclear Weapons were the extent and means of attack without ground invasion by other nations...They'd have to drop a few and literally obliterate the West Bank entirely. Why?

This part isn't helpful to Israel to highlight, but in this context, it sure makes the statement about the issue.

The Media sometimes makes it sound like the West Bank is a Palestinian area in practice with some Israeli settlements. In reality, it's more like Israeli controlled land the Palestinians are permitted to reside on. The sheer use of land shows that. This shows the number and spread of the literal settlements.

As that shows, again, if Iran is to be taken seriously in making these with the intent of using them, they'd have to drop them right to the Jordan River. There are over 350,000 Settlers there, so overlooking or missing them just wouldn't do.

Then...there is the final issue for The Ayatollah and others in the Iranian Government to consider...if we're to accept all this about Iran's intentions.

Israel and the Jewish people have a history that goes far back past the time America was even a passing thought to go find. They identify with their Faith and as closely and directly as the most devout Muslim by what I've seen. Of course every faith has it's wide swing for numbers between devout and 'in name only' however, there are a whole lot more Jews than live in the Middle East and if Iran started such a war, they'd never ever stop for revenge.



All this .... would have to be considered and depending on the issue, allowed for, accepted or just flat ignored.

In a nation run by a single man, I might buy it. In a nation where technology and education levels are relatively primitive? I might buy it... I don't buy it with Iran because they simply aren't a dictatorship or uneducated. The 12th Imam material is among what I've read and I'm familiar with. It's disturbing to my thinking and the opposition seen to spill over both inside and outside the Government in Iran shows I'm not alone in that.

Iran has, up to now, had little trouble containing it, it would seem by all I've read.

Ahmadinejad also isn't the center of power in Iran. The Ayatollah is. Media reports from Iran over the past years show the President isn't even in especially good favor and their domestic economy sucks. He's not the most favored leader lately.....and he's the bombastic loudmouth.

The Ayatollah is the one I've listened for as he's one that speaks rarely but usually quite clearly. Kinda like looking at other historical bad guys. They have a habit of telegraphing what history shows they later went on to do.. So I pay attention.

““The Iranian nation has never pursued and will never pursue nuclear weapons. There is no doubt that the decision makers in the countries opposing us know well that Iran is not after nuclear weapons because the Islamic Republic, logically, religiously and theoretically, considers the possession of nuclear weapons a grave sin and believes the proliferation of such weapons is senseless, destructive and dangerous.”

Keeping in mind that he has no reason to lie himself, he's their version of the Pope for the Shia and he rarely says much either way, I give his words a bit of weight.

I also give weight to statements made over the last couple years about turning their reactor fuel production into a full export enterprise to African nations and others. Swapping oil for Reactor rods seems to be at least part of their thinking...and I may go into that for another thread. That would bring the wrath of the west too...if not so clearly explained.

However, in the narrow scope I set out to look at...... Is Iran really building nuclear weapons and if so, with intent to use them? I certainly have satisfied myself that it's extremely unlikely. If nothing else, I hope what I share gives everyone else food for thought on the war we all seem headed into.

+3 more 
posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 11:14 AM
Sources Used:

World Jewish Population
(Population and Demographic info)

CIA World Factbook
(Population, GDP, Demographics and Stats)

WB Map 1 / Wind Map
(West Bank and Weather Map)

Nuclear Effects 1 / Nuclear Effects 2 / Nuclear Effects 3
(Government charts and data on nuclear blast effects)

Ayatollah 1 / Ayatollah 2 / Ayatollah 3
(Various public statements regarding nuclear program)

Israeli Arab Rights and Laws
(Details of Arab-Israeli citizens and how it works)

Palestinian Central Statistic Report
(Population, Demographics of Territories)

I hope everyone enjoyed the thread.

posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 11:16 AM
Tell Israel to give up their nukes and Iran would not have to develop any for self defense for which there is no evidence of.

Secondly the only country to have used nukes was the USA and they are actively threatening Iran because the US government is a poodle of Israel.

posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 12:00 PM
S & F

For the research and presentation

Obviously you've done your homework

posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 12:14 PM
Brilliant presentation.
You've put a great deal of research into this.
Much appreciated !

posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 12:18 PM
Likewise this presentation equally speaks for the disarming of all countries with nukes, but we know that wont happen. Nuclear weapons are a deterrent and Iran is just another middle eastern country on USA middle eastern toppling rage that they need protection from. The USA is doing this at the urging of Israel influence and pushing. How many times has panetta met with netanyahoo to dictate how many americans die for israel. How many US military bases are surrounding iran in a show of force and threat. Iran wants a deterrent but there is no evidence that they have any nukes or are developing them.

posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 12:21 PM
Could this case be equally applicable to a case against a nuclear armed America? I mean we know the effects now, we know who has a history of using them

Good presentation..
edit on 123131p://8America/ChicagoSun, 19 Aug 2012 12:22:15 -0500 by THE_PROFESSIONAL because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 12:38 PM
I've had to star the s*** outta that

Go back a little in time and there was NO mention of Irans nuclear weapons,
It was against irans nuclear CAPABILITIES !
This was it's nuclear power program

Now let's say Iran develops nuclear power and the means to create it
Now, who do Iran trade with ?
Somalia being one
Iran already told Somalia they will trade nuclear technology with them ( not sure if they already have - im thinking yes - but cant remember for sure )

Now just using Somalia as an example ( whom coincidently, turkey ( NATO member ) is trying to knock irans trade out and replace it with their own agreements )
Soz just thought I should add that
Somalia .........having nuclear tech ..........really !
Would you be happy with Somalia having nuclear power ?
I know I wouldn't
One of the most internally unstable countries in the world with a nuclear reactor !
The next rebellion,coup,uprising or line warlord with a makeshift army comes along
The plant workers abandon their posts to return to families, to join the fight, get killed off or the plant finds itself the target or in the line of an advancing army/militia

Who maintains this reactor ?
Who controls and protects it's sensitive materials ?

Think Fukushima was who else will they share the tech with ?

The weaponisation of the argument by the gov and the media is an attempt at gaining support
As far as I'm aware it's lies
Gov fearmongering to justify a course of action

edit on 19-8-2012 by Neocrusader because: Auto

posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 12:58 PM
Unbelievably good thread Wrabbit!

And what amazes me is that you did it without even sourcing the IAEA reports or the 2003- 2007 NIE's, who also confirm that Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons. Add those sources to what you have unveiled, and case closed. It makes no sense whatsoever for Iran to pursue them, and oh, I forgot, lol, you didn't even source the fact that they have been abiding all this time to the NPT!!!

Wahaha. See ya Zionist propaganda, John McCain, Romney, and the rest of you lying scumbag warmongers who profit from senseless war and kill our troops! Just get lost please and go sell your damn lies somewhere else.

Given the absolute baseball-bat-over-the-head you have just delivered to false Iran propaganda, I do have one question regarding the recent reports that Iran has some kind of weapon that "would end Israel for good". WHAT could that weapon possibly be, considering the facts you present here? In other words how would it even be possible Iran could inflict such damage without harming so many innocent given the nature of the ethnic mixture and such a small country of Israel?
edit on Sun Aug 19th 2012 by TrueAmerican because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 01:08 PM
Very interesting and well laid out thread. It highlights why I don't think the Iranians would ever use such a weapon, but I don't know. . However on a side note. What evidence is there of Iran having a weapon and if not, do we have any evidence on how close they are to obtaining one? I think these would be quite interesting facts to have. Quite an interesting article on what we know, well according to the BBC, about Irans nuclear program.

Previously, the IAEA complained that Tehran had not fully co-operated with its inspectors, though it did say that Iran had displayed "greater transparency" during an inspection visit in August 2011.

In March 2012, it was announced that Iran had agreed to take part in fresh six-party talks and allow IAEA inspectors to visit its key military research site at Parchin, under certain conditions.

posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 01:23 PM
reply to post by TrueAmerican

Thanks for your words on the thread. Sourcing is the single most time consuming thing, I swear. Since everything I'm making for graphics is going into a college related portfolio for my work, it'll all get reviewed at some point...including the context and place it was made and used. So I have to do it correct all the way down.. Ugh.. That's a bear!

You bring up an interesting point and it sounds like you've read well beyond what I have up here for what the Big Cheese over there has said about Nuclear energy. I didn't include the comments the Ayatollah made about what sounded like aggressive use of nuclear tech..because it didn't make sense enough to present as more than ..well? Babble. I mean, he was so could mean almost anything. I wouldn't be surprised if that was the point. Sow confusion and keep people off balance.

He's been clear on Thermonuclear Weapons though. I've read what his statements said to mean Nukes that go boom...and make mushroom clouds. I don't mean to be light about it, but I'm not sure how else to put the loop hole I get the feeling it left.

Honestly, I'd first wondered about Neutron weapons...but as others have noted and on further thinking, that does fall into the advanced side of nukes and they haven't crawled yet, let alone ready to run a marathon for development. So that wouldn't make a lot of sense....

Radiological makes no sense because the same logic that makes a Thermonuke a sin, makes that worse.

What else indeed... I hope the situation isn't pushed by any side to the point of learning what they're being cagey and coy about. They didn't hollow out a mountain because it sounded cool, after all.
I just think we're being sold a bill of goods on what and the threat it represents.

posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 01:45 PM

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by TrueAmerican

. I didn't include the comments the Ayatollah made about what sounded like aggressive use of nuclear tech..

He said nuclear weapons are against the teachings of Islam. He, and Ahmadinejad, have said this for years.

posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 05:26 PM

Israel and the Jewish people have a history that goes far back past the time America was even a passing thought to go find.

No Israel and the Jews do not have a history in that region because Israel didn't exist until 1948. The Jews however do have a history in that region. If Iran had a couple of nukes the best places would be Tel Aviv this where the warmongering Zionist are mostly concentrated. The second place should be Jerusalem if it were wiped out then everyone wouldn't be fighting for it anymore.

There is no evidence of Iran trying to get nukes. Why not mention the nuke terrorist threat Israel has made against the world.

Samson Option

"Israel has been building nuclear weapons for 30 years. The Jews understand what passive and powerless acceptance of doom has meant for them in the past, and they have ensured against it. Masada was not an example to follow—it hurt the Romans not a whit, but Samson in Gaza? What would serve the Jew-hating world better in repayment for thousands of years of massacres but a Nuclear Winter. Or invite all those tut-tutting European statesmen and peace activists to join us in the ovens? For the first time in history, a people facing extermination while the world either cackles or looks away—unlike the Armenians, Tibetans, World War II European Jews or Rwandans—have the power to destroy the world. The ultimate justice?"

"We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets for our air force. Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: 'Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother.' I consider it all hopeless at this point. We shall have to try to prevent things from coming to that, if at all possible. Our armed forces, however, are not the thirtieth strongest in the world, but rather the second or third. We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen before Israel goes under.

We allow these people to have illegal nukes and do nothing to stop them but we want to go to war against a nation that isn't even trying to get nukes. Is America stupid or not.
edit on 19-8-2012 by buster2010 because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 05:36 PM
reply to post by buster2010

I see that you really do care for Palestinians. Clearly they will not be dead as a result of 2 nukes, one directly in the city with hundreds of thousands of Palestinians and near the current Palestinian capital Ramallah, and the other with tens of thousands of Israeli Arabs and less then 50 kms to large Israeli Arab cities and Palestinian cities. They are obviously protected by magic shield.
Good job!
Also i like your integrity.
You link one thing, and post text from other source. Truly, bravo.
edit on 19-8-2012 by ZeroKnowledge because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 05:51 PM
OP, i think that the reason Israel (and other states in the region, but to much lesser extent) are so restless is not the direct threat of Iranian strike.
Reasons that are stated are:
a) "Start" of regional nuclear race,in a pretty non-stable region. Clearly Israel started the race but it also took care to block others from joining in by bombing Iraqi reactors.
b) Change of strategic forces in the region. Iran and Shiites in general will suddenly gain lots of strategic points.
c) fear for indirect nuclear attack via proxy forces loyal to Iran (Hizbollah).
But i really see no way Israeli strike, however succesful it is, stopping Iranian nuclear program in the long term. They will rebuild it again.
Iraqi strike worked because Saddam was isolated and US/USSR did not want to see nuclear race in Middle East
but even then it had huge negative consequences for Israel and globally.Now it is totally different.
100% sure war and its economical impact on allready suffering economies of the world will automatically block any further Israeli strikes plus place Israel in diplomatic isolation.
Only real way to stop it is by changing Iranian leadership but it is just as unlikely. Interesting times are upon us.

posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 06:02 PM
Hats off Wrabbit, you've made a real effort and although I haven't got the chance to read through everything its an interesting thread.

Its so refreshing to see intelligent threads like this one on ATS - its a pity there are not more of them...

posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 06:18 PM
Wow, OP! Impeccable research and analysis. This brings me back to the days of old, and when threads used to be treasure troves of information, and factual analysis. Although, I take what is found in your analysis with a glass half full approach. I so want what you are saying to be true, but their repeated antics about wiping people out raises doubts in me. They have gone on the record saying it multiple times, and I have seen all the apologist sentiment of miss translations, taking things out of context, and other displays of naivety. How can all the statements be a mistranslation, or taken out of context? A broken clock is right once.

I am sorry, but their past antics of international terrorism, proxy wars, and blatant hate is the lone reason why I am in no position to give them the benefit of a doubt over this issue. It is too serious to sit on our hands, and hope that Iran makes the right decision. I, like others don't want military conflict over this issue. However, if Iran continues to speak with a fork tongue and ducks and dodges their responsibility to address concerns of not only Israel, but other Middle Eastern countries? Then, there is no other choice but to act first and ask questions later. Lets not endure another North Korea with regards to Iran.

This crisis has gone on for many years, and those that have concerns about Iran's nuclear program have been quite patience with all the tomfoolery coming from the Iranian government. They are about to reap what has been sown. Iran can still work through this with dialogue and diplomacy, because open hostilities have not begun. It won't be easy, because they have dug their hole deep. However, if they value the lives of men, women, and children they would make every effort to alleviate the concerns of others, because they are on the path to catastrophe.
edit on 19-8-2012 by Jakes51 because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 06:21 PM

Originally posted by buster2010

No Israel and the Jews do not have a history in that region because Israel didn't exist until 1948.

Umm.. Yes, The Jews DO have a history in that region and it was the Jews and Arabs BOTH giving the British Occupation forces hell after World War II that got things to the position of Israel and Arabs nearly having their own states...Each of UN division. The rest, is a whole different thread. However, there are LONG and very hard researched threads here on the topic. I'll leave it to their excellent work already here at ATS.....

The second place should be Jerusalem if it were wiped out then everyone wouldn't be fighting for it anymore.

That level of hate is something I'll never grasp, let alone sympathize with. I just posted the Population numbers for greater Jerusalem and how may of those were Arabs as well as Jews. Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out? .....and you're talking about the Israeli's being barbaric?

There is no evidence of Iran trying to get nukes. Why not mention the nuke terrorist threat Israel has made against the world.

I'm a little confused.... My 3 pages of carefully assembled OP data were about, among other things, the fact Iran does not have nor have they BEEN seeking Thermonuclear weapons. Thanks for restating the core of the thread...but I'm confused when it's presented as a challenge..and on the heels of the negative that came before?

"Israel has been building nuclear weapons for 30 years.

You're right. Israel has had Nuclear capability for 30 years...give or take. If they ever fire a Jericho Missile for anything but a TEST shot and they aren't taking NBC weapons in their own cities first? I'll be 100% for attacking THEM. I happen to like Israel in general terms, too. I'm a sucker for the underdog...

However, I don't care WHO it is...The first nation to break the Nuke taboo in anger needs to get a rain shower of them in the time it takes to launch out of the Super Powers and make an example...........Whoever it is.

Our armed forces, however, are not the thirtieth strongest in the world, but rather the second or third. We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen before Israel goes under.

We allow these people to have illegal nukes and do nothing to stop them but we want to go to war against a nation that isn't even trying to get nukes. Is America stupid or not.

I'm not sure what youre complaint on that statement is exact;y. They're stating in their own way what the United States said for 50 years while the Soviet Union said the same basic thing for the same period. All said it for the same reason. Deterrence. It works just fine or not a single one of us would be here to talk about it. Our parents would have been fried in 1962 over some Missiles where they shouldn't have been in Cuba.

Deterrence only works if the other side believes you mean it...(I believe 'em) and believes you really are crazy enough to pull a scorched earth, win or lose. The Soviet and American versions were our Ballistic Missile Submarines. Either nation could have been glassed to death....and the subs would still have popped up 1 hour to a day or more later.....launched their whole loads upon confirmation of the war...and killed every living thing that survived the FIRST doomsday burst.

War is hell......Deterrence is about promising the other guy far MORE hell than he can deliver. Works for me as far as the concept goes. No one is dying when it works....Why not try?

top topics

<<   2  3 >>

log in