We must attack Iran before it gets the bomb

Iran should be attacked before it develops nuclear weapons, America's former ambassador to the United Nations said yesterday.

Iran


This is even more disturbing than the last post i made about Iran. I honestly hope that this can be avoided but if it is mandatory we handle it appropriately. I hope that we as a country are ready for all of the ramifications from actions such as this.

Lakewood

Well, one speech to the UN does not a war make. That's all the UN does anyway - make speeches.

I can't see how the current administration could take on another venture given the overt lack of public and media support. Public opinion is a fickle beast and it would take a disaster to change people's minds. Best bet is that Israel makes a pre-emptive strike and deals with the problem in the interests of its own self-defence. But can you imagine the howls of outrage from the arab world if that happened?

Originally posted by Crispy_Chicken
Well, one speech to the UN does not a war make. That's all the UN does anyway - make speeches.

I can't see how the current administration could take on another venture given the overt lack of public and media support. Public opinion is a fickle beast and it would take a disaster to change people's minds. Best bet is that Israel makes a pre-emptive strike and deals with the problem in the interests of its own self-defence. But can you imagine the howls of outrage from the arab world if that happened?

Bravo

I feel it is all Saber rattling but with enough Saber rattling trigger fingers could become very itchy..

Lakewood

maybe they should attack everyone with a nuclear bomb and and everyone who is gonna get one.
stupid idiots.

well, so what if they have a bomb? the problem isn't having a bomb, it's DELIVERING a bomb. if they can't lob the thing more than a few miles it won't matter.

does anyone know if iran has a delivery system that could actually be a threat to anyone?

They have Shahab IRBM's, which can hit most of the ME.
A new version in development would be able to hit much of Europe.

They're considerably farther along on delivery systems than they are on the actual warheads.

Still, the logic of "preemptive" warfare is utter bunk.
Had we adopted that flawed logic during the Cold War, none of us would be here to discuss this today.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
does anyone know if iran has a delivery system that could actually be a threat to anyone?

One truck with a driver totally dedicated to his cause is all the delivery system they need to be a threat. That is the is the greatest risk in my mind. If you were Iran and wanted to use a nuclear bomb on the US you certainly wouldn't want to leave a "return address." All you have to do is hand the bomb off to one of your little "buddies", let them do the dirty work, and you can play innocent. That is why I think we can't allow Iran to gain the capability of making nuclear weapons. They have no intention of attacking us overtly because their country would be turned into a smoking cinder.

Originally posted by lakewoodrealtor

Iran should be attacked before it develops nuclear weapons, America's former ambassador to the United Nations said yesterday.

Iran


This is even more disturbing than the last post i made about Iran. I honestly hope that this can be avoided but if it is mandatory we handle it appropriately. I hope that we as a country are ready for all of the ramifications from actions such as this.

Lakewood

I firmly believe that any nuclear nation which attacks Iran for whatever its programme is deserves whatever it gets in return.

Hypocrites.

p.

I agree that Bolton's comments by no means signify an impending war. For some time it seemed to be common sense that war with Iran was coming, but I am beginning to question this.

I can't help wondering, as I try to read between the lines of Prince Harry not being deployed to Iraq, if perhaps the British are trying to avoid having their hand forced, perhaps because it has been decided to begin backing away from Bush in order to establish more positive relations with the seemingly likely democrat administration which would be expected in '08.

Right now, not having an ally leading the way for us pretty much kills any chance of US Ground troops becoming heavily involved with Iran. The Democrats might have been forced to support our allies if the British had thrown down the gauntlet on Iran, but they'll never help Bush lead the way in.

Bush's only real option now is to undertake airstrikes until he provokes an Iranian retaliation against Iraq, then use nuclear weapons and say it was necessary to protect our troops in Iraq. But does he dare?

I know, the question seems ludicrous after all thats gone on, but can there be any doubt that using nuclear weapons crosses a line that will not be tollerated? The BEST CASE scenario is that he'd be impeached and the new government would bend over backwards to make amends, quite possibly including handing Bush and others over to the ICC. Even Bush can't be oblivious to that. Frankly I'd be shocked if his father hasn't flat out told him that the powers that be will do that to save their own skins if need be.

The failure of the Bush administration to choose its battles carefully really leaves little option other than to give Iran enough rope to hang itself with, and it can only be hoped that Iran's actions will either be ultra-radical (nuke Israel right off the bat and reap the whirlwind) or ultra-calculating (hold the straight of hormuz and deigo garcia hostage and not nuke anything), as described by Cap Weinberger in "The Next War"... hopefully without the war part.

Mutually assured destruction=no we must not, I applaud Iran in their efforts to obtain the bomb, get ready for one-star treatment, bub.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
well, so what if they have a bomb? the problem isn't having a bomb, it's DELIVERING a bomb. if they can't lob the thing more than a few miles it won't matter.

does anyone know if iran has a delivery system that could actually be a threat to anyone?

There are any amount of delivery systems available. Standard balistic missiles or air bombardment are the most obvious, but even a very basic heavy artilliary launch can deliver a warhead large enough to destroy a town. These are all besides the obvious lunatic/martyr with a car bomb. A pre-laid bomb set to a timer or command detonated (via phone etc) would be another viable option.

The only real problem with any of these systems is getting the deilivey system close enough to a target without being taken out. A tactical nuclear strike is easier once hostilities have already started as the amount of air traffic and military movement is such that it is more difficult to keep track of. This makes the risk of direct strikes against military and civilian targets, particularly those close to any border, particularly high. Suicide bombers and pre-laid strikes are easier during peace time as civillian movements are less stringently controlled.

Delivery systems are limited only by the users immagination.

[edit on 17-5-2007 by PaddyInf]

The only one that has talked about a preemptive nuclear strike has been the US.
They have proven that they will use this horrible weapon.

If i use the logic of these 'preemptive nuclear strike" people in the US, it would be fair for the people of the world to say: Make a SNIP glass crater out of the whole US.

How does that sounds ?

It is very clear to me that the US is the nuclear danger in this world and needs to be stopped before it will render large parts of this planet earth useless for the next millions of years trough radiation.

Who are you to say what the rest of the world can do !?

How dare you treaten other countries with a preemptive nuclear strike?!?

Do you realise you all be mass murderers?!

Why do you think Iran is a bigger danger to the world than the US is itself ?!

I am amazed how many people in this world can talk so easely about nuking a country into the stone age ?!?!?!?
Do you all realise what you are saying ?!?!?!

If you would drop a bomb on Teheran, you would almost kill as many Iranians as Hitler killed Jews in WW2, exept in a much quicker way.
Is that the kind of country you woud like to believe in ?


Mod edit: Vulgarity and The Automatic ATS Censors

[edit on 17-5-2007 by sanctum]

We must attack all those who say we must attack some country for whatever reason. Basically 2 groups of people do that - insane people brainwashed by religion and neocons under corp influence. We can stop both if we organize.

The idea of a pre-emptive strike for the reasons stated reasons is a dramatic step backwards. Many of the users here will not remember the fear and paranoia that the cold war created. The cold war, for the most part, was signified primarily from the same type of aggressive posturing being displayed by the US and Iran.

We were lucky to step back from the edge of destruction when we did. Bear in mind that the Cold war was waged between two (fairly) stable super powers, and the main thing that prevented it from going hot was the fear of severe counter strike.

The current percieved threat to the US is from a significantly less stable region who are regarded as less of a threat to main land US. This one-sided power struggle may lead to the conclusion that any attack from Iran may be minimal in comparative destruction and therfore an attack on this region may be seen as justifiable.

[edit on 17-5-2007 by PaddyInf]

Iran getting the bomb is bad.....Iran getting a delivery system for that bomb is worse.......the US using The Bomb to stop Iran from getting the bomb is hypocritical, ludicrous, bordering on insane and will, with all due reason be the subject of international condemnation and criticism the likes I think no one has seen before.

It is quite possible that by the US using nuclear weapons on Iran, the USA could be justifiably labelled a rogue state.....why?

Invasion of Afghanistan, invasion of Iraq, and now Iran?

C'mon, even Rome downfall began by a small number of Germanic Barbarians in the Black Forest.......whats to say the same couldnt happen to the US?

I have nothing against the US, but the current administrations policies have ALOT to be desired. To preach peace on one hand, whilst drawing blood with the other is not a desired method of international diplomacy.

The world is not blind to the practices of the US Government; no matter how silent they may be as wrong as that may be in itself.

The US has already lost whatever sympathy it may have had after 911 with its reckless actions in the middle east, acting like a spoilt bully who is used to getting his way, thou this time it aint working to his plans.

Humanity is in dire straights if the best possible person to the lead the American People out of their entire population is the clown that George Bush is, then our days are truly numbered.

What ever happened to politicians the calibre of Winston Churhill? Someone who is actually educated and doesnt read a childrens book to children on live tv upside down?????

What the ...???

This man Bolton was the US Ambassador and so many people tried to say he was good for America. The only thing I can say is Thank God he is gone and his words should be totally irrelevant. That man is absolutely not concerned with the welfare of Americans. Once the neocons are out of office people like Bolton hopefully will crawl back into their ratholes. Strange how these guys all like to use the term "Hitler" it seems. Bush Sr. did the same thing with Saddam Hussein.

Bolton is just an agent and a puppet for a foreign government as far as Im concerned, and if they want a war so bad, let them do it themselves.

MM above has it pretty much right on the money re: Iran.

Bolton is basically barking mad. He's a Neocon cartoon figure, so one-dimensionally aggressive he just can't be taken seriously. Problem is, so many Neocons in BushCo are pretty much the same.

That said, I think striking Iran is now off the table; this is bluster. They were rushing headlong for confrontation a few months ago, but the CFR--the big boys higher up--sent out Z. Brezinski to weigh in and he gave the admin. a real slap-down on the WaPo Op Ed and in Senate testimony, and told them point-blank they were becoming dangerous.

After that, you pretty much could have heard a pin drop on attacking Iran, until this.

So, you've got Bolton, the Neocon lunatic fringe, once again stirring the pot. Just pining after Dr. Strangelove, IMO. Not gonna happen.

Even if the US/UK let Iran get a nuclear warhead, Israel won't be waiting for us to sort it out, they'll launch an attack at the first sniff of "trouble".

Bolton's Israeli handlers need him to keep cranking out the craziness

Israel knows full well that if they launch an attack on Iran, the full military might of the US will be there to protect them from any retaliation. Whether it's in America's interest to do so is not up for discussion - the decider has made it perfectly clear it will be done. So, any talk of Israel "going it alone" over Iran is clearly ridiculous. They will start the war but it's us gentiles that will be expected to take the heavy losses and spend our money protecting the aggressor.

Oh, come on, OP !

Where's your sense of fair play ?

'WE' have 'the bomb', right ?

Makes sense to let 'them' have the bomb too !

I mean, who coined the term, 'level playing field' ? The US, wasn't it?
So ............ let's get that level playing field.

Not as if you'd want to 'win' unfairly, is it ?

Nah. 'We're' from the West --- right ?

'We' insist we possess the high moral ground ........ right ?

As such, and in order to maintain our belief that we are 'good' and 'right' ........... we have to make sure we don't 'inadvertently' provide ourselves any unfair advantage. Right ?

So not only should we ' let ' them have the bomb .......................................... we should HELP them get the bomb.

And just to show what white-men we are ............ we should GIVE them some of OUR bombs. Don't you think that's fair ?

Of course you do.

Knew you would.

Good onya.