Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: cassandra and sara's daddy on September 24, 2012, 07:29:54 PM
-
or its leader
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/24/un-assembly-ahmadinejad-idUSL1E8KO5BL20120924
-
Can we strike Iran? Or can we decide that we will not strike Iran? Or can Iran get its nuke already? Anything so we would not hear of this again.
-
If Iran wants a nuke it will no doubt get one. Heck, I'm surprised they don't have one by now.
How long did it take America to develop them? And we had to work from scratch.
A Hiroshima type bomb is not hard to make.
-
If Iran wants a nuke it will no doubt get one. Heck, I'm surprised they don't have one by now.
How long did it take America to develop them? And we had to work from scratch.
A Hiroshima type bomb is not hard to make.
The theory has been floating around for a while; the problem is the engineering. It requires some very advanced and very precise equipment to do make one, and you kind of have to have a high-tech society to begin with in order to get those things. Iran is operating at a disadvantage because they started with a society that was a few generations, technologically, behind the west, and it takes a while to make up that disadvantage.
The other problem is material. There aren't many places that will sell Iran the stuff needed to make either uranium 235 or plutonium, or will provide them with it straight up, and the places that will don't generally have a lot of it themselves.
-
The problem is not the bomb, the engineering feat is airborne delivery to a precise location but a Ford F350 could do so via ground routes. Even the Chechens supposedly obtained suitcase nukes in the late nineties under int'l muj auspices during the consolidation of power while escaping the Russian vice.
The Shahab-3 CEP is estimated at 30-50m.
The nuclear calculus has to take into account that the response will be massive to a signature strike that can be forensically traced to its origin. The Iranians can talk and bluster all they want but I would suggest the bomb's power evaporates quite literally on detonation and takes all the stored political capital with it. A nuclear bombs present utility is all in the threat and not the use.
-
And Ahmadinejad is just blustering, just like those folks in Cairo and Bengahzi were upset over a movie trailer...
These folks are "True Believers". They are not playing some power politics game. They mean what they say, and if we don't take them serious (and stop their nuclear development, there will be double flash signatures all over the middle east.
-
I would suggest the bomb's power evaporates quite literally on detonation and takes all the stored political capital with it. A nuclear bombs present utility is all in the threat and not the use.
my mothers family would disagree
-
The problem is not the bomb, the engineering feat is airborne delivery to a precise location but a Ford F350 could do so via ground routes. Even the Chechens supposedly obtained suitcase nukes in the late nineties under int'l muj auspices during the consolidation of power while escaping the Russian vice.
The Shahab-3 CEP is estimated at 30-50m.
The nuclear calculus has to take into account that the response will be massive to a signature strike that can be forensically traced to its origin. The Iranians can talk and bluster all they want but I would suggest the bomb's power evaporates quite literally on detonation and takes all the stored political capital with it. A nuclear bombs present utility is all in the threat and not the use.
There is a quote--see italics--for the ages. The advent of nuclear weapons created the reality of culturecide. Imagine a world without London, Rome, Paris, and New York, and all that would imply. These weapons have the power to kill a nation's soul and obliterate its history. They are not just bargaining tools and, yes, they WILL be used again. All weapons are used eventually.
-
my mothers family would disagree
Regrets, were they the victims of a bombing?
-
Remember we are talking about people that routinely convince others (of their ilk) to strap explosives to themselves and then go blow themselves up in the largest crowd of Israelis they can find. Then pay off the families. There were 19 people that willingly flew aircraft into buildings. They join the American, Afghan (and previously, Iraqi) police and army to conduct suicide attacks on Americans.
And you seriously believe that once they have a working nuke, they are NOT going to use it on Israel? Really?!?!?!
:facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:
-
Regrets, were they the victims of a bombing?
if they had got it first they'd have used it
-
Remember we are talking about people that routinely convince others (of their ilk) to strap explosives to themselves and then go blow themselves up in the largest crowd of Israelis they can find. Then pay off the families. There were 19 people that willingly flew aircraft into buildings. They join the American, Afghan (and previously, Iraqi) police and army to conduct suicide attacks on Americans.
And you seriously believe that once they have a working nuke, they are NOT going to use it on Israel? Really?!?!?!
:facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:
There's a world of difference between convincing some sap to blow himself up, and blowing yourself up. I tend to think politicians are politicians the world over: they want power and advantages for themselves and their families and are happy to exploit True Believers to get it, but are rarely TB themselves.
-
Remember we are talking about people that routinely convince others (of their ilk) to strap explosives to themselves and then go blow themselves up in the largest crowd of Israelis they can find. Then pay off the families. There were 19 people that willingly flew aircraft into buildings. They join the American, Afghan (and previously, Iraqi) police and army to conduct suicide attacks on Americans.
And you seriously believe that once they have a working nuke, they are NOT going to use it on Israel? Really?!?!?!
:facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijackers_in_the_September_11_attacks
19 hijackers.
15 are Saudi.
1 is Lebanese.
2 are United Arab Emirates.
1 is Egyptian.
None are Iranian.
No evidence that Iranians are impersonating Afghans to take a place on joint security forces in A-stan.
Look, I don't have a buddy-fest going on with Iran. I don't really care too much one way or another about them. All I care about is keeping our country's nose out of additional wars that prove to be yet another jumping off point to invade yet another place.
Look at it from an intergenerational perspective, like the Cold War.
Who is our next major foe if we keep this up?
We're building a western bulkhead to strike into China's western frontier.
We keep this up, we're going to start WWIII.
We win by winning the economic war, not by invading everybody under the sun.
I don't think Iran is going to be any more of a threat than Pakistan, even if they do obtain the Bomb. Heck, India can keep Iran in check, independent of the US and Israel. They have a troubled history with Islamic extremism as well, and have enjoyed many wars with Pakistan over the Kashmir region. Now with both parties having the Bomb, Kashmir is pretty darn quiet.
In order for MAD to have any moral efficacy, one must first establish firm ground as the defender rather than the aggressor.
The US has not established that foundation in regards to Middle East peace. Right now from any objective perspective, Iran is attempting to deflate the imbalance of power by putting MAD into its own hands.
-
It took 2500 years for us in the West to arrive where we are, about the best mankind can hope for, with all its attendant blood and tears. If we value that, if we wish to preserve what's good, we will act like men who understand what we have to lose and what we must do.
-
Even the Chechens supposedly obtained suitcase nukes in the late nineties under int'l muj auspices during the consolidation of power while escaping the Russian vice.
Those are more myth than not, btw. Yes, I am very familiar with atomic demo charges. They are equally the equivalent of a semi-truck loaded with modern explosives. More of a radiological hazard than nuclear weapon hazard. Plus nukes have a self-life. Any nuclear weapon made during the USSR days would need an overhaul by now. Still the risk of strapping normal explosives to it to make a radiological weapon, but you have the same risk from medical radiological sources.
I would suggest the bomb's power evaporates quite literally on detonation and takes all the stored political capital with it. A nuclear bombs present utility is all in the threat and not the use.
my mothers family would disagree
Folks are able to live in Hiroshima and Nagasaki these days.
But yes, nuclear weapons are overhyped. They are rather destructive. But Operation Meetinghouse, firebombing of Tokyo, was quite a bit more effective than nuclear weapons. If you gave me the choice, I'd take Hiroshima or Nagasaki during nuclear attack over Tokyo during the firebombing. Of course, the Hibakusha are not always treated very kindly. Korean hibakusha severely so.
I have family from Japan as well. Good number of them moved over to the US. In their opinion, nuking Japan was the best thing that could have happened. It severely interrupted the insanity, which is the only description one could give the Imperial military. The details of said insanity are actively trying to be wiped from the history books in modern Japan. But in fairness, many educators have worked very hard to keep Imperial war crimes in the books and classrooms.
-
There's a world of difference between convincing some sap to blow himself up, and blowing yourself up. I tend to think politicians are politicians the world over: they want power and advantages for themselves and their families and are happy to exploit True Believers to get it, but are rarely TB themselves.
What happens when the politician, and possibly true believer, is nearing the end of their natural life and doesn't give a fig about anyone else surviving past them as long as they make a huge mark in the history books on their way out of this world? The current Grand Ayatollah of Iran is 73 and is reputedly in poor health.
-
What happens when the politician, and possibly true believer, is nearing the end of their natural life and doesn't give a fig about anyone else surviving past them as long as they make a huge mark in the history books on their way out of this world? The current Grand Ayatollah of Iran is 73 and is reputedly in poor health.
And Iran's general would obey this out of...?
-
And Iran's general would obey this out of...?
The General doesn't have to. Just one of the "True Believer" pawns under his control.
-
"But yes, nuclear weapons are overhyped. They are rather destructive. But Operation Meetinghouse, firebombing of Tokyo, was quite a bit more effective than nuclear weapons. If you gave me the choice, I'd take Hiroshima or Nagasaki during nuclear attack over Tokyo during the firebombing."
Why, yes, they are "rather destructive."
And the choice is not Hiroshima or Tokyo. Those were and remain, to most of us in the West, far-off, foreign places. Not New York, not Chicago, not Los Angeles, not Peoria. Not Rome, Paris, or London, or Vienna.
If you think the West can lose its historic capitols and not be spiritually maimed, perhaps terminally, I think you have played in technocrat land too long. This is not about damage assessment calculations and the weighing of gain versus loss, it's about whether survival will not only matter but make sense. That kind of thinking--we'll get by somehow--is dangerous.
I, for one, do not wish to live in a world that has lost the core of its history.
-
A nuclear bombs present utility is all in the threat and not the use.
If all you got is the one.
-
What happens when the politician, and possibly true believer, is nearing the end of their natural life and doesn't give a fig about anyone else surviving past them as long as they make a huge mark in the history books on their way out of this world? The current Grand Ayatollah of Iran is 73 and is reputedly in poor health.
What would've happened if Clinton got syphillis from one of the whores he was banging and decided to launch the nukes against Russia? What if we came up with wildass speculation to justify whatever our positions are?
-
If you think the West can lose its historic capitols and not be spiritually maimed, perhaps terminally, I think you have played in technocrat land too long. This is not about damage assessment calculations and the weighing of gain versus loss, it's about whether survival will not only matter but make sense. That kind of thinking--we'll get by somehow--is dangerous.
On 9/11, we lost 2,996 folks. We've probably killed well over a hundred thousand civilian Muslims in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and other places. Not always directly or intentionally, but dead is dead.
Perhaps I have been in technocrat land for too long. Nuke our capital? I suspect Americans would respond with "Burn them. Burn them all." rather than any sort of emo response. That'd eventually happen, but it'd take more than a few years. And 99.99% of the damage done to America since 9/11 has been through our own government.
Ayep. Faith in Americans is dangerous. Because the greatest boatlift, shaming even Dunkirk, that occurred on 9/11? It was done by primarily private citizens. No plan, no "orders", etc. One call, and EVERYONE hauled. Yep, yep. No way Americans could ever deal with bad things happening.
Again, I have my issues with Japan. But we did WORSE things than nuking them, in addition to nuking them, and they're fine now. Couple memorials, some folks with health issues, but the majority of them are absolutely fine folks and doing well enough. They rebuilt and mostly moved on. Folks are generally more adaptable when the chips are down than properly given credit. Once in a while, you have a Katrina response. Usually? Folks act like even BETTER people in a crisis than not.
-
I have only questions.
If Israel preemptively attacks Iran's nuclear facilities, is Iran bluffing about retaliating against U.S. regional interests based on the idea that Israel wouldn't attack without at least tacit approval from the U.S.? Russia and China have said that they will defend Iran against attack. Does that include preemptive attack against Iran's nuclear facilities? Where does the UN Security Council fit in?
If Iran is let alone and develops nuclear weapons, will they use them to annihilate Israel as Ahmadinejad has promised? What previous nuclear weapon state, including North Korea, has made unqualified statements about wiping another country off the map? If Iran develops and uses a nuke, Israel will have to nuke in retaliation. Can political negotiations prevent superpowers from getting involved when two nations, both having defence pacts with superpowers, get into a nuclear exchange?
-
Everyone's favorite Brit interviews Ahmadinejad:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4thIsiCYqMg
-
Everyone's favorite Brit interviews Ahmadinejad:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4thIsiCYqMg
Apologies if this has been posted before, but here is the UK's response to Morgan:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJtrRwOi2xo
the definition of "countryside"
=D =D =D
-
I know it's simplifying a bit, but if none of North Korea's leadership has been crazy enough to start a nuclear war I find it hard to imagine an Iranian leader doing it.
-
On 9/11, we lost 2,996 folks. We've probably killed well over a hundred thousand civilian Muslims in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and other places. Not always directly or intentionally, but dead is dead.
Perhaps I have been in technocrat land for too long. Nuke our capital? I suspect Americans would respond with "Burn them. Burn them all." rather than any sort of emo response. That'd eventually happen, but it'd take more than a few years. And 99.99% of the damage done to America since 9/11 has been through our own government.
Ayep. Faith in Americans is dangerous. Because the greatest boatlift, shaming even Dunkirk, that occurred on 9/11? It was done by primarily private citizens. No plan, no "orders", etc. One call, and EVERYONE hauled. Yep, yep. No way Americans could ever deal with bad things happening.
Again, I have my issues with Japan. But we did WORSE things than nuking them, in addition to nuking them, and they're fine now. Couple memorials, some folks with health issues, but the majority of them are absolutely fine folks and doing well enough. They rebuilt and mostly moved on. Folks are generally more adaptable when the chips are down than properly given credit. Once in a while, you have a Katrina response. Usually? Folks act like even BETTER people in a crisis than not.
What can I say? If you want a challenge I'm sure nuclear weapons will provide one.
-
Remember we are talking about people that routinely convince others (of their ilk) to strap explosives to themselves and then go blow themselves up in the largest crowd of Israelis they can find. Then pay off the families. There were 19 people that willingly flew aircraft into buildings. They join the American, Afghan (and previously, Iraqi) police and army to conduct suicide attacks on Americans.
And you seriously believe that once they have a working nuke, they are NOT going to use it on Israel? Really?!?!?!
:facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:
The biggest threat to Iran is clearly not Israel, but the US. The US can go in and accomplish regime change in Iran, if we felt inclined to. The US has been sending drones over Iran, giving their machines STUXNET, and funding/training MEK, which is interested in violently overthrowing the Iranian government. Sure, they deserve it, but there you are - clear evidence of hostile action.
Israel doesn't like Iran, but there's no way in hell they would nuke Iran, as it would just make everybody in the region clamor for their blood. They'll bomb nuke plants, but they aren't stupid enough to try to do regime change - they don't have what it takes to do so.
ETA: Iran's nukes are to deter the US, not to 'annihilate' Israel.
-
The biggest threat to Iran is clearly not Israel, but the US. The US can go in and accomplish regime change in Iran, if we felt inclined to. The US has been sending drones over Iran, giving their machines STUXNET, and funding/training MEK, which is interested in violently overthrowing the Iranian government. Sure, they deserve it, but there you are - clear evidence of hostile action.
Israel doesn't like Iran, but there's no way in hell they would nuke Iran, as it would just make everybody in the region clamor for their blood. They'll bomb nuke plants, but they aren't stupid enough to try to do regime change - they don't have what it takes to do so.
ETA: Iran's nukes are to deter the US, not to 'annihilate' Israel.
There is much sense in this post.
-
Apologies if this has been posted before, but here is the UK's response to Morgan:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJtrRwOi2xo
the definition of "countryside"
=D =D =D
The uploader has not made that video available in this country. =|
-
The biggest threat to Iran is clearly not Israel, but the US. The US can go in and accomplish regime change in Iran, if we felt inclined to. The US has been sending drones over Iran, giving their machines STUXNET, and funding/training MEK, which is interested in violently overthrowing the Iranian government. Sure, they deserve it, but there you are - clear evidence of hostile action.
Israel doesn't like Iran, but there's no way in hell they would nuke Iran, as it would just make everybody in the region clamor for their blood. They'll bomb nuke plants, but they aren't stupid enough to try to do regime change - they don't have what it takes to do so.
ETA: Iran's nukes are to deter the US, not to 'annihilate' Israel.
Really? They have missiles that can deliver a nuke to the U.S.A.? ?? ? ? [tinfoil]
-
Really? They have missiles that can deliver a nuke to the U.S.A.? ?? ? ? [tinfoil]
No, but they can hit our bases over there. They consider it the same thing.
jim
-
No, but they can hit our bases over there. They consider it the same thing.
jim
And we have nothing that could hit them back? Harder?
-
And we have nothing that could hit them back? Harder?
We could turn the place to glass, but at what cost? I don't think any US president would be willing to lose a thousand plus guys in one day if they had any choice in the matter - thus our lack of action re: North Korea. Recall the media furor over troop bodycount during Bush.
-
We could turn the place to glass, but at what cost? I don't think any US president would be willing to lose a thousand plus guys in one day if they had any choice in the matter - thus our lack of action re: North Korea. Recall the media furor over troop bodycount during Bush.
This and a thousand times this.
Imagine a US force invaded Iran, and Iran used a nuclear landmine on the landing forces.
Say it destroyed one of those Marine amphibious ships, and killed a thousand Marines.
For a sane commander anywhere up until, say, the 1970's, the losses of a thousand men, perhaps even ten thousand, to defeat and conquer a giant foreign country would have been acceptable (US losses in Korea were nearly 37,000 dead). Today? The loss of a major warship in an obscure place like Iran would ruin an American President.
-
This and a thousand times this.
Imagine a US force invaded Iran, and Iran used a nuclear landmine on the landing forces.
Say it destroyed one of those Marine amphibious ships, and killed a thousand Marines.
For a sane commander anywhere up until, say, the 1970's, the losses of a thousand men, perhaps even ten thousand, to defeat and conquer a giant foreign country would have been acceptable (US losses in Korea were nearly 37,000 dead). Today? The loss of a major warship in an obscure place like Iran would ruin an American President.
It is also interesting to contemplate what would be a proportional response to this act? Turning the whole country into glass is too much, yet we would want to make sure that a message is sent that if you frak with the bull, you get the horns.
-
We could turn the place to glass, but at what cost? I don't think any US president would be willing to lose a thousand plus guys in one day if they had any choice in the matter - thus our lack of action re: North Korea. Recall the media furor over troop bodycount during Bush.
This and a thousand times this.
Imagine a US force invaded Iran, and Iran used a nuclear landmine on the landing forces.
Say it destroyed one of those Marine amphibious ships, and killed a thousand Marines.
For a sane commander anywhere up until, say, the 1970's, the losses of a thousand men, perhaps even ten thousand, to defeat and conquer a giant foreign country would have been acceptable (US losses in Korea were nearly 37,000 dead). Today? The loss of a major warship in an obscure place like Iran would ruin an American President.
OK, then Iran wins by default .... I guess.
Time to pack it in and tuck in our tails and go 100% isolationist like the 1920s again...... [tinfoil]
-
Sounds good to me. I'm tired of the Army being asked to fight in wars we are not allowed to win.
The most recent insult is that the increase in Afghan on American murders on our bases has been blamed on "cultural sensitivity" issues, and further cultural sensitivity training has been ordered for everyone.
-
Sounds good to me. I'm tired of the Army being asked to fight in wars we are not allowed to win.
The most recent insult is that the increase in Afghan on American murders on our bases has been blamed on "cultural sensitivity" issues, and further cultural sensitivity training has been ordered for everyone.
I am surely beginning to really appreciate that sentiment after this past decade...... :'(
-
Sounds good to me. I'm tired of the Army being asked to fight in wars we are not allowed to win.
The most recent insult is that the increase in Afghan on American murders on our bases has been blamed on "cultural sensitivity" issues, and further cultural sensitivity training has been ordered for everyone.
I need both the facepalm and an exploding in rage smilie for this... I'll use the word "stupidity," though that is insufficient by far.
-
I need both the facepalm and an exploding in rage smilie for this... I'll use the word "stupidity," though that is insufficient by far.
Are you refering to not being allowed to win, or the reason why A'stani "allies" are shooting us?
-
Are you refering to not being allowed to win, or the reason why A'stani "allies" are shooting us?
Unfortunately, I've gotten used to our Army not being allowed to win. It seems SOP since Vietnam.
I should be agrier about that, but the PC cover-up of the real reason our troops are being killed is what I was referring to.
-
Yes :-)
-
OK, then Iran wins by default .... I guess.
Time to pack it in and tuck in our tails and go 100% isolationist like the 1920s again...... [tinfoil]
And this is exactly why Iran wants nuclear weapons.
(1920's America was isolationist? Wut? 1920's America was pursuing at least 3 simultaneous wars).
-
And this is exactly why Iran wants nuclear weapons.
(1920's America was isolationist? Wut? 1920's America was pursuing at least 3 simultaneous wars).
Perhaps I meant 1930s America....or both. One thing that frustrated FDR mightily after Hitler came to power was his conviction that the US ought to enter the war on England's side but couldn't because the overwhelming sentiment of the day was isolationist. We'd already fought and saved europe once and sent our doughboys over in a horrid war fought with tactics that would have embarrassed a Civil War General and saw them come back affected by mustard gas, and horribly maimed. IT scarred the national psyche pretty deep.
Churchill was driven crazy by FDR's reticence to help out....but December 7th, 1941 changed everything.
-
I think if Israel goes it alone with Iran, there is a high likelihood that the conflict will go nuclear. Hence the US has to get involved. But do we? Maybe a little lesson about nuclear power is needed again.
-
If Israel shows in a practical demonstration that its "non existent" nukes actually exist, how will other countries (the rest of the world, minus US) respond?
-
Those are more myth than not, btw. Yes, I am very familiar with atomic demo charges. They are equally the equivalent of a semi-truck loaded with modern explosives. More of a radiological hazard than nuclear weapon hazard. Plus nukes have a self-life. Any nuclear weapon made during the USSR days would need an overhaul by now. Still the risk of strapping normal explosives to it to make a radiological weapon, but you have the same risk from medical radiological sources.
Folks are able to live in Hiroshima and Nagasaki these days.
But yes, nuclear weapons are overhyped. They are rather destructive. But Operation Meetinghouse, firebombing of Tokyo, was quite a bit more effective than nuclear weapons. If you gave me the choice, I'd take Hiroshima or Nagasaki during nuclear attack over Tokyo during the firebombing. Of course, the Hibakusha are not always treated very kindly. Korean hibakusha severely so.
I have family from Japan as well. Good number of them moved over to the US. In their opinion, nuking Japan was the best thing that could have happened. It severely interrupted the insanity, which is the only description one could give the Imperial military. The details of said insanity are actively trying to be wiped from the history books in modern Japan. But in fairness, many educators have worked very hard to keep Imperial war crimes in the books and classrooms.
+1 on all these points.
Really small nukes, well, even the "regular ones" generally need Tritium fusion boosting to up the neutrons to more thoroughly fission the plutonium pit and whatnot. Half-life of only 12.something years.
There's other parts not part of the Pu pit that also have their own shorter radioactive half lives, or stuff like the ultra-fast Kytron switches nukes need for a high degree of simultaneity to get a symmetrical implosion of the pit, I think some have had Polonium or (Nickle-6x? something) or other radioactives in their electrodes to give them some pre-ionization of the surrounding gas to bridge the arc easier. Like how the old radioactive spark plugs that used to be sold did on their electrode tips.
Although depending on the bomb design, and how hot the pit-parts are, they might be using Spytons(?) or whatever it is a Kytron was called when it's got a hard vacuum inside so it can't accidentaly trigger from too much ionization.
-
It is hard to fight and win wars when there is no longer any generally accepted common good, trustworthy political establishment, or unified and informed and engaged political culture. Most Americans have been systematically and deliberately marginalized over the decades. The real war has been inside America, and our side is losing, bigtime.