more from iran

[Balog]

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.

[longeyes]

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.

[Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas]

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?!?!?!


 

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.

[Blakenzy]

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.

[Scout26]

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"

 

The uploader has not made that video available in this country. 

[TommyGunn]

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.? ?? ? ?

[Jim147]

Really?  They have missiles that can deliver a nuke to the U.S.A.? ?? ? ?

No, but they can hit our bases over there. They consider it the same thing.

jim

[TommyGunn]

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?

[Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas]

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.

[MicroBalrog]

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.

[MillCreek]

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.

[TommyGunn]

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......

[Fitz]

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.

[TommyGunn]

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......

[makattak]

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.

[TommyGunn]

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?

[makattak]

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.

[Fitz]

Yes :-)

[MicroBalrog]

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......

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).

[TommyGunn]

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.

[slingshot]

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.

[Blakenzy]

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?

[AJ Dual]

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.

[longeyes]

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.