Serious topic

AtmanRyu · Post by **AtmanRyu** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 7:16 am

How you people feel about this:

Bush won't exclude Iran nuke strike

RHJunior · Post by **RHJunior** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 8:45 am

Picture, if you will, a suicide bomber.
With a nuke strapped to his waist.

That's Iran if it gets the A-bomb.

When the crazy person starts waving the gun, you don't wait for them to become more reasonable. You shoot.

Sciguy · Post by **Sciguy** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 7:50 pm

Technicly, the smallest size for a Nuke would be the size of a Steamer Trunk. The So called Suit Case Nuke.

Still, Would you let someone like Saddam have a nuke?

I don't was to hear it's any nation's right or it's right to defence.

Would you let someone like Sadam Husane have and be able to use a nuke?

Squeaky Bunny · Post by **Squeaky Bunny** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 8:16 pm

Sciguy wrote:Technicly, the smallest size for a Nuke would be the size of a Steamer Trunk. The So called Suit Case Nuke.

Still, Would you let someone like Saddam have a nuke?

I don't was to hear it's any nation's right or it's right to defence.

Would you let someone like Sadam Husane have and be able to use a nuke?

What about the W54, aka Davy Crockett.

Atarlost · Post by **Atarlost** » Thu Apr 20, 2006 1:56 am

You must understand something about the leadership of Iran. The guardian council of Iran belong to a particularly dangerous branch of Islam. It's complicated, but their practical interpretation is basically that it is their religious duty to trigger a nuclear war with Israel. The current president of Iran is what you get when the guardian council blocks all non-fanatical candidates from running. The entire top level Iranian government is dangerously insane. And they have already declared they will wipe out Israel even knowing Israeli submarines will turn Iran into a glass parking lot in retaliation. Since their declared intent is to start a nuclear war anyhow, any cost short of a two way nuclear war is not only reasonable to stop them, it is morally necessary.

Detrius · Post by **Detrius** » Thu Apr 20, 2006 3:44 am

Atarlost wrote:You must understand something about the leadership of Iran. The guardian council of Iran belong to a particularly dangerous branch of Islam. It's complicated, but their practical interpretation is basically that it is their religious duty to trigger a nuclear war with Israel. The current president of Iran is what you get when the guardian council blocks all non-fanatical candidates from running. The entire top level Iranian government is dangerously insane. And they have already declared they will wipe out Israel even knowing Israeli submarines will turn Iran into a glass parking lot in retaliation. Since their declared intent is to start a nuclear war anyhow, any cost short of a two way nuclear war is not only reasonable to stop them, it is morally necessary.

Hmm... does this mean you think a military strike is inevitable? After all, following your train of thought means that the Iranians won't back down while the U.S. government can't back down.

btw: AtmanRyu, do you have any hobbies other than trying to push people's buttons in order to see how they react?

Sciguy · Post by **Sciguy** » Thu Apr 20, 2006 7:29 am

Let's see, Bad press, or nuclear hell...

Since Hillery and Kery are not in the office, I think we've got leadership who will go in when Iran goes out of line.

LoneWolf23k · Post by **LoneWolf23k** » Thu Apr 20, 2006 1:39 pm

My opinion on the topic is simple..

"You guys want Nukes? We Deliver within 15 minutes or it's free."

Calbeck · Post by **Calbeck** » Thu Apr 20, 2006 2:39 pm

Iran signed a treaty as a member nation of the UN that any nuclear research --- including peaceful-use --- would be monitored by the IAEA. It's the same treaty every other nuclear-developing nation, including the US, Russia, and China, are expected to abide by. Iran does not have a legal right to flip the IAEA the bird and still claim to be a party to the treaty.

Now, if Iran DOES choose to exit from the treaty, they would be within their rights to deny inspections. But as of right now, they don't, and Russia has made clear that it opposes EITHER of the UN's enforcement options: sanctions or military action.

Therefore, I stand for any legitimate means by which international law may be enforced. If Iran's illegal nuclear capabilities are protected by fortifications so heavy that they cannot be breached short of nuclear weaponry, I would say that the use of such weapons were mandated by Iran's fortification decision.

T.s.a.o · Post by **T.s.a.o** » Thu Apr 20, 2006 3:01 pm

Is the geography of Iran such that attacking the forts dosen't include genocide? Or are we saying genocide is the only option?

Sciguy · Post by **Sciguy** » Thu Apr 20, 2006 7:12 pm

Genocide isn't the issue.

But more to the point, Isn't Russa usualy sideing with the people in tht area of the world, who are up to no good? Hell, they were illegaly selling night vision goggles from what I heard. Plus Germany, France, And Russia were big players in the Oil for Food Scam.

Calbeck · Post by **Calbeck** » Fri Apr 21, 2006 1:27 am

t.s.a.o wrote:Is the geography of Iran such that attacking the forts dosen't include genocide? Or are we saying genocide is the only option?

What genocide? We're not talking about attacking population centers.

Tbolt · Post by **Tbolt** » Fri Apr 21, 2006 2:11 am

Regarding keeping the nuclear option open: Just because we have a nuclear "solution" doesn't mean that we will actually use it. We have had a nuclear solution for nearly any part of the globe from Cuba to Argentina, and from France to China.

Once we got the bombs we have had people thinking out imaginative ways to use them. We also have a lot of people that know what will happen to the US should we ever use another nuclear device, and weigh those consequences against any benefit we might obtain from exercising that option.

If I own a gun in my house, I have a plan to use it against anyone who intrudes, but it doesn't mean that I will shoot the in-laws on sight.

Also, did anyone notice, the nuclear material that Iran made was produced in a city that was a major islamic holy site? Any strike against that facility, conventional or otherwise will undoubtedly bring about the cries of Al-Jazeera (sp.!) and another condemnation of the west as a whole by the muslim world.

When you snipe from a church's window, it is no longer a sanctuary, but a target. But a hostile islamic press will not see things that way. (I'm referring to what folks in the middle east will be fed if things come to that, not necessarily what we will see here in America.)

LoneWolf23k · Post by **LoneWolf23k** » Fri Apr 21, 2006 4:10 pm

Tbolt wrote:Also, did anyone notice, the nuclear material that Iran made was produced in a city that was a major islamic holy site? Any strike against that facility, conventional or otherwise will undoubtedly bring about the cries of Al-Jazeera (sp.!) and another condemnation of the west as a whole by the muslim world.

When you snipe from a church's window, it is no longer a sanctuary, but a target. But a hostile islamic press will not see things that way. (I'm referring to what folks in the middle east will be fed if things come to that, not necessarily what we will see here in America.)

At this point, I'm hoping something goes wrong and the Irani government ends up accidentally polluting that site with nuclear waste..

...'cause then they'll have the whole Islamic world turning on them for daring to pollute that holy site..

Jachra · Post by **Jachra** » Fri Apr 21, 2006 5:23 pm

The worst part about it is that you can't be sure they'll adhere to the self-preservationist attitude of the Soviet Union.

The USSR would never drop nukes because they cared far too much for their own skins...
Yet when you believe that you're doing the morally correct thing, that in the event of your death you've assured heaven for yourself and your family, what then? We've already seen the answer.
So far, the world's managed to keep it from happening because it's in the hands of governments with mortal concerns ... and here we have a government that takes the long view.

I suggest you pray Ahmadinejahad (I think I spelled that right) and his cleric backers are afraid of death, if this all goes to pot.

RHJunior · Post by **RHJunior** » Fri Apr 21, 2006 7:05 pm

oh they'll preserve themselves. They're just perfectly willing to sacrifice thousands or millions of their countrymen for that goal.

Jachra · Post by **Jachra** » Fri Apr 21, 2006 7:31 pm

Problem: Retaliation will come down on their heads.

They know this, they wouldn't have their power and influence otherwise.

So if they DO want to preserve themselves and, perhaps more importantly to them, their power ... Saddam Hussein sure wasn't going to die for his country, but in order to hide he had to crawl into a hole that didn't even hold him that long.

No, I think, in the end, they'll do their best to keep nuclear arms out of the hands of their fanatical followers. Their livelihoods depend on it.

StrangeWulf13 · Post by **StrangeWulf13** » Fri Apr 21, 2006 10:51 pm

Tbolt wrote:<snip> We have had a nuclear solution for nearly any part of the globe from Cuba to Argentina... <snip>

"Don't cry for me Argenti--"

*BOOM*

Sorry, couldn't resist.

IronFox · Post by **IronFox** » Sat Apr 22, 2006 12:56 am

Jachra wrote: ... Saddam Hussein sure wasn't going to die for his country, but in order to hide he had to crawl into a hole that didn't even hold him that long.

Speaking of which, you know what we shoulda done when we found Saddam's Hidey Hole? Instead of dragging him out, we should've erected a Porta-Potty over it and served Taco Bell to the entire 82nd Airborne.

StrangeWulf13 · Post by **StrangeWulf13** » Sat Apr 22, 2006 6:58 pm

IronFox, does Doc know you stole his joke?

Not like he had it copyrighted or anything, but credit to him would be nice.

Besides, you left out the best part:

Roger: Y'know, there's "evil" and then there's "Evil".
Doc: I'm just saying...