Iran calls to destroy Israel, solves the "who's gonna hit Iran's nukes" question.

[Darat]

And what are the consequences of NOT acting? When will the right time be?

Today I'd say the consequences are pretty much zero. And I don't think there is ever a right time for such actions, just the time you've got to take such actions.

Personally I'd work on securing the Iraq-Iran border, strengthen the Iraq defence forces, especially the Kurds, and install some nuclear weapons along the border by invitation of the Iraqi government. Then as I said make sure it is clear that there will no hesitation to use them to ensure the destruction of Iran if Iran ever attempts to use nuclear weapons.


(But of course the above is all too simplistic - but hey it's good to pretend you're a superpower sometimes and that human lives mean nothing.)

 

[Hutch]

A bunch of Tomahawk cruise missles launched at all of Iran's nuclear facilities can fix (or rather, eliminate) this threat in a matter of minutes. They've just earned that action. No troops needed. Just destroy all of their nuclear facilities. We've got the equipment to do it. There is NOTHING anyone can do to stop it. So lets get it done.

You are not a stupid man, Freakshow, but that was one of the less congent comments you have made.

How do we guarantee that we hit the right sites? Or even know where the right sites are (after all, we really knew where those WMD sites were now, didn't we?) Or if they are deeply buried, where only nukes can assure destuction, do we use them? And what if buried deeply beneath downtown Tehran? Nuke Millions? On a possible--repeat possible--threat that we cannot be sure we would eliminate

Think man, think! What you are describing is an Act of War in any time in history you care to define. Do you really want us to go there? Can you really predict what an Iranian government would do if attacked like that? One thing I would predict is all the youth of Iran that are leaning towards the West/democracy would 'rally round the flag' and turn against us.

Not well thought out at all. Please take your medication to control the knee-jerk reaction and continue posting interesting thoughts as previous.

This has been a public service announcement......

 

[Freakshow]

You are not a stupid man, Freakshow, but that was one of the less congent comments you have made.

How do we guarantee that we hit the right sites? Or even know where the right sites are (after all, we really knew where those WMD sites were now, didn't we?) Or if they are deeply buried, where only nukes can assure destuction, do we use them? And what if buried deeply beneath downtown Tehran? Nuke Millions? On a possible--repeat possible--threat that we cannot be sure we would eliminate

Think man, think! What you are describing is an Act of War in any time in history you care to define. Do you really want us to go there? Can you really predict what an Iranian government would do if attacked like that? One thing I would predict is all the youth of Iran that are leaning towards the West/democracy would 'rally round the flag' and turn against us.

Not well thought out at all. Please take your medication to control the knee-jerk reaction and continue posting interesting thoughts as previous.

This has been a public service announcement......

I am thinking along the lines of what Israel did to Iraq some time ago. If we are that unclear as to the status and location of their facilities, then that is a problem, yes. But it is my understanding that their nuclear program is in the very early stages, and that they are not already at the point where they have numerous hidden facilities and prepared weapons scattered around their country. If I'm wrong about that, then that's not the first time I've been wrong about something in my life.

And thanks for the reminder about taking my medication. I've got to go do that now, before I head off to work.

 

[Freakshow]

One last thing before I take off for the day...this is part of a much larger problem: what do we do about more and more countries now getting nuclear capabilities? Honestly, I was never too worried about the Soviets during the cold war. I was young then, but my parents used to talk to me then about how the Soviet leaders were not crazy, and were not stupid, and that neither them nor the US was going to launch a first nuclear strike.

But when fanatical Islamic countries start getting nukes...

 

[Mycroft]

This is really frightening, but...I have agreed with almost every word Mark has said on this thread.

Shhhhhhh! We're grooming Mark to become a neo-con, but we havn't told him yet. His progress is comming along nicely.

 

[a_unique_person]

Well, the UN has condemned the remarks. We can all sleep easier.

I think the point, Darat, is that those non-governmental world bodies that are quick to bitch about Isreal (and take action...the International Red Cross comes to mind) are silent.

Whoa, what has the Red Cross got to do with this?

 

[Mycroft]

Er... right. Yesterday and today I've read a whole lot of people condemning this from around the world , from calls for them to be thrown out of the UN, statements that this is not acceptable and so on from Prime Ministers and Presidents.

...but the "human rights watchers" in this forum and elsewhere seem to care... not at all.

I think it's fair to note the "human rights watchers" in this forum have been strangely silent or even defensive of Iran. One of them even ridiculed me on this issue dismissing these statements of the President of Iran as being merely "stupid."

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1243570#post1243570

As for the human rights watchers elsewhere, I think it's worth noting who they are. In the UN the strongest condemnations have come from the governments of the UK and Australia who are already supportive of Israel. Russia tried to downplay these statements, and the Arab nations have been mostly silent.

 

[zenith-nadir]

Whoa, what has the Red Cross got to do with this?

Here's the background a_u_p.

From: http://www.magendavidadom.org/redcross.asp

"Ever since its establishment, Israel has used the Magen David Adom (Red Shield of David) as the distinctive emblem of the medical services of its armed forces, while respecting the inviolability of the distinctive signs and emblems of the 1949 Geneva Conventions.

Meanwhile, as a result of the fact that Israel uses the Red Shield of David as its symbol, the Magen David Adom Society is excluded from the International Red Cross.

Such exclusion is compatible neither with the aims of universality and non-discrimination which are the hallmarks of the International Red Cross, nor with the objective of strengthening the role of the national societies."

From: https://www.redcross.org/mda/factsheet/

"Magen David Adom (MDA), the Israeli equivalent of the Red Cross has been denied full voting membership in the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement (Movement) because it uses the Red Shield or Star of David which isn't specifically referenced in the Geneva Conventions. Because of this, MDA remains a National Society pending recognition and admission to the Movement.

The American Red Cross has considered the admission of MDA, to the Movement a policy priority for 50 years. Since May of 2000, in protest of non-admission of MDA to the Movement, the American Red Cross has withheld six years of dues payments to the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies totaling approximately $34 million."

So for 50 years Magen David Adom - the Israeli equivalent of the Red Cross - has been excluded from the International Red Cross because MDA uses this emblem:

Instead of using these emblems:

Meanwhile in Iran today:

Gosh, seeing all those kids with guns pointed at the burning Israeli flag warms the cockles of my heart. (image courtesy of the BBC) The story reads:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4384264.stm

Iran's president has defended his widely criticised call for Israel to be "wiped off the map".

Attending an anti-Israel rally in Tehran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said his remarks were "just" - and the criticism did not "have any validity".

Shouting "Death to Israel, death to the Zionists", the protesters dragged Israeli flags along the ground and then set them on fire.

 

[Orwell]

Seems to me that it's business as usual in Teheran... It's not the first time some high placed Iranian official called for the destruction of Israel, and it probably won't be the last time. As someone pointed out, Israel is their favourite bogeyman, just like islamic extremists are everyone's favourite bogeymen these days...

And if they ever get their hands on nukes... I doubt they will use them in some stupid suicidal attack. Why would they want to waste hard to come by weapons of mass destruction in an attack that could bring them immediate annihilation? Nukes are a lot more useful unused: countries who have them are virtually insured against invasion.

By the way, Israel is thought to have about 200 nukes, Pakistan has them, India has them... There's a lot of people in the immediate vicinity of Iran who have them, plus, of course, the US and a few other western countries. No wonder they want them.

 

[Mark]

Seems to me that it's business as usual in Teheran... It's not the first time some high placed Iranian official called for the destruction of Israel, and it probably won't be the last time. As someone pointed out, Israel is their favourite bogeyman, just like islamic extremists are everyone's favourite bogeymen these days...

And if they ever get their hands on nukes... I doubt they will use them in some stupid suicidal attack. Why would they want to waste hard to come by weapons of mass destruction in an attack that could bring them immediate annihilation? Nukes are a lot more useful unused: countries who have them are virtually insured against invasion.

By the way, Israel is thought to have about 200 nukes, Pakistan has them, India has them... There's a lot of people in the immediate vicinity of Iran who have them, plus, of course, the US and a few other western countries. No wonder they want them.

That is the standard tactic of despots: give the people a target acceptable to hate and they won't notice how badly you are screwing them.

If someone wants to draw a parallel between that and Bush's Iraq war, who am I to argue?

 

[Freakshow]

By the way, Israel is thought to have about 200 nukes, Pakistan has them, India has them... There's a lot of people in the immediate vicinity of Iran who have them, plus, of course, the US and a few other western countries. No wonder they want them.

Do you make no judgement whatsoever between who should and shouldn't have certain capabilities?

 

[Orwell]

Do you make no judgement whatsoever between who should and shouldn't have certain capabilities?

To tell you the truth, no I don't. Pray tell, what criteria should we use to decide such things? Can you give me something that isn't either self serving or filled with hypocrisy? How do you avoid blatant double standards?

 

[Mark]

This is really frightening, but...I have agreed with almost every word Mark has said on this thread.

"Resistance is futile; you will be assimilated."

 

[Freakshow]

To tell you the truth, no I don't. Pray tell, what criteria should we use to decide such things? Can you give me something that isn't either self serving or filled with hypocrisy? How do you avoid blatant double standards?

Really? So either everyone in a society should be allowed to drive cars, or no one should? Either everyone should be allowed to vote, or no one should? Either everyone should be in jail, or no one should? Either everyone should be allowed to drink alcohol, or no one should?

And as for nations...either everyone should have nukes, or no one should?

See the problem? By our own actions, we each earn or lose different things in life.

Self serving? You bet! That doesn't always mean at the expense of everybody else, though. It is self-serving for me to make choices at work that improve my income. It doesn't hurt the rest of society, though. It helps it, actually (I will have more money to spend and invest.) Its the same thing here. Everyone in the world (except for a small number of people in Iran) is better off if Iran does not have nukes. Do you disagree?

 

[Seismosaurus]

Just because there are people who use suicide bombs doesn't mean they will do the same thing with nukes.

From the suicide bomber point of view he's willing to die for the cause, yes. But there's a whole network of people behind him who aren't willing to die for the cause. With conventional arms this isn't a problem because all the death and destruction happens far away while they're safe and sound. But escalate to nukes and everybody is in danger. The moneymen and mullahs are not about to cause a situation in which they are in personal danger.

The only threat is that somebody might slip a nuke in and detonate it in New York on the grounds that America won't konw who to retaliate against. Ironically, the war in Iraq probably helps in this respect because the idea is out there that America will just retaliate against whoever it doesn't like, regardless of whether they actually had anything to do with the attack or not.

You really want to insure against that scenario, you draw up a list of the 1,000 largest muslim holy sites, industrial and political centres and announce that should any nuclear weapon be used inside the United States, by anybody, every one of those targets will be hit with a nuclear weapon immediately thereafter. No warnings, no debate, no concern as to who is actually to blame.

The only question would be whether that's something we are willing to do.

 

[Mark]

Just because there are people who use suicide bombs doesn't mean they will do the same thing with nukes.

Doesn't mean they won't, either.

You really want to insure against that scenario, you draw up a list of the 1,000 largest muslim holy sites, industrial and political centres and announce that should any nuclear weapon be used inside the United States, by anybody, every one of those targets will be hit with a nuclear weapon immediately thereafter. No warnings, no debate, no concern as to who is actually to blame.

The only question would be whether that's something we are willing to do.

I strongly suspect that the reaction to a threat like that would be to unite the Muslim world in a genuine jihad against us. Remember, they really do think God wants them to do these things...so I have no doubt they would assume God would protect them against the infidels.

Pretty much the way Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell think, too.

 

[Freakshow]

Doesn't mean they won't, either.



I strongly suspect that the reaction to a threat like that would be to unite the Muslim world in a genuine jihad against us. Remember, they really do think God wants them to do these things...so I have no doubt they would assume God would protect them against the infidels.

Pretty much the way Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell think, too.

STOP IT!!! RIGHT NOW!!! I keep agreeing with you, and that just isn't acceptable.

Can't you go off on some sort of tangent like saying that if we were just so much nicer to everyone, they wouldn't WANT to use their nukes against us, and everything would be fine, and we could all sit around a fire and toast marshmallows and sing songs together? It'd be much easier to plow into you then.

 

[Mark]

STOP IT!!! RIGHT NOW!!! I keep agreeing with you, and that just isn't acceptable.

Can't you go off on some sort of tangent like saying that if we were just so much nicer to everyone, they wouldn't WANT to use their nukes against us, and everything would be fine, and we could all sit around a fire and toast marshmallows and sing songs together? It'd be much easier to plow into you then.

Um...I ate a falafel a couple of weeks ago. Does that count?

Truth is, when people are convinced "God" is speaking to them, they can justify pretty much anything they want. Which is why you don't see as much of that from Buddhists and Taoists...for them, approval comes from within. Much harder to bull***t oneself that way.

 

[Seismosaurus]

I strongly suspect that the reaction to a threat like that would be to unite the Muslim world in a genuine jihad against us.

I doubt it. But if we really do get right down to it, we'd win that war.

Remember, they really do think God wants them to do these things...so I have no doubt they would assume God would protect them against the infidels.

Pretty much the way Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell think, too.

You keep saying "they" believe this as if every muslim in the world has this identical monumental belief system that will send them out suicide bombing if the mullahs tell them to. You know that's not even remotely the case, right? Just as not every Christian hangs on the word of Robertson or Falwell.

Personally, I tend to think that the very last place you are going to find religious nutcases is actually in charge of things. Sure they might talk the talk, just as Bush does on the christian side, and they might send others out to do their killing for them, just as Bush also does.

But they are no more going to endanger their own lives than Bush ever has, and they are no more going to start tossing nukes around than Bush is going to abolish the constitution and declare a theocracy.

And frankly, you had better hope that deterrence will work, because it is the only possible answer in the long run. Suppose we do keep Iran from getting nukes this time - how long do you think that can go on? Technology marches on, it's only going to get easier and easier to build the damn things. A hundred years from now there probably won't be a nation on Earth that can't do it. Non-proliferation has worked surprisingly well, but it's ultimately doomed.

 

[a_unique_person]

People have been saying for years that Iran needed a break from the USA back when it had more moderates in power. It would have given a legitimacy to a realtionship with the rest of the world, and the numerous benefits that would have brought.

instead the US pursued a policy of isolation against Iran, and now we are where we are in many situations where rigidity and lack of compromise bring us, painted into a corner with no easy way out. The extremists control Iran, and people are talking about nuking them because of aggressive statements about Israel. What a goddam disaster all around.

Othere countries when they lost a wrong fight have had to face up to their errors, and have gone on and prospered. The US conservatives never got over the revolution in Iran, and the bloody nose it gave them.