War with Iran is Inevitable

Virus said:
Japan started it. Why do you ignore context?
Click to expand...
Because anybody can say "they started it". Both Israel and Iran could make a case for this. Many countries have "started" wars. Choosing to retaliate with nukes is a decision that only one country in history has made. Who should be judged more "unstable"?
 
Travis said:
It should be noted I don't advocate for a war with Iran. At least not unless they actually do attack us or Israel.
Click to expand...
Where have you been the past 30 years?

Does one really need a formal declaration of war from Iran to actually indicate what has already been happening the past 30 years? Predominantly against Israel, but against US personnel as well, from Lebanon to Iraq, and this past year, on US soil against a Saudi diplomat to the US.
 
Last edited:
Virus said:
Japan started it. Why do you ignore context?
Click to expand...
I don't think the use of nukes by the US against Japan was a case of 'they started it'.

The US crossed the non-conventional threshold against Japan to prevent catastrophic losses on the Allies side were they to invade mainland Japan.

Japan, however, already crossed the non-conventional threshold by attacking mainland China and Manchuria with biological and chemical agents, like anthrax, bubonic plague, cholera, phosgene, chlorine, and mustard gas over a decade before the atom bombs were dropped and throughout the war. This included against Allied POW's as guinea pigs as well as on the field.

A more proper argument would be that Japan had crossed the non-conventional threshold long before the Allies (namely the US) did.

As for the overall argument about whether Iran would or would not use a nuclear-tipped ballistic missile, dirty bomb, or a nuclear bomb shipped to a US harbor, is moot.

The question here is, what would be the repercussions be if an Iranian backed (or directed) terrorist group, like Islamic Jihad or Hezbollah, would get their hands on nuclear material for either a crude or dirty bomb and detonate it against Israel, Gulf or US state? Would we hold Iran directly responsible, or would we not, judging by a few responders here, that Iran apparently hasn't attacked Israel or the US at all conventionally already?
 
Last edited:
Tricky said:
Because anybody can say "they started it". Both Israel and Iran could make a case for this. Many countries have "started" wars. Choosing to retaliate with nukes is a decision that only one country in history has made. Who should be judged more "unstable"?
Click to expand...

If you think the Islamic theocracy is more stable than the US government then just come out and say it.
 
Last edited:
Border Reiver said:
Yes, but the F-15 is primarily an air-superiority fighter and is not designed to carry bombs,
Click to expand...
Not quite.

Look up F-15E and conformal fuel tank, which caused a stir when US considered selling them to the Saudis a while back.
Sale has since gone through.

Israelis have that capability.

If you believe what is on Wikipedia ...

Israeli Air Force operates 25 F-15I "Ra'am" aircraft as of January 2011
Republic of Korea Air Force has 45 F-15Ks in use in January 2011.[106]
Royal Saudi Air Force has 69 F-15S Eagles in service as of January 2011. Singapore
Republic of Singapore Air Force (RSAF) has 15 F-15SGs in use in January 2011.
 
ANTPogo said:
So, if someone else attacks you first, you can use nukes on them?

I'm sure the Iranians will be happy to know that.
Click to expand...
They should also realize that they may be on the receiving end ... which may not make them quite as happy.
 
Border Reiver said:
These were the same folks that said the same thing about North Korea, Pakistan, South Africa....
Click to expand...

How long do you hope to keep getting lucky? It's anthropic. We wouldn't be here today, arguing about whether terrorist religious fanatics should have nukes, unless we had been very, very lucky in the past.

Unfortunately, past good luck does not imply future good luck.

Every day the bucket goes to the well. One day the bottom will drop out.
 
Last edited:
Tricky said:
Because anybody can say "they started it". Both Israel and Iran could make a case for this. Many countries have "started" wars. Choosing to retaliate with nukes is a decision that only one country in history has made. Who should be judged more "unstable"?
Click to expand...

Meet your new boss. More unstable than your old boss.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/22/w...nuclear-sites.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&src=ig

"Without mentioning Israel directly, Mohammad Hejazi, the deputy armed forces head, said Tuesday, “Our strategy now is that if we feel our enemies want to endanger Iran’s national interests, and want to decide to do that, we will act without waiting for their actions.”"
 
Border Reiver said:
These were the same folks that said the same thing about North Korea, Pakistan, South Africa....
Click to expand...

Changing the subject does not alter the fact that your previous argument rested on the bland assumption that Iran will go nuclear - an assumption powerful players are saying they will not tolerate.
 
That isn't changing the subject, it is referring to previous assertions that because the US and other nations have said that "Iran will not be allowed to go nuclear" doesn't mean that that will be case, as those same powers have said the same thing in the past and have not followed through.

The assumption that Iran will go nuclear is based on several factors:

a. They have the infrastructure;
b. They have scientists and engineers capable of doing the design work;
c. The technology to craft a bomb is not that high and can be located with minimal effort online; and
d. If any of the Iranian scientists have been working on such a project they have been doing so as part of a team, not in isolation, and with the notes, computer files, etc. the previous work can be re-created if one or more are killed, or infrastructure damaged.

Really, the only way to realistically prevent a nation from developing nuclear weapons is to prevent them from obtaining the base technology in the first place, once they have it you end up relying on goodwill and diplomacy more than military options.
 
Border Reiver said:
That isn't changing the subject, it is referring to previous assertions that because the US and other nations have said that "Iran will not be allowed to go nuclear" doesn't mean that that will be case, as those same powers have said the same thing in the past and have not followed through.
Click to expand...

Have they said that before? Do you have cites? I'm not aware of the same countries ever saying countries would not be allowed to have nukes.

Were the Soviet Union, China, India, Pakistan, or North Korea put under sanctions for seeking nuclear weaponry?

Border Reiver said:
Really, the only way to realistically prevent a nation from developing nuclear weapons is to prevent them from obtaining the base technology in the first place, once they have it you end up relying on goodwill and diplomacy more than military options.
Click to expand...

That's not the only way. Keeping Iran under increasingly tough sanctions and interfering with their nuclear program to the extent possible until the regime falls would be another way.

Hardly a farfetched notion, given that the mighty, nuclear Soviet Union was brought to collapse by containment, isolation, and economic pressure.
 
MaGZ said:
Unlikely, Germany gave Israel their submarine fleet so she could launch her nuclear weapons.
Click to expand...

The subs were commissioned by Israel. I don´t know what kind of silly claim you are trying to make. Portugal also bought subs from Germany, does that means Germany gave their sub fleet to us?
 
Darth Rotor said:
Not quite.

Look up F-15E and conformal fuel tank, which caused a stir when US considered selling them to the Saudis a while back.
Sale has since gone through.

Israelis have that capability.

If you believe what is on Wikipedia ...

Israeli Air Force operates 25 F-15I "Ra'am" aircraft as of January 2011
Republic of Korea Air Force has 45 F-15Ks in use in January 2011.[106]
Royal Saudi Air Force has 69 F-15S Eagles in service as of January 2011. Singapore
Republic of Singapore Air Force (RSAF) has 15 F-15SGs in use in January 2011.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you're aware of this DR but I would like to add a caveat:

Typically, the international sale of advanced weapons systems include disabling some of the more advanced features that could be easily reversed engineered. I know this for a fact in the case of the F-15K and the M-1 Abrams sold to Iraq.

Make no mistake, there's already secret squirrel type ops against Iran (and a couple dozens other nations) underway and have been for years.
 
Toontown said:
Were the Soviet Union, China, India, Pakistan, or North Korea put under sanctions for seeking nuclear weaponry?
Click to expand...

Yes, actually. North Korea, India, and Pakistan have all been subjected to economic sanctions (which have since been lifted in India and Pakistan's case) by the US and other countries as a result of first their pursuit and then their acquisition of nuclear weapons.
 
ANTPogo said:
Yes, actually. North Korea, India, and Pakistan have all been subjected to economic sanctions (which have since been lifted in India and Pakistan's case) by the US and other countries as a result of first their pursuit and then their acquisition of nuclear weapons.
Click to expand...

Thank you. And did the sanctioners (henceforth referred to as "the big dogs" vow that these countries would not be allowed to go nuclear?

Can you think of a country that tried to go nuclear and wasn't allowed to go nuclear? I can. Do you recall what the big dogs said about that country's nuclear ambitions?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom