• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

World War Three Coming Soon?

JihadJane said:
2003: 70% US Americans believed Saddam Hussein and 9-11 were connected.

2010: 70% US Americans believe Iran has nuclear weapons.
Click to expand...

It's really funny what Americans* believe. Most of it isn't exactly true though.

Just because alot of people believe something is true does not make it so. Especially when most of those people barely have a highschool education and get thier information and from a magic window that sells them Zicam, Enzyte, a Christian America and Glen Beck.



*(BTW I am a born and bred Texan)
 
KingMerv00 said:
According to this Iran can't hit America even with its very best missiles. Most of Europe falls within their medium range missiles. Naturally, that webstie doesn't apply to a nuke sailed into New York harbor so take it for what it's worth.
Click to expand...

Hence why Europe is more concerned about it than the US. IIRC, the US has been leaning on Europe to push the diplomacy about it. "It's even more in your interest, and you love diplomacy, so put up or shut up."
 
Last edited:
Beerina said:
Hence why Europe is more concerned about it than the US. IIRC, the US has been leaning on Europe to push the diplomacy about it. "It's even more in your interest, and you love diplomacy, so put up or shut up."
Click to expand...


And this further illustrates, perhaps, my earlier point. Refusing to be dicks to your next door neighbor is often a sign that you understand that sometimes the best prevention is not to provoke the attack in the first place. Over here in "nobody can touch us" land, I think too many people fail to understand that. If you see nuclear capability as essentially inevitable over at the Jones' house, it might be prudent to stop throwing rocks.
 
Cynic said:
And this further illustrates, perhaps, my earlier point. Refusing to be dicks to your next door neighbor is often a sign that you understand that sometimes the best prevention is not to provoke the attack in the first place. Over here in "nobody can touch us" land, I think too many people fail to understand that. If you see nuclear capability as essentially inevitable over at the Jones' house, it might be prudent to stop throwing rocks.
Click to expand...
Since when has having nuclear arms prevented attacks?

India and Pakistan still have periodic clashes, NK and the RoK have periodic clashes even after NK got a nuke, the US is in 2 wars right now and none of the enemies seem to be concerned that we'll nuke them. Nukes don't stop Hamas from attacking Israel. Nukes didn't help Russia's wars in Chechnya.
 
Last edited:
WildCat said:
Since when has having nuclear arms prevented attacks?

India and Pakistan still have periodic clashes, NK and the RoK have periodic clashes even after NK got a nuke, the US is in 2 wars right now and none of the enemies seem to be concerned that we'll nuke them. Nukes don't stop Hamas from attacking Israel. Nukes didn't help Russia's wars in Chechnya.
Click to expand...


And yet no one has attempted an occupation of a nuclear nation. If Iraq had nuclear capability, do you suspect we'd have invaded? Nuclear weapons give little nations a really, really big stick to wave. Any nation that finds itself consistently plagued by larger ones telling them what to do would be foolish not to pursue them.
 
Cynic said:
And yet no one has attempted an occupation of a nuclear nation. If Iraq had nuclear capability, do you suspect we'd have invaded? Nuclear weapons give little nations a really, really big stick to wave. Any nation that finds itself consistently plagued by larger ones telling them what to do would be foolish not to pursue them.
Click to expand...

You seem to have a real fondness for Iran and it's Theocratic government.
 
Cynic said:
And yet no one has attempted an occupation of a nuclear nation. If Iraq had nuclear capability, do you suspect we'd have invaded? Nuclear weapons give little nations a really, really big stick to wave. Any nation that finds itself consistently plagued by larger ones telling them what to do would be foolish not to pursue them.
Click to expand...
IOW it wouldn't help Iran at all, and in fact other countries will screw with them more if they do get nukes.

It's tough being a theocratic terror state, nobody likes you except the weirdos like Hugo and Vlad.
 
WildCat said:
IOW it wouldn't help Iran at all, and in fact other countries will screw with them more if they do get nukes.
Click to expand...


And who do we call stupid if an invasion results in nuclear devastation, the people incapable of winning without them or the invaders?
 
WildCat said:
IOW it wouldn't help Iran at all, and in fact other countries will screw with them more if they do get nukes.

It's tough being a theocratic terror state, nobody likes you except the weirdos like Hugo and Vlad.
Click to expand...

Putin? Somehow I can't see a nuclear iran being high on his christmas list. The fact is that haveing the ability to a lot of damage to anyone likely to invade you is a useful security guarantee. It has prevented significant south korean millitry action against north korea for example.

So if you are iran where everyone dislikes you anyway having nuclear weapons is a valid approach to international relations.
 
geni said:
Putin? Somehow I can't see a nuclear iran being high on his christmas list.
Click to expand...
Who delivered the fuel to Iran again? Who built the reactors? Who just sold them SAMs?

The fact is that haveing the ability to a lot of damage to anyone likely to invade you is a useful security guarantee. It has prevented significant south korean millitry action against north korea for example.
Click to expand...
It did? Then what "prevented" it in the half century of the truce where NK didn't have a nuke?

So if you are iran where everyone dislikes you anyway having nuclear weapons is a valid approach to international relations.
Click to expand...
Poor poor Iran, everybody hates them for no reason at all...
 
Last edited:
WildCat said:
Since when has having nuclear arms prevented attacks?

India and Pakistan still have periodic clashes,
Click to expand...

No one any scale. Last clash of any significance was the Kargil War and even that looked carefuly selected to have geography that made it hard for it to spread.

NK and the RoK have periodic clashes even after NK got a nuke,
Click to expand...

Again tend to be isolated stuff at sea that doesn't have any obvious escalation route.

the US is in 2 wars right now and none of the enemies seem to be concerned that we'll nuke them.
Click to expand...

Nuke what?

Nukes don't stop Hamas from attacking Israel.
Click to expand...

Not really an issue for Iran. While it's posible that we could stir up trouble amoung their kurdish population I doubt they would have much trouble dealing with is through more conventional methods.

Nukes didn't help Russia's wars in Chechnya.
Click to expand...

Thats because Russia wanted to take and hold the place. Well that and fuel air weapons have largely taken the place of tactical nuclear weapons.
 
WildCat said:
Who delivered the fuel to Iran again? Who built the reactors? Who just sold them SAMs?
Click to expand...

Someone who wants money and to annoy the US. That doesn't mean that they want a nuclear equiped Iran. Iran's program could be going a lot faster if russia wanted it to.

It did? Then what "prevented" it in the half century of the truce where NK didn't have a nuke?
Click to expand...

The ability to flatturn seoul in uder an hour with conventional artillery.

Poor poor Iran, everybody hates them for no reason at all...
Click to expand...

No reason? They are shia and persian. Thats reason enough for everyone else in that part of the world.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom