[122025278]

If it became conclusive that Iran was on the cusp of developing a nuclear weapon, say they have a prototype ready to rest and they announced it to the world as such as they thought no one would do anything about it since they haven't so far...

Would Israel be justified to use a surprise tactical nuclear strike against Iran's nuclear reasearch sites, airforce and missile bases? The Iranians have spent a lot of time and effort re-enforcing their facilities and a nuclear option may be the most destructive and infact the only option that'd have any impact. It would be an absolute calamity if that happened for Iran, they'd lose almost all of their materials (enriched Uranium, reactors and technology), resources and scientists, cost a fortune to repair and set them back years. Plus all of the areas would be contaminated.

The way I see it, it would be Israel nukeing Iran before Iran does it to them and so we shouldn't condemn it, infact Israel would be doing the free world a favour (and Arab world) by removing this menace hanging over all of us (a theocracy that thinks a country should be wiped off the map and murders scores of its own people)

[Politricks]

Even though Iran wouldn't ever use a nuke if (I wouldn't know) they were building one, there would still be a lot of concern, Iran will be using it's reputation as a nuclear power to spread its influence in the region.

I doubt there will be an attack on Iran, well at least not soon, Israel has been throwing empty threats against Iran for many years now. I remember a few years ago, Israel claimed that Iran would have nuclear weapons by 2009...obviously not.

[DJkG.1]

Israel is not justified.

Period.

Everything it does, even prima facie benevolent, is misbegotten.

(Edit: interesting thumbs-up / thumbs-down ratio - it was ~15 thumbs up and 4 down, then 6 thumbs-down came along in the space of 30 minutes... hmmm lol).

[122025278]

(Original post by DJkG.1)
Israel is not justified.

Period.

Of course they are, they are living next to an unelected theocracy that funds and supports terrorists.

It'll never happen but the UK should help Israel in any way they can if they do attack. Provide air cover with our navy for example, in case the Iranian's try and retaliate.

[Notethis]

Let us hope they destroy one another, and the radioactive fallout carries to the USA, and the British reclaim the Holy land in a matter of decades- non sufficit orbis.

[ras90]

Iran will be attacked in the next 2 years anyway, so this situation will not happen.

[Politricks]

(Original post by ras90)
Iran will be attacked in the next 2 years anyway, so this situation will not happen.

How are you so sure with such certainty? Israel has threatened to attack Iran a few times over the years..

[Horatio-]

Why does this need to be a race to the nuking?!

People need to stop being so trigger happy and have a time out

[122025278]

(Original post by ras90)
Iran will be attacked in the next 2 years anyway, so this situation will not happen.

Whom by, Israel, US, Nato?

[ras90]

(Original post by Politricks)
How are you so sure with such certainty? Israel has threatened to attack Iran a few times over the years..

(Original post by 122025278)
Whom by, Israel, US, Nato?

1 Major reason my friends. The US presidential election. Jewish funds are ESSENTIAL to win the election. Therefore agreements will be made by the most powerful lobbyest group in the world (Jewish lobbyests) that to secure their funding the US will at the very least back up Isreal.

I don't think it will be NATO, just Isreal and US (plus any 1 else who wants to gain favour with the US for what ever reason.

I am 100% confident in this, you guys can chose to ignore me, but my reasoning is sound and i would take no pleasure in saying "I told you so" in the next 2 years, but if you doubt me, it is what I shall do.

[sexbo]

(Original post by Horatio-)
Why does this need to be a race to the nuking?!

People need to stop being so trigger happy and have a time out

Init, why can't the jews and arabs live in peace? Replace Israel with a neutrally named country that has 50% arabs and 50% jews in the government plus equal observations of both faiths. You may say it won't work because the jews and arabs hate each other but my very point is for them to both say "hey **** this **** lets just live together and get on with life instead of this aimless hate". There is no other way apart from some nuclear war as neither side is willing to give up the land.

[Sternumator]

Its not really fair that Isreal is allowed nuclear weapons and Iran isn't. Though with nuclear weapons I think you have got to forget about principles like fairness and just do the thing minimises the chances of a lot of people getting hurt.

[getfunky!]

(Original post by 122025278)
Of course they are, they are living next to an unelected theocracy that funds and supports terrorists.

It'll never happen but the UK should help Israel in any way they can if they do attack. Provide air cover with our navy for example, in case the Iranian's try and retaliate.

Iran is not an unelected theocracy, whatever issues you may have with their political system, a majority of their population elected them in position. I may not agree with having a coalition of Conservative's and Lib Dem's in government, yet the majority of the population chose to have them in position.

Any claims of them "funding and supporting terrorists" is just conjecture.

It is not our fight (UK) to take part in, it is most likely that Israel would first choose to attack Iran somewhere (they have over 80 places of supposed nuclear power producing sites). Iran has declared many times that any attack on their country would be a justified reason for them to retaliate.
The Iranians are not a small and unorganised army, they have the capabilities of fighting far beyond their own borders. So think twice before supporting the notion that 'Israel should attack Iran first, and the UK should provide them support'. It's ridiculous.

[Lydia1234]

(Original post by 122025278)
Of course they are, they are living next to an unelected theocracy that funds and supports terrorists.

It'll never happen but the UK should help Israel in any way they can if they do attack. Provide air cover with our navy for example, in case the Iranian's try and retaliate.

What terrorists do they fund and support?
The whole bloody western world funds terrorists and even worse they fund Zionist Israel, the biggest bloody terrorist of them all.

[Aj12]

(Original post by Sternumator)
Its not really fair that Isreal is allowed nuclear weapons and Iran isn't. Though with nuclear weapons I think you have got to forget about principles like fairness and just do the thing minimises the chances of a lot of people getting hurt.

Nuclear weapons aren't lollipops to be handed out to every country that cries because the kid down the block has one.

[getfunky!]

(Original post by sexbo)
Init, why can't the jews and arabs live in peace? Replace Israel with a neutrally named country that has 50% arabs and 50% jews in the government plus equal observations of both faiths. You may say it won't work because the jews and arabs hate each other but my very point is for them to both say "hey **** this **** lets just live together and get on with life instead of this aimless hate". There is no other way apart from some nuclear war as neither side is willing to give up the land.

Jews and Arabs did live together before Israel came to being. Problems between them are now due to illegal settlements being built on Palestinian territory, where a large part of Palestinians are being driven out of their homes causing them to live as second rate citizens. It's Zionism that Arabs have a major problem with, not Jews, just Zionism.

[122025278]

(Original post by getfunky!)
Iran is not an unelected theocracy, whatever issues you may have with their political system, a majority of their population elected them in position. I may not agree with having a coalition of Conservative's and Lib Dem's in government, yet the majority of the population chose to have them in position.

Any claims of them "funding and supporting terrorists" is just conjecture.

It is not our fight (UK) to take part in, it is most likely that Israel would first choose to attack Iran somewhere (they have over 80 places of supposed nuclear power producing sites). Iran has declared many times that any attack on their country would be a justified reason for them to retaliate.
The Iranians are not a small and unorganised army, they have the capabilities of fighting far beyond their own borders. So think twice before supporting the notion that 'Israel should attack Iran first, and the UK should provide them support'. It's ridiculous.

I disagree almost totally.

Yes Iran can retaliate, but if they retaliate against Israeli population centres in response to a small tactical strike by the Israeli's then to me all bets should be off. Israel should be able to strike in full, with all of its nuclear arsenal at Iran.

[Aj12]

(Original post by 122025278)
I disagree almost totally.

Yes Iran can retaliate, but if they retaliate against Israeli population centres in response to a small tactical strike by the Israeli's then to me all bets should be off. Israel should be able to strike in full, with all of its nuclear arsenal at Iran.

Check where many of Irans nuclear sites are. they tend to be within or near to cities and when it comes to nuclear weapons capable of busting bunkers small is not really a word used to describe them.

[getfunky!]

(Original post by Aj12)
Nuclear weapons aren't lollipops to be handed out to every country that cries because the kid down the block has one.

You're right, they aren't lollipops. Hence, why nations must sign up to NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty) of nuclear weapons. Which Iran has done. However, other countries such as Israel, India and Pakistan have admitted to owning nuclear weapons but have NOT signed the aforementioned treaty.

To make matters worse Israel also forbid any inspections to take place of their nuclear weapons. Whereas Iran has allowed the IAEA to inspect their facilities many times and have co-operated with them. The IAEA has found no real evidence to suggest that they are producing nuclear weapons. Only conjecture has been mentioned.

[ras90]

(Original post by getfunky!)
You're right, they aren't lollipops. Hence, why nations must sign up to NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty) of nuclear weapons. Which Iran has done. However, other countries such as Israel, India and Pakistan have admitted to owning nuclear weapons but have NOT signed the aforementioned treaty.

To make matters worse Israel also forbid any inspections to take place of their nuclear weapons. Whereas Iran has allowed the IAEA to inspect their facilities many times and have co-operated with them. The IAEA has found no real evidence to suggest that they are producing nuclear weapons. Only conjecture has been mentioned.

it has been shown many times that the type of uraniam Iran is producing is not suitable for Nuclear power (otherwords used for bombs).