Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there! Sign in to have your say on this topicNew here? Join for free to post

If Israel nuked Iran

This thread is sponsored by:
Announcements Posted on
Applying to Uni? Let Universities come to you. Click here to get your perfect place 20-10-2014
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 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)
    Is there any actual evidence that suggests Iran, if they possessed nuclear weapons, would actually attack Israel or is it actually just a load of bs to allow Israel and other western states to attack a sovereign nation for their own political reasons?

    Why do you keep using the word "theocracy" as if that alone justified action? If you remember our own government is very supporting of several theocracies, giving the means and support to repress their own people in equally, if not worse fashion than we see in Iran. This "wiped of the face of the earth" bs needs to stop: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...IKML_blog.html


    (Original post by 122025278)
    Of course they are, they are living next to an unelected theocracy that funds and supports terrorists.
    As someone has pointed out, a large percentage of their parliament is elected even if the legitimacy of the presidency has been disputed in the past. True they have the Ayatollah, but we have the monarchy who has the power to dismiss the government so it is a but rich of us to talk about unelected people. Our own government provided support to the loyalist paramilitary forces in Northern Ireland, America provides support to armed dissident groups around the world, not least Balochistani terrorists who aided Saddam Hussein in his ethnic cleansing and genocide of Kurds. Obviously the fact that our government and allies are complicit in the crimes that you accuse Iran of doesn't justify or excuse them, rather it suggests that our claims are rather invalid and shouldnt warrant us punishing a regime for many things that we ourselves are guilty of.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Politricks)
    How do you know Obama isn't making empty promises? Obama's stance and comments on Iran has been tougher nearer to the presidential elections, it could be just another political stunt, I doubt there will be an attack on Iran in the next 2 years.
    As he would think of the effects of lieing for the partyy in the long term. He wouldn't lie to them.
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tufc)
    Yawn, yawn, yawn. You'll be coming out with 'global Zionist conspiracy' detritus next. Iran is an unstable country, that has repeatedly acted aggressively towards Israel and other Western powers. Israel has nuclear weapons only as a deterrent; the most common theory is that they've had them since the Vela Incident in 1979. 32 and a half years of not using them shows fairly conclusively that they only have them as a deterrent.
    How about the irrefutable fact: Israel HAS attacked and invaded sovereign nations in the region. Has Iran? No! It's the media and propaganda machine that have spun it remarkably well and convinced the western public Iran are a threat. They're only a threat to Israeli and US dominance in the region because they can't tell them what to do.
    • 30 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by silent ninja)
    How about the irrefutable fact: Israel HAS attacked and invaded sovereign nations in the region. Has Iran? No! It's the media and propaganda machine that have spun it remarkably well and convinced the western public Iran are a threat. They're only a threat to Israeli and US dominance in the region because they can't tell them what to do.
    I don't really see the difference between invading a nation and supporting terrorist groups that attack that nation. Iran supports groups like Hamas and Hezboallah which regularly attack Israel and have been involved in supporting terrorist groups in IRaq and Afghanistan.
    • 14 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by silent ninja)
    How about the irrefutable fact: Israel HAS attacked and invaded sovereign nations in the region. Has Iran? No! It's the media and propaganda machine that have spun it remarkably well and convinced the western public Iran are a threat. They're only a threat to Israeli and US dominance in the region because they can't tell them what to do.
    Israel has only ever attacked other countries in self-defence.
    • 1 follower
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    Isreal has bombed Iran before now. They have a very good and highly respected Inteligence service which I'm sure they could use to destroy any nuclear material. There is suspicion they have asasinated Iranian scientists in the past already. Launching a nuclear device, even a small one wiould be a last resort.

    Even if they did launch a nuclear strike, they wouden't do so without negating Iran's ability to launch their only nuclear device or somehow destroy any early warning Iran may have before the launch took place.

    Iran has very little, almost no support for its current program and is somewhat going it alone. It's already pushing the bounderies but I don't think any nukes will be fired.

    Allowing untrustworthy and unstable countries to develop such weapons is just asking for trouble. If N Korea launched at S korea you could be assured NKorea would be completely flattened by everybody else.

    The main known nuclear countries are all developed and stable, being the UK, US, France, China, India and Russia.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by getfunky!)
    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.
    Ok then, didn't know that. What is this Zionism I keep hearing about? and what are your suggestions?
    • 20 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pegasus2)
    Isreal has bombed Iran before now. They have a very good and highly respected Inteligence service which I'm sure they could use to destroy any nuclear material. There is suspicion they have asasinated Iranian scientists in the past already. Launching a nuclear device, even a small one wiould be a last resort.

    Even if they did launch a nuclear strike, they wouden't do so without negating Iran's ability to launch their only nuclear device or somehow destroy any early warning Iran may have before the launch took place.

    Iran has very little, almost no support for its current program and is somewhat going it alone. It's already pushing the bounderies but I don't think any nukes will be fired.

    Allowing untrustworthy and unstable countries to develop such weapons is just asking for trouble. If N Korea launched at S korea you could be assured NKorea would be completely flattened by everybody else.

    The main known nuclear countries are all developed and stable, being the UK, US, France, China, India and Russia.
    You forgot Pakistan and Israel.
    Israel neither denies nor admits that they own nuclear weapons, however it is widely believed that they do own a large number of nuclear weapons.

    The main point is that India, Israel, and Pakistan have not signed the NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty) of nuclear weapons. However, Iran has signed onto the treaty and have co-operated with the IEAE to inspect their sites, and to report on their findings. Their findings have shown that there is no strong evidence to back up the accusations that Iran is developing nuclear weapons.
    • 20 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sexbo)
    Ok then, didn't know that. What is this Zionism I keep hearing about? and what are your suggestions?
    Don't want this thread to deviate away from the original hypothetical issue, but seeing as you asked.

    Zionism, to put it simply, was initially the movement for a Jewish state of Israel, by identifying themselves with the Jewish identity/culture. Despite identifying themselves to be for a Jewish state, it's important to note that not all Jews are Zionists, and not all Zionists are Jews.

    There is opposition of Zionism, by Jews. Rabbi David Weiss is quite vocal about it:



    Israel has built many settlements on Palestinian territory that are not recognised by the United Nations, and have found some of their activity to be illegal.
    UNSC resolutions 242, 478, 497 are a few that deal with them. The World Court in 2004 ruled the wall built to border the West Bank is illegal.

    Some call for the complete dismantlement of Israel, others support a two-state solution based on the 1947 partition plans.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    So according to you, Iranian citizens < Israeli citizens.

    We are dealing with a delusional oaf, gentlemen.
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tufc)
    Israel has only ever attacked other countries in self-defence.
    Absolute nonsense. 5 minutes of research will show you otherwise, but I won't waste time because I'm sure you're aware and choose to ignore.

    Today Israel continues to illegally steal Palestinian land and build settlements. This is deeply aggressive behaviour and no action is taken by the international community.

    Israel's actions are far worse than anything Iran has done. Iran has kept within it's borders whilst Israel continues to flout international law with impunity. Somehow the politicians and media have convinced the masses of the opposite, claiming Iran "may" do X and Y whilst Israel is actually doing these very things in plain sight (eg amassing a massive nuclear arsenal and invading sovereign nations). If that isn't brainwashing, I don't know what is.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I decided to comment as OP, you clearly have no knowledge of the Persian or the Jews.

    Israel will not bomb Iran, neither will Iran bomb Israel. These threaths have been going on since the Islamic revolution in 1979 that brought the Ayatollah's in charge.
    Iranians and Jewish people get along very well historically, its just the current people in power dont. There are about 50,000 Iranian Jews living in Israel and even more Jewish Iranians in Iran, historically Iran and Israel are allies, why? Because both share a common enemy, the Arabs. 'The enemy of my enemy is my friend'. During the Iraq-Iran war 80-88. Mossad supplied Iran with weapons to fight Iraq. The people in charge in Iran and Israel, dont really represent what their population want, which is not war.
    Furthermore, Israel nuke Iran? Are you that stupid? USA bombed Japan in '45 and nobody has forgot, a nuclear bomb stays in the peoples minds. However, in this case Iran's retaliation would wipe israel off the map. If Haifa and Tel-Aviv are bombed Israel is finished. Israel is unwilling to take any damage which is its ultimate weakness as was shown by the Hezbollah war in 2006. If Iran truly want WMD's its within their rights and nobody can stop them. Bombing the facilities will set them back, but give them even more reason to produce WMD's! Now, Ahmadi-nejad never said 'Israel' should be wiped of the map, he was refering to Zionism, big difference. I heard the speech and I understand Farsi. Just for your info, Iran has not been the aggresor towards any country in 200 years, Israel has been in 13 conflicts/wars since 1948 yet Iran is the threath to world peace? One more thing, this is not call of duty, how would you feel if the Germans decided to bomb UK and killed all your family and friends? Would killing millions of innocent people like you and me be doing ' the world a favour' in your eyes? I hope you've at least learned a thing or two about Iran and Israel.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by getfunky!)
    source please.
    If you want facts, Uranian has to be enriched to about 80% to serve any real millitary purpose. Iran is enriching Uranium to 5%. You have to understand shia Islam to understand that Iran cannot hold WMD's, as the Ayatollah issued a Fatwa against it which they are unable to break.

    if you want a source, search the internet to what % Iran is enriching Uranium. Even the most biased sources say that they 'MAY' use it for military purposes, but they have no concrete proof. Former CIA and MOSSAD chiefs have came out saying Iran are not looking for WMD's. I just despise people that dont know anything apart from the garbage their fed by mainstream media. Peace NOT war!


    EDIT** Furthermore, Iran hold the largest Ballistic Missle stockpile in the Middle east, 10,000s. you realise 100 ballistic missles would wipe Tel Aviv off the map? Israel is too small to sustain any damage unlike Iran. They also have the strongest Navy in the Region and are completely self sufficient in production of submarines and missles. Though Israel being the pioneers for Military innovation alongside USA, they are too small to survive an all out war''.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AE7)
    If you want facts, Uranian has to be enriched to about 80% to serve any real millitary purpose. Iran is enriching Uranium to 5%. You have to understand shia Islam to understand that Iran cannot hold WMD's, as the Ayatollah issued a Fatwa against it which they are unable to break.

    if you want a source, search the internet to what % Iran is enriching Uranium. Even the most biased sources say that they 'MAY' use it for military purposes, but they have no concrete proof. Former CIA and MOSSAD chiefs have came out saying Iran are not looking for WMD's. I just despise people that dont know anything apart from the garbage their fed by mainstream media. Peace NOT war!


    EDIT** Furthermore, Iran hold the largest Ballistic Missle stockpile in the Middle east, 10,000s. you realise 100 ballistic missles would wipe Tel Aviv off the map? Israel is too small to sustain any damage unlike Iran. They also have the strongest Navy in the Region and are completely self sufficient in production of submarines and missles. Though Israel being the pioneers for Military innovation alongside USA, they are too small to survive an all out war''.
    You don't have a strong understanding of ballistic missiles, their effectiveness, or missile defence systems do you?
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PeeWeeDan)
    You don't have a strong understanding of ballistic missiles, their effectiveness, or missile defence systems do you?
    I dont think you have, its clear from the Israeli flag that your going to be extremely biased. Now, do you realise missile defence systems are not the most effective, especcially considering Iran has stockpiles of BM's. Do you follow current affairs? Israel seeking for further $700M from USA taxpayers for the Iron Dome defence system , as it failed against rockets sent out gaza rockets which are to say the least, not the strongest. Now how effective is this Iron Dome system? Even the current Arrow system, its not very effective if overloaded with BM's. To highlight this further, Iran's Shahab 3 and Safir would hit Israel about 2 minutes this leaves very small time for interception. Furthermore Israeli rockets and planes would have to cross Syria, Iraq and Jordan who would not let their airspace be used neither let the Israeli planes refuel which it would have to.
    Israel struggled to beat Hezbollah in 2006, starting a war with Iran would be a lost war if there was no foreign internvention on either side, if not however, anti-Israeli sentiment would be higher than ever and Israel would effectively have caused their own downfall in the near future. Im all against bombing Israel, but its clear that the evil zionists in charge (not all are) want nothing but to weaken all states in the Middle East so Israel can maintain its 'nuclear monopoly' and continue to dominate the ME. Khameini is not the greatest leader either, however at the least he follows an Islamic principle which forbid him to own WMD's or attack first. In essence, I dont think you understand missle defence systems yourself; the irony.
    • 73 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AE7)
    If you want facts, Uranian has to be enriched to about 80% to serve any real millitary purpose. Iran is enriching Uranium to 5%. You have to understand shia Islam to understand that Iran cannot hold WMD's, as the Ayatollah issued a Fatwa against it which they are unable to break.
    (Original post by AE7)
    Khameini is not the greatest leader either, however at the least he follows an Islamic principle which forbid him to own WMD's or attack first. In essence
    Since when did Khamenei and his cronies give a **** about Shia Islam? When they were brutalising people en-masse on Ashura and acting like a modern day Caliphate led by Yazid?

    You'd have to be hopelessly naive to take a Mullah's hypocrisy at face value and then to consider it a "fact".
    • 52 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    ...Then lots of people would die.
    If Iran nuked Israel, then lots of people would die.

    Nuclear warfare is horrific, will always result in horrible consequences and should never be 'justified'. This may sound like a very simplistic response, but the risk of losing many innocent people should never justify turning political tensions into action.

    (Original post by 122025278)
    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)
    You'd like to wipe out a country because it wants to wipe out other countries, making you just as evil. Not all people in Iran agree with Iran's goverment. Iranians' political voices are some of the most suppressed in the world so why make other people suffer so much more than they already do?
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Democracy)
    Since when did Khamenei and his cronies give a **** about Shia Islam? When they were brutalising people en-masse on Ashura and acting like a modern day Caliphate led by Yazid?

    You'd have to be hopelessly naive to take a Mullah's hypocrisy at face value and then to consider it a "fact".
    Typical response. U realise Khameini dedicated his whole life towards Islam?That hes written 40 books mainly on Islam? That he spent nearly 2 decades hiding as he was in opposition of Pahlavi? He started studying the Qur'an at age 5. before he was ever a politician or even an influental person.You can pretend he doesnt care, but the fact of the matter is he does. Can i give you a word of advice? Listen to BBC, Russia Today, PressTV & co. These western papers are very biased and dont tell you the whole story, listen to other news channels to see what they report, especially if based locally. In response to your Ashura mourning deaths, this was POLITICALLY based, not religiously, it has nothing to do with the Ayatollah not caring about 'shia muslims'. You realise that would mean he doesnt care about anyone in Iran , 95% is shia.
    Though yes i despise the Mullah, he's a very charismatic leader (doesnt look it).
    But he is highly religous and really cares for Iran and Islam (and in particular Shia). The Taliban, Al-Qaeda etc are hypocrites, but the Mullah cant be, he publicly issued a fatwa, dissobeying that fatwa would severly deteriorate his political and religious standing with the people. And even worsely he would be banished to hellfire for eternity. (i know a lot of people think its a load of rubbish but just respect someones views).

    **Edit: Also, Iranian people are nowhere near as oppressed politically and religously as you are lead to believe. Recently, they had one of the largest poll turnouts in Iranian history. The peope and in particular the older generation who overthrew the Shah like the Islamic leadership, though the younger generation tend to not as much. Iran is a free country, all major western media channels have reporters in Tehran they just need to obtain a pass from the govt. islam is a large part of their life, not cause its forced upon them, but cause the majority of the people want it that way. Tehran in particular is very western and you would find shops of all major brands. The Ayatollah may be a religous nutjob, but he is not a bad leader at all, and Iranian society is much more modern than your all lead to believe. Btw, only recently Ahmadinejad (pres)was summoned before parliament for his failure to meet economic growth targets and what particular funds where spent on. Would this happen in a country thats not democratic? Can you imagine Obama or Cameron being summoned and asked this question?
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 122025278)

    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)
    Israel is the biggest threat to the 'free world'. It oppresses the Palestinians and prevents them from getting aid, they are the menace. Iran is not the type of country to bend over to others, and it is being threatened by a terror state with nukes, backed by the US and Britain.

    Iran can access the Islamic countries to get to the border and it's larger army would beat Israel to a pulp, while Israel's updated airforce and weaponry (all thanks to US backing) would hurt it but could never win.

    I'm generally pro-war, but to support a evil such as Israel is basically supporting friction in the middle east, a supposed threat to us.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ras90)
    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.
    I don't doubt the influence of the Jewish lobby groups in America, but surely they lose sway once the election is over? Especially as Obama would be in his 2nd term after the election, he wouldn't have to pander to them for reelection

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: April 14, 2012
New on TSR

Submitting your UCAS application

How long did it take for yours to be processed?

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.