Turn on thread page Beta

Iran can launch WMD in 30 mins!!! watch

  • View Poll Results: Do you believe the 30 mins WMD
    Yes
    9
    17.65%
    No
    32
    62.75%
    Not Sure
    10
    19.61%

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    Give me a break; you don't really believe that's possible do you? How will we know where all the nukes are? It's hard enough to destroy Iran's nuclear program before Iran gets nukes; it will be impossible once it does have them. Will anyone really want to risk a nuclear war to prevent say Iran from invading Afghanistan?
    Here is the problem with that mentality:

    That is how you lose wars.

    It's one thing if a nation is a viable threat to total destruction; IE the Cold War with Russia and the US.

    That is where you show caution, and choose to stand down. Nothing good will come of that. Iran, however, does not posses 2,700 nuclear weapons. If they launch one, you take that government to the ground. And, I'll tell you something else. It took the United States less than a month to dismantle the Iraqi government. How long do you think it would take an REAL international coalition to dismantle Iran?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Agent Smith)
    How good is satellite surveillance? That's what it hinges on, really.
    It's not perfect. If there was a 10% chance of a nuclear war if anything was done to prevent Iran from invading Afghanistan, would you risk that possibility?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rusty33)
    Here is the problem with that mentality:

    That is how you lose wars.

    It's one thing if a nation is a viable threat to total destruction; IE the Cold War with Russia and the US.
    No, you lose wars by doing nothing when you have the advantage and then deciding to do something when that advantage evaporates.

    "There is no avoiding war; it can only be postponed to the advantage of others."
    -Niccolo Machiavelli

    That is where you show caution, and choose to stand down. Nothing good will come of that. Iran, however, does not posses 2,700 nuclear weapons. If they launch one, you take that government to the ground. And, I'll tell you something else. It took the United States less than a month to dismantle the Iraqi government. How long do you think it would take an REAL international coalition to dismantle Iran?
    A nuclear-armed Iran? Forever. No one would be stupid enough to attack it. Almost nothing is worth the cost of a nuclear war.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Define "nuclear war". Are we talking a global-scale conflict or a more limited one?

    And why would Iran invade anywhere in the first place? North Korea is a case in point. It has nukes, and yet it hasn't gone round kicking local ass under the protection they offer, has it? And by your argument surely Israel would be wiping the floor with its immediate neigbours. Nukes do not automatically confer active belligerence (as opposed to belligerence confined solely to shouty rhetoric).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    A nuclear-armed Iran? Forever. No one would be stupid enough to attack it.
    You are wrong. If Iran used its nuclear weapons unprovoked, I garauntee that every nation in the world would be willing to stand up to them. At least the ones that count, any way.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Agent Smith)
    Define "nuclear war". Are we talking a global-scale conflict or a more limited one?
    How about 5-10 nuclear missiles successfully dropped on major cities? Heck, make it even one missile. Would Britain come to Afghanistan's defense if the price was the complete destruction of London?

    And why would Iran invade anywhere in the first place?
    Because it might be in its interest to do so? What if there's another Taliban-type regime in Afghanistan? Or a vehemently anti-Shia regime in Bahrain, Kuwait, or Iraq?

    North Korea is a case in point. It has nukes, and yet it hasn't gone round kicking local ass under the protection they offer, has it? And by your argument surely Israel would be wiping the floor with its immediate neigbours. Nukes do not automatically confer active belligerence (as opposed to belligerence confined solely to shouty rhetoric).
    North Korea has sold nuclear technology to Pakistan, Iran, and Libya. Not bombing them when we had the chance allowed two of those states to get nuclear weapons (and Libya could have joined the club if it was willing to pay the diplomatic price).

    Israel has already wiped the floor with its immediate neighbors...

    (Original post by Rusty33)
    You are wrong. If Iran used its nuclear weapons unprovoked, I garauntee that every nation in the world would be willing to stand up to them. At least the ones that count, any way.
    And I bet that none would. Try to be a realistic for once. Do you want to remind me who protected Ethiopia, Manchuria, Albania, Czechoslovakia, or Austria?
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    And I bet that none would. Try to be a realistic for once. Do you want to remind me who protected Ethiopia, Manchuria, Albania, Czechoslovakia, or Austria?
    Or Vietnam?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    And I bet that none would. Try to be a realistic for once. Do you want to remind me who protected Ethiopia, Manchuria, Albania, Czechoslovakia, or Austria?
    Why WOULDN'T they? (As if I'm not realistic often?) You think that the developed world would surrender control of international affairs because a small time economic skeleton such as Iran possessed nuclear weapons?

    As if they were scared? Preaching to the United States and it’s citizens about the risks and consequences of nuclear war would be preaching to the choir. Unless you are Russian, you don’t know the fear like we do. And, considering I live less that 25 miles from the Strategic Air Command of the United States (The air force base the President was flown to during 9/11 and the Central Command point during the Cold War), I think I can give a fair assessment to the risks.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Agent Smith)
    Or Vietnam?
    When proven wrong, bash the US. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    How about 5-10 nuclear missiles successfully dropped on major cities? Heck, make it even one missile. Would Britain come to Afghanistan's defense if the price was the complete destruction of London?
    You don't get 5-10 missiles built all at once, not without a colossal nuclear program. Any such program on Iranian soil would be pretty small-scale.

    Why should it be Britain? Why not the UN?

    Because it might be in its interest to do so? What if there's another Taliban-type regime in Afghanistan? Or a vehemently anti-Shia regime in Bahrain, Kuwait, or Iraq?
    What's that got to do with Iran invading or not? There's no point that I can see in Iran invading anyone. Its only possible targets for such an invasion are its immediate neighbours, due to its small armed forces, and for precisely that same reason it would have huge problems invading, let alone occupying, anything worthwhile.



    North Korea has sold nuclear technology to Pakistan, Iran, and Libya. Not bombing them when we had the chance allowed two of those states to get nuclear weapons (and Libya could have joined the club if it was willing to pay the diplomatic price).

    Israel has already wiped the floor with its immediate neighbors...
    If Pakistan did not have nukes one wonders what the current situation between them and India would be...

    If they HAD bombed them, do you think all nuclear technology would magically have disappeared from North Korea? War is messy. All it takes is missing or overlooking one key research station and the technology can still be sold to other nations - and a post-bombing North Korea would be far more willing to sell, to more countries, and more preferentially to those hostile to America.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rusty33)
    Why WOULDN'T they? (As if I'm not realistic often?) You think that the developed world would surrender control of international affairs because a small time economic skeleton such as Iran possessed nuclear weapons?
    You think anyone would risk millions of lives over some Central Asian backwater? The benefit of preventing Iran from doing whatever it wants to its neighbors would not outweigh the cost of a nuclear war.

    As if they were scared? Preaching to the United States and it’s citizens about the risks and consequences of nuclear war would be preaching to the choir. Unless you are Russian, you don’t know the fear like we do. And, considering I live less that 25 miles from the Strategic Air Command of the United States (The air force base the President was flown to during 9/11 and the Central Command point during the Cold War), I think I can give a fair assessment to the risks.
    And yet the US didn't dare attack any target if it thought this would lead to Russian casualties (e.g. Cuba during the Missile Crisis), since it was unwiling to fight a nuclear war unless the Soviet Union was on the verge of conquering Western Europe. The cost of a nuclear war is so high that it would only be worth fighting over an existential threat, and Iran will never be such a threat (even if it attacks every single country in the Middle East).

    And FYI, I spend about 4 years living on Soviet military bases...
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    When proven wrong, bash the US. :rolleyes:
    I was providing a counter-example to your list of non-interventionism. I admit you're annoying me by carrying on using that smiley, but probably not as much as you hoped.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    the US didn't dare attack any target if it thought this would lead to Russian casualties (e.g. Cuba during the Missile Crisis), since it was unwiling to fight a nuclear war unless the Soviet Union was on the verge of conquering Western Europe.
    Casualties in the Korean war included several hundred Soviet pilots. When proven wrong...?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Agent Smith)
    You don't get 5-10 missiles built all at once, not without a colossal nuclear program. Any such program on Iranian soil would be pretty small-scale.

    Why should it be Britain? Why not the UN?
    Because it doesn't have missiles with a sufficient range. And North Korea is assumed to have 5-10 nuclear missiles despite having significantly less funds than Iran.

    What's that got to do with Iran invading or not? There's no point that I can see in Iran invading anyone. Its only possible targets for such an invasion are its immediate neighbours, due to its small armed forces, and for precisely that same reason it would have huge problems invading, let alone occupying, anything worthwhile.
    Iran has mandatory military service and has 15.5 million men fit for military service. Somehow I don't think it would be too hard for Iran to occupy Bahrain or Kuwait, or a part of Afghanistan (especially a part with a Shi'a population).

    If Pakistan did not have nukes one wonders what the current situation between them and India would be...

    If they HAD bombed them, do you think all nuclear technology would magically have disappeared from North Korea? War is messy. All it takes is missing or overlooking one key research station and the technology can still be sold to other nations - and a post-bombing North Korea would be far more willing to sell, to more countries, and more preferentially to those hostile to America.
    It would take a good decade to rebuild all the necessary nuclear facilities and buy all the components necessary for a nuclear weapon (since all such sales would have to be through the black market and on a small scale).

    (Original post by Agent Smith)
    Casualties in the Korean war included several hundred Soviet pilots. When proven wrong...?
    The Russians claimed that they were volunteers, and so couldn't complain when they were shot down. There were also some Russian advisors killed in Vietnam, but the fact is that the US didn't deliberately target them and did everything within its power to persuade the USSR that this was the case.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Agent Smith)
    I was providing a counter-example to your list of non-interventionism. I admit you're annoying me by carrying on using that smiley, but probably not as much as you hoped.
    Except that the US was providing military assistance to anti-communist forces in Vietnam for over a decade before the invasion. It didn't send troops to punish aggression; it did so because it thought Vietnam was controlled from Moscow and everything possible had to be done to reduce Soviet power (short of a direct confrontation with Moscow obviously).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    You think anyone would risk millions of lives over some Central Asian backwater? The benefit of preventing Iran from doing whatever it wants to its neighbors would not outweigh the cost of a nuclear war.
    No. But, they would to protect Israel. (Another issue entirely, one I strongly disagree with.)

    (Original post by Bismarck)
    And yet the US didn't dare attack any target if it thought this would lead to Russian casualties (e.g. Cuba during the Missile Crisis), since it was unwiling to fight a nuclear war unless the Soviet Union was on the verge of conquering Western Europe. The cost of a nuclear war is so high that it would only be worth fighting over an existential threat, and Iran will never be such a threat (even if it attacks every single country in the Middle East).

    And FYI, I spend about 4 years living on Soviet military bases...
    No one said we WANT to go to war. God knows nuclear war is the last thing anyone would want.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Agent Smith)
    Vienna, are you denying the 45-minute claim that was the focus of such attention two years ago? Well, three, perhaps.
    No, im denying there was a lie. If you search the forum you will find a number of posts where we've discussed this claim, which is almost as flawed as the claims about the Niger-Uranium connection.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dave777)
    Yes there was :mad:

    Blair said Saddam could launch a massive WMD strike in 45 mins :eek:
    No, the intelligence dossier said that he could deploy chemical weapons on the battlefield within 45 mins of an order to do so.

    Saddam would take 45 mins to get dressed in the morning:p:

    I shall back up what i say with facts :yy:
    Where's the lie?
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vienna)
    No, the intelligence dossier said that he could deploy chemical weapons on the battlefield within 45 mins of an order to do so.
    Well where did we get the popular 45-minute claim, then? If what you claim was in fact the case, and I see no reason why it should not be, then why didn't Blair simply come out and clarify what he meant?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rusty33)
    No. But, they would to protect Israel. (Another issue entirely, one I strongly disagree with.)
    The US didn't send a soldier to help Israel in '73 when it was on the verge of destruction; it sure as hell isn't going to risk a nuclear war over it.

    No one said we WANT to go to war. God knows nuclear war is the last thing anyone would want.
    Attacking a nuclear power generally implies the willingness to start a nuclear war. :rolleyes:
 
 
 
Poll
Did you get less than your required grades and still get into university?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.