Israel planning a possible nuclear attack on Iran.

I have no idea.

 

It isn't really irony at all, it is what one would expect to happen. The ideal situation for a country is to have nuclear weapons while your enemies don't. Israel is in this situation now. Of course they are not going to agree to give up their weapons. They will also do what they can to keep their enemies from getting nuclear weapons.

Iran is in the opposite situation, where their enemy has nuclear weapons while they do not. That is the worst situation to be in, so they are trying to get to a better one, either through getting Israel to give up their nukes, or getting nukes for themselves. Perfectly reasonable on their part. The problem for Iran is that their enemies don't have to just let them get nukes of their own, and thus we get to the thread topic.

I doubt very much that there would be more military response to such an attack that Israel could handle. I also doubt that they would be in a situation where they had to handle it on their own, as they have a very powerful ally in the United States. That we are Israel's ally would help both in defending them from attack, as well as reducing the forces that would be willing to attack them.

 

If Israel actually were mad enough to launch an atomic attack on Iran, problems would be myriad. Sort of like the heads on this beast...






D&D. Don't Kick a Hydra... it has Many Heads.

 

Nuke them! I say nuke them!

 

But what is the future results of us stepping in again?? The first OPEC oil embargo and the ENTIRE US/Arab/Muslim conflict began when the US gave
Israel the tools to win in war. Lets make no mistake about it, our unwavering support for Israel is the primary reason why most muslims in the world have any issues with the US.

If we continue to act this way and side with Israel in this unfair manner, we'll have over a billion people that will continue to despise our nation and will not use our goods and services which will in the future contribute to the decline in the lifestyle we live today. We are the greatest country not because of our ideals, color or religion, but because we are an economic machine. This adversely affects our strength and I will tell Israel sayonara if their interests go contrary to that of the United States.

 

he thinks the end of the world is soon enough, sooner than 1000 years. so to him the destruction of iran is irrelevant.

so being crazy supersedes being stupid.

world war 3 commences... the world dance is on.

 

Idle boast?

How do you know that? If a country says it's going to wipe another country off the face of the earth and is developing nuclear technology - I'd say that's an extremely and urgent threat.

And if the only way to remove Iran's nuclear ambitions is with tactical nuclear weapons, then so be it. These are tactical nukes, they won't wipe Iran off the face of the map, like Iran wants to do with Israel.

I fully support military action by Israel to eliminate Iran's ability to enact it's threats. Let's not forget who the irresponsible nation is: It's Iran, for making such reckless statements. There's a penalty for making threats against a nation, and that's a pre-emptive strike.

 

I think people need to get over the stigma attached to nuclear weapons. No one is talking about Israel going Hiroshima on Iran, but rather using the minimum amount of force necessary to destroy legitimate military targets against an enemy that has already attacked them by proxy. If this action causes the response you and others predict, maybe that is just what needs to happen. Perhaps this is a clash of cultures/civilizations, and it is inevitable.

Very nice. Good picture too.

That may be the case, but it doesn't mean our support of Israel is wrong. That Arabs/Muslims hate America should only be a decisive factor in shaping policy if said hatred wouold have a crippling effect on America (it would not).

First, I would say that you are making a judgement call when you say we are siding with Israel in an "unfair manner". Second, I would question the factual nature of the statement that 1 billion people will boycott all American products if our support of Israel continues (it hasn't happened yet, has it?). Thirdly, I would suggest that even losing the entire Muslim market, the US would still not only be an economic superpower, but likely still the #1 economy in the world, especially following a regional conflict that would be far more damaging to Muslims than any other group in the world.
Following our economic interests cannot be the only determining factor in our foreign policy decisions, because it would hurt us militarily, and because we must base our decisions above other considerations on what is right.

 

yeah, if you could go ahead and provide us with some links showing DEFINITIVE evidence that iran is even close to obtaining a nuclear weapon... that'd be swell.

until then.... blah blah blah.

 

Yeah, let me just upload my pictures of Irani ICBMs.

This is an Internet message board. Even if I had access to such information (I do not) I wouldn't be able to post it here. Beyond that, the premise of the discussion was that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. If they are not, the entire discussion is meaningless. With your standard in mind, we might as well shut down the D&D at least, if not the entire BBS because much of what we discuss is based on speculation. For example, do you go into Barak Obama threads and demand DEFINITIVE evidence that he will be elected president before validating any discussion of his policies? Your post is meaningless. If you do not want to talk about Israeli response to Iran developing nuclear weapons, why are you even in this thread?

 

SM, I think an atomic attack would backfire disastrously for Israel. It would severely undermine traditionally strong public support for the nation in the US, IMO, and lead eventually to an atomic attack on Israel itself by either extremists, given a weapon smuggled in by another Islamic country, like Pakistan (remember that Pakistan has great internal conflicts involving Islamists within the country. The lid is barely being kept on, and the smuggling network operating out of there has been proven to be highly effective), or by another country successful where Iran presumably would have failed due to the attack. Good heavens... one could go on at great length about the repercussions of such an act, and not only on the state of Israel.



D&D. Feed your Dog.

 

I haven't had a chance to read through this thread so pardon me if these points have been made.

I think an Israeli attack using nukes is unlikely and that the plan released is part of overall strategic contingency planning that every country does. I think its release is saber rattling on the part of Israel to try to nudge the Iranians to talks but I don't think it is a serious consideration. There are just too many problems and things that could go wrong with a potential attack not including that its not in the US's interest to let Israel go out on its own to attack Iran as that would be disasterous for whats going on Iraq and Afghanistan.

Of course OTOH a lot of things could've gone wrong with the attack on Iraq's nuclear facilities in 1982 but that didn't stop the Israelis. Still I don't think an attack is imminent.

 

Using this logic, Iran has the legitimate right to attack the United States since we attacked them via Saddam Hussein in a war whick killed 500,000+ Iranians.

 

Yep, pretty much anyone can come up with a reason to attack someone else. I think Iran would have a lot of trouble attacking the US. Iran was quite a bit more in control of Hizballah than we were of Saddam though.

 

We do a lot of speculating but it would be nice to back up some speculation with facts that would support said speculation.

 

The U.S. did not control Saddam and he didn't invade Iran for our sake. That's crazy. Saddam was a kook. Did we also tell him to invade Kuwait? Don't think so. Did we tell him to seek nuclear weapons technology (that Israel had to bomb)? Don't think so.

I'm no apologist for past mistakes in U.S. foreign policy, but saying we attacked Iran via Saddam is ludicrous in the extreme.

 

It is one thing to speculate. It is another to use a first strike nuclear attack on a nation based on speculation.

For the purpose of debate and discussion on an internet message board, speculation isn't the worst thing in the world. For the purpose of deciding to attack another nation with nukes is another matter.

I also disagree that people need to get over the stigma of nukes. They should be realistic about which nuclear weapons will have what effects, and not exaggerate, but there should be a stigma attached to nuclear weapons.

 

I don't think Saddam attacked Iraq for us but we certainly didn't mind that he did and made no attempts to stop him. Under the official reasoning behind Gulf War I we should've attacked Saddam for trying to invade Iran instead we helped him out.

 

C'mon now. Get real. Kuwait was an ally; Iran was not. Iran successfully defended itself; Kuwait had no chance at all. Kuwait was an all-out invasion; Iran was a border dispute land grab. Try to be a little credible.

What you saying is no better than those who rationalize the Kuwait invasion because it was "a former province of Iraq" and because of the sideways drilling.

 

couple that with the fact that our cia overthrew their democratically elected government in the 50's and installed a brutal a-hole (the shah) which caused the backlash which led to the revolution.

so many people have such a short sighted view of history...its sad.

its just like iraq - saddam was our ally in the 80's when he committed all those war crimes. furthermore, many of the crimes he committed were with u.s. assistance, intelligence and materials.

and furthermore, the way we played both sides off each other was immoral at best - we were covertly selling weapons to iran while supplying iraq at the same time.