Israel planning a possible nuclear attack on Iran.

I posted that bit about refusing non-military nuclear tech before I got the speculation comment, so your criticism is based on incorrect/incomplete information.

It is a fact that they have said they aren't producing weapons, though I don't think it is necessarily a fact in support of the position that they are not producing nuclear weapons. Unless you believe that Iran would admit that they are developing nuclear weapoins if they were, their statements to the contrary are meaningless. As a counter, it is a fact that blazer_ben says they are trying to build an A-bomb, so take that!

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. That they cannot difinitively prove that Iran is developing nuclear weapons only shows that they are developing dual use technology. Given that they were offered technology that would cover one of the uses, it is reasonable to assume that they are developing for the other use, is it not? I will just say that if I had to bet, my money would be on Iran trying to develop nuclear weapons.

 

I'm just gonna ask a real stupid question here.

What's wrong with Iran getting a nuke again?

Why can't they?

If America, Russia, UK, France, China, India, Pakistan, Israel, South Africa, Brazil, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, and North Korea all had the right to develop one without asking anyone's permission, what's the reason Iran can't be the 14th country to get one too?

I'm not saying they ARE getting one. I'm just asking if they do, just what is so wrong about it that we are contemplating a nuclear attack unprecedented since well... the last great war...

To me this would be an enormous escalation of human rights violation/atrocity by Israel (soooo far beyond any war crime) and for a cause which is altogether dubious. This does NOT constitute "just cause for war".

 

There is nothing inherently wrong with it (at least in the amoral world of international politics). It simply depends on one's point of view. From Iran's point of view, Iran developing nuclear weapons grants them enormous power. From the viewpoint of Israel, Iran developing nuclear weapons is very bad, as they have shown a desire and a willingness to attack Israel through their speech and through the actions of their agents. For the US it is bad because Iran is the world's leading sponsor of terror. Israel has the most to lose if Iran get's nuclear weapons (the proverbial mushroom clouds that were talked about in the run-up to the war in Iraq), which is why we hear the most drastic measures contemplated by them.

 

israel is speaking of tactical nukes on specific military targets... not a blatant attack on the civilian population.

 

One additional factor to consider which should be taken into account is Iran's particular skill at building large, long range missles. It is entirely conceavable that Iran could develop reliable ICBM's capable of reaching the United States given their history of innovation. North Korea has been building missles with that goal in mind but I don't think people believe they will be able to do it.

I will refrain from speculating whether is should make a difference in our policy making but from the US perspective a country like Pakistan with nuclear weapons but no way to deliver them to the US (their delivery method is to strap them on the bottom of an F-16) is much less a direct potential danger than someone who can possibly deliver them to the United States.

Nuclear is such a taboo for many peoples that I think it in public perception it might be viewed as worse than a massive genocide, even if they don’t kill anybody but technicians.

 

You also have to understand first strike capabilities. If Iran was to obtain 3 or 4 nukes, and put them on a payload capable of hitting Israel, they could wipe Israel off the map and probably prevent a counter-attack since Israel wouldn't be able to launch their missles.

Considering Iran's history - obtaining nukes and missles would be a devastating scenario for Israel. A terrorist nation that threatnes violence against their neighbors must never be allowed to obtain nukes.

 

China never threatned the U.S. Besides, they wouldn't shoot themselves in the foot - beyond MAD, we buy everything they make.

As for North Korea, they have threatned us if we attack them.

Iran has threatned Israel's destruction. Not just hoping thier "regime collapses". Additionally, Iran has taken steps to attack Israel through a proxy war - in a way, Israel and Iran are at war via Hezbelloh.

 

The same article also mentions that his statement to end the Israeli regime appears on a Sabhab 3 missle. Now why would you put a call for the end of the Zionism on a missle meant to carry a nuclear payload?????

Hmmmm.... makes ya think no?

This is a guy who wants the end of the Israeli state. You can split hairs and say oh, but that's not a big deal...but if a foreign country was trying to end the U.S. gov't rule here, that's pretty serious call. And considering it wouldn't happy without a lot of bloodshed - I think it's a violent vision Iran has for the end of the "israeli regime".

I mean, this is a guy who hates Jews. He claims the holocaust never happened. He speaks at a conference called "A world without Zionism". Dude, he wasn't the end of any kind of Jewish state, and sure, he doesn't want to kill all the Jews, but I'm sure he won't mind doing so as a way to "end the Jewish regime"

 

Any strike by Israel will be seen as a proxy attack from the US.

 

I think you are forgetting that he believes his god is all powerful, and in the business of justifying his people through his actions.

So... yep... he's stupid too.

 

I think StupidMoniker nailed it on the head.

There is NOTHING intrinsically wrong with GETTING a nuke. The only crime is actually USING one...

And yet here we are seeing Israel contemplating actually committing a crime to "prevent" something that is perfectly legal?

This logic is just flawed.

This perspective would only make sense if we look at things entirely from Israel's point of view, which unfortunately most Americans are trained to do...

What happens if Iran gets a nuke? Well. They would just be another country with a nuke that differ with the US and Israel on a number of issues. The US disagrees with China and North Korea and Russia and France too... and all of them have nukes. We'll just learn to compromise and respect each other.

It would be about time too. A nuclear Iran would bring much needed balance US Middle East policy. We been lapdogs of Israel for way too long. It's time to look out for America's (and not Israel's) interests. In case you guys haven't noticed... everybody's trying to be FRIENDS with Iran and distancing themselves from Israel.... Russia, China, France, Germany, etc. etc. Everybody except our own administration... To protect our national interests, and our strategic interests in the region, we need to do an 180 and start kissing Iranian ass just as we've been kissing Saudi ass for the past decade. And in my mind, the only thing that's gonna force the current administration to that realization is for Iran to go nuclear.

 

This isn't about legality - it's about self-preservation. You would have Israel allow a nation that promises to destroy it to get nukes? Dumb!

 

Guess what I'm trying to get at is that Israel is damned if they do, and damned if they don't try to stop the Iranian nuclear effort.

If they nuke Iran, then they've got to worry about Pakistan and North Korea and Russia, cuz every Arab nation is gonna be on the market for a nuke pretty much immediately. And for legitimate "self-preservation" purposes too.

If they don't nuke Iran, then Iran will be one step closer to getting nuclear capability.

So there you have it, a choice between just Iran arming, or the entire Middle East arming. Israel better start making some friends fast.

 

My apologies. My time is very limited so I may have missed that.

It is a fact though they have made the statement. This puts you in the position of further stating why they are liars. If you believe Iran alway lies would you then believe they aren't making nukes if they said "We are making nuclear weapons."

That's the kind of statement that got us into the Iraq. True absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence but if that is the starting point we can argue about whether the space aliens are here to help us or hurt us since even though there is no definitive evidence space aliens exist there is none saying they don't so we might as well accept they do. That's the kind of statement of why I think we should use some facts to back up speculation.

As for the dual use technology and what Iran was offered there are other reasons why they might not wish to take up the offer of foreign assistance. For instance maybe they are paranoid about having foreigners build an energy source they feel is important for the future when their oil runs out or maybe they want to do it themselves to develop their own scientific knowledge base. While I agree that there is evidence that Iran might very well be developing nukes and its reasonable speculation that is still speculation.

 

i said a chinese general threatened the u.s. -

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,162695,00.html

"If the Americans draw their missiles and position-guided ammunition into the target zone on China's territory, I think we will have to respond with nuclear weapons," Maj. Gen. Zhu Chenghu, a dean at China's National Defense University, told visiting Hong Kong-based reporters. "If the Americans are determined to interfere ... we will be determined to respond, and we Chinese will prepare ourselves for the destruction of all cities east of Xi'an," a major city in central China, Zhu said.

"Of course the Americans will have to be prepared that hundreds of, or two hundreds of, (or) even more cities will be destroyed by the Chinese," he said.

 

I'm not sure if you've been paying attention, but Saudi Arabia and several other Arab League countries have made very subtle threats about building their own nuclear weapons if Iran develops them.

I haven't seen the same threats in response to this proposed move. I think at this point the chance of Arab countries entering a nuclear arms race has to be considered higher (as it has been threatened) if Iran develops the weapons.

 

Good point. If Shiite Iran arms, then Sunni Arab states will feel compelled to have a bomb too.

My point was simply that if Israel nuke strikes any Islamic state, we will face the very real prospect of the entire region going nuclear.

I do not think one point precludes the possibility of the other.

In other words, looks increasingly like a nuclear-armed middle east is inevitable.

 

They hijacked our embassy; which is theoretically American soil, and Ahmadinejad was part of the same student group as the hijackers. Also, even though he denied planning or participating in the attack, he's stated contemporarily that he approved of it. If they were capable of that reckless and incendiary activity against the U.S. twenty-five years ago as just students, never apologized for it, and are now running the country, then we have to think in the context of their wanting to attack us. The two responses to that risk would be 1) restore diplomatic and political ties with Iran or 2) limit their capability to go to war with us.

We probably have too many Human Rights disputes with Iran, which wouldn't be as relevant if they weren't so intertwined with our cultural and moral (ie religious) differences (This is also one of reasons we will always support Israel: not Holocaust guilt, just the assurance of a culturally/politically similar ally in that part of the world). They have legitimate gripes and anxieties about our historical propensity to exploit their mineral wealth, with the aid of military intervention. All of these factors make restoring diplomatic relations unlikely, and probably provide a good worst-case-scenario for future relationships with Saudi Arabia and any other oil-rich, religiously conservative Middle Eastern countries.

That leaves option two: restricting their access to weapons, and their capacity to wage war. Perfectly sound National Security strategy, assuming a) we have half-decent weapons intelligence and b) we have proportional, neutral-risk means of restricting their weapons (inspections, sanctions and air-strikes instead of clusterf*ck 4-year occupations).

Not to be crass, but something tells me when all the Holocaust survivors and embassy hijackers finally die off, Middle East diplomacy will get a hell of a lot easier.

 

Don't buy it...The aggressive speak, posturing, and example by the President of Iran exhibits grand tactics which suggest Israel to not exist by genocidal means....

In April 2006, Iran's ambassador was asked directly about Ahmadinejad's position towards Israel by CNN correspondent Wolf Blitzer:[17]

BLITZER: But should there be a state of Israel?
SOLTANIEH: I think I've already answered to you. If Israel is a synonym and will give the indication of Zionism mentality, no.
But if you are going to conclude that we have said the people there have to be removed or they have to be massacred or so, this is fabricated, unfortunate selective approach to what the mentality and policy of Islamic Republic of Iran is. I have to correct, and I did so.

Another reason for the interpretation of the speech as a call for genocide using nuclear weapons is because the same statement of Ahmadinejad appeared on a Shahab-3 missile in a national military parade attended by Ahmadinejad. [3]

In addition to refute: In a June 11, 2006 analysis of the translation controversy, New York Times deputy foreign editor Ethan Bronner concluded that Ahmadinejad had in fact said that Israel was to be wiped off the map. After noting the objections of critics such as Cole and Steele, Bronner said: "But translators in Tehran who work for the president's office and the foreign ministry disagree with them. All official translations of Mr. Ahmadinejad's statement, including a description of it on his Web site (www.president.ir/eng/), refer to wiping Israel away." Bronner stated: "So did Iran's president call for Israel to be wiped off the map? It certainly seems so. Did that amount to a call for war? That remains an open question." [2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel

 

No, all he is saying is that China would respond if attacked. Nothing more. And this guy doesn't even represent the army or the gov't - he works at a university!

This is a lot different then just saying our goal is to wipe America off the map. Geez.