Who knows, as crazy as the Iranian government is, they might GIVE IT to others to use, and then pretend they had nothing to do with it, which would make the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction a moot concept.
The Iranians aren't giving it to anyone once they have it. Like every state that has them, they are there as a defensive deterrent, something that's not hard to understand considering that it's HAVING nuclear weapons that keeps major powers from invading you. See: Pakistan, North Korea. Short of Assad, who is on the way out, Iran's only real BBF is Hisbollah, who would probably not benefit much from having radioactive wind blowing in their faces from Israel if it were used there. Even in a doomsday scenario, the smartest tactic would be to aim for a high altitude burst off the Med coast to cripple Israel with an EMP and make it easier for Hisbollah to wreck havoc with Israel's infrastructure in disarray. With all due respect to Iran's leadership and it's utter nuttery, if they have the knowledge to build a thermonuclear device, they don't lack the wisdom to employ it effectively.
I don't worry about Iran getting nuclear weapons enough to start an overt action against them . Pakistan, Russia and North Korea are an equal threat for weapons to go rogue. I don't think any organized government would use them in a first strike because it assures their own destruction and people in power want to stay in power. What I said was that people can be bullied into irrational responses. I meant more as a warning to us and Israel. By all means do every covert thing you can to delay them though because there will be a Persian Spring, it's just a matter of when.
This would be true if you are dealing with people who are rational and who don't want to die. If you are dealing with people whose hate might be so strong that they would rather die as "martyrs" if it means they can kill their enemies, that logic might not apply. See: 9/11 and any suicide bombing. Obviously, this would be on a much larger scale, but who knows, with the religious fanatism and hate that is displayed even by leaders of states.
So fantastical that there was several recent articles about Iranian nationals allegedly spying/casing sites in NYC. I really don't think it's that fantastical at all and seems at least one route Iran and Hezzbollah would consider. They certainly can't stroll up the East coast in an aircraft carrier they don't own (like the US could). It surely seemed like they'd consider several small cells prepping for the opportunity to attack soft targets if the US got involved or once Israel attacked. I'm sure plenty of people assumed 9/11 was just too fantastical itself.
I'm not sure they care about a retaliatory strike. So long as they wipe Israel off the map they most are probably inspired/happy to referred to as martyrs by others in the ME. It's suicide bomber logic on a broad scale. Sacrifice "for the greater good". I called Cobra Commander to consult with him on this, but he was out of the office, so I was handed over to this fella.
The actual U.S. intelligence community believes that Iran will act rationally and that seeking to wipe Israel off the map with a preemeptive nuclear strike is an irrational action. This opinion is shared by many other intelligence agencies of other countries as demonstrated by both what they are saying to the world as well as how they act toward the regime. I'm not going to say they can't all be wrong, but it is highly unlikely. The Iranian regime has consistently demonstrated that it cares to continue in power and existence. What evidence do you have that contradicts this widely held belief that Iran as a country, or the Expediency Council won't act rationally? Why would the suicide bomber mentality operate on such an astoundingly large scale? Maybe you believe that all Muslims are suicide bombers in waiting - that might explain your position, but I would have to disagree. Is there any social science research that supports such a assertion? When has another country ever sacrificed it's own interests for a "perceived greater good?" Even assuming that Iran would act in some perceived "greater good," I sincerely doubt Iran would really be keen on shoring up the hegemony of their Saudi Arch-rivals by wiping out Israel thus allowing them to better align their position toward Israel with the position held by their own populace. Such an action would make the Saudis the preeminent regional power by wiping out their main regional rivals Israel and Iran. Please read the great article linked by vaids_13 on the first page of this thread called Why We Can Live with a Nuclear Iran and hopefully re-think your position in light of it. If you prefer to read something making a case for attacking Iran, please consult Matthew Kroenigs article in Foreign Affairs called Time to Attack Iran. You'll notice from both articles that there are no commentators from either side of the attack Iran/don't attack Iran spectrum that are currently endorsing the theory that Iran is an irrational actor. I bet you did.
I've read this statement here several times, and find it absurd. The circumstances surrounding the use of atomic weapons at the end of WWII were unique. No one was really sure what the long term ramifications would be. It's a fact that conventional bombings of cities in Japan (and in Germany) created worse casualties than the two weapons that were used. Yet I keep seeing this statement from people. Tell me... how many times have we used atomic weapons for anything other than a test since the end of World War Two? Zero. The one time a US military commander "insisted" that they be used during a conflict, against the huge armies China had sent across the North Korean border, the American President sacked him. MacArthur was a "hero" of WWII, beloved by untold millions of Americans, the holder of the highest honor for bravery this country can give, and Truman fired his ass over this very issue. That alleged worry about America using atomic weapons without being attacked by a country using them against the United States is completely insubstantial. In more plain language, it's bull ****.
Great post. There are certain posters here who seem to have a vested interest in making the USA and Israel look like the devil whereas they seem to defend Iran as completely rational, and nobody would need to be worried about them. Makes you wonder what vested interest these posters have in trying to sell us this nonsense.
That again seems rather fantastical. The Iranian regime might be willing to pay or motivate others to act as suicide bombers but that is a different matter than being a suicide bomber themselves. Even the former head of Mossad says they aren't suicidal and I am willing to take the word of someone who spent decades trying to counter the Iranian regime on this. Nice GI JOE reference!
I highly doubt the US would ever use nuclear weapons again but it is plausible. In the prior Administration there was serious consideration of using nuclear armed bunker busters with the argument that they weren't targeted specifically at people. Also the previous Admin.'s nuclear policy stated that the US would consider using nukes to retaliate against even a non-nuclear attack. Obama has limited that strategy to attacks by nuclear states, nonsignatories or violators of the nuclear non-proliferation strategy.
Not get too off topic but serpentor was too out there. I mean why did you need sergeant slaughters DNA when you had the DNA of all the greatest warlords ever. I mean I was 6 or 7 years old and I could see past the plot point. I think think Iran is the enemy cause america always needs an enemy. I mean why do we hate the mavs or the jazz. Heck the jazz and pretty much irrelevant now, but we still hate them.
Because Sgt Slaughter was the BADDEST OF BAD! I mean why settle for ground chuck when you want a steak! Because they are the Jazz and they are evil! Duh...
We get it that you are irrationally obsessed with muslims and think they are all irrational and crazy.
SO wait, really... why can't they have them? AND why do we keep aligning ourselves w/ Israel..what have they done for us? Questions questions
What the heck does that have to do with Deckard's point that 1. We used nuclear weapons at a unique situation, when we really didn't get how powerful they were or how dangerous radiation was ( Downfall had plans to nuke beaches and then send marines storming over them immediately afterwards) 2. It was almost 70 years ago. Since then, we've been in all sorts of numerous crises and periods of international struggle. Have never used a nuclear weapon. Seriously, what does the fact that we used a nuclear weapon 70 years ago have anything to do with the current debate with a nuclear Iran? Even IF you believe the bombing was unjustified and the fact that it was so long ago was irrelevant, diplomacy isn't about who holds the moral high ground anyways. Besides, it's no different from people freaking the F out when either Japan or Germany thinks about becoming a normal nation with a normal military these days.
I'm saying the fact that conventional bombing killed more people than atomic bombing does not alleviate the situation in any way, and did not factor into the decision to win win win no matter what.
