WAR: Nuclear War Against Iran

The five major nuclear powers are working on a joint warning statement that aims to show unusual unified resolve and put fresh pressure on Iran not to resume nuclear fuel research, U.S. officials and diplomats said on Friday. Iran, making a confrontation increasingly likely, has defied the international community with its threat to resume on January 9 atomic fuel research and development that was shelved over a year ago at the West's insistence. In an effort to bring new pressure in the hours before Tehran takes what could be a fateful step, the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China were working on a statement opposing the Iranian move and urging that Tehran return to negotiations.



Is this going to happen? Are we preparing for a Nuclear war with Iran? Everyone has pretty much pointed to Iran as a threat to World Peace. But is the use of nuclear weapons required? How will this whole thing play out?

[edit on 7-1-2006 by digitalassassin]

nobody's that stupid. if the US or any other nation used nuclear weapons for any reason other than to counter an all out nuclear attack on our nation, the world would have our heads, and we would probably descend into all out civil war as the american people would not tolerate an action of this sort.

this article is just an example of political scare tactics.

The key word there is "PLANNING". Just because we're making plans doesn't mean they're going to be carried out. We had plans for decades on nuking the Soviet Union, even preemptive strikes, but it never happened. You HAVE to have war plans on file, so that you don't end up running around like a chicken without a head if something DOES happen.

Why wait until nuclear war is necessary? Wouldn't it be better to strike before they have nuclear capability?
Sure, there would be a whole lot of crying from the tulip-walkers, but at least they would be alive and not under threat of harm.

That is my non-conspiratorial version. Most should know my conspiratorial version.

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Why wait until nuclear war is necessary? Wouldn't it be better to strike before they have nuclear capability?
Sure, there would be a whole lot of crying from the tulip-walkers, but at least they would be alive and not under threat of harm.

That is my non-conspiratorial version. Most should know my conspiratorial version.

What a fantastic idea, lets all support pre-emptively nuking countries now. Seems you have learnt little from the pre-emptive waste of time against Iraq. Now you think it best to pre-emptively nuke a country of 70 million people for something they probably wont do. Hell, im still waiting on ANY concrete evidence that even suggests that Iran is even trying to pursue nuclear weapons. Yet, in the absence of any proof you're willing to risk killing 70 million people to make yourself feel safer.

Consider this tulip-walker not impressed with your appalling insecurity that would even attempt to justify nuking a country like this.

subz what would it take to prove they had nukes or a hostile nuclear program, if they did?

Originally posted by namehere
subz what would it take to prove they had nukes or a hostile nuclear program, if they did?

Photos, documents, testimony from people who arent defectors who invariably try to tell the host nation what they want to hear. Any concrete evidence that is not purely "strong belief" which is the entirety of the accusations coming from both the US and the EU.

This isn't a low stakes game where we should be content with taking people's word for things. The US took this current administrations word that Iraq had WMDs and was ready to use them, that it was sponsoring Al-Qaeda and that it was pursuing nuclear weapons. Every single one of those accusations has since been proven to be erroneous or at worst flat out lies. Now we're being told to accept, prima facie, the "strong beliefs" of a proven liar of an administration that Iran has nuclear weapons. A belief that would have us justify and allow the nuking of a country. It's just not acceptable.

This person walking past my home now could possibly be a burglar or a murderer. Does that slight chance give me the right to kill him just to be sure? Of course it doesn't so why are we even contemplating the same ludicrous logic to pervade international politics???

[edit on 7/1/06 by subz]

subz but doesnt irans responses make you not even slightly suspicious, especially denying their own ally, not to mention what the IAEA has stated about iran hiding their program for years?

My God, you're right! I am slightly suspicious.

Kill them. Kill them all quick!

Then Syria and North Korea, and anybody else that seems suspicious. That guy in Venezuela is acting suspicious, don't forget him, and Cuba of course. Build a wall to stop the Mexicans, they're a little suspicious too.

I feel safer already.

Tulip walkers? We are much safer with the nukes in the hands of pyschopaths who have a history of using these and other weapons of mass destruction. Give me a break, the only reason why Iran would want nukes and it is to protect themselves from invasion from countries that have a history of invading countries for their resources. hint hint. And it's not the Jamaican.

A history of using Nukes? Who? Oh! Right, you mean the exactly TWO that have ever been used out of the probably hundreds of thousands that have been built over the last 60 years.

[edit on 1/7/2006 by Zaphod58]

Originally posted by namehere
subz but doesn't irans responses make you not even slightly suspicious, especially denying their own ally, not to mention what the IAEA has stated about iran hiding their program for years?

The IAEA reports all say there is no evidence to suggest a nuclear weapons program. The closest the American's got to any substantiating report from the IAEA was the use of the term "inconclusive".

With respects to Iran's rhetoric of late, yes it is unacceptable and inflammatory, but that does not equate to impending Iranian nuclear attack. Just take a look at the North Koreans, the have one of the kookiest unelected leaders, starving and highly uneducated population and a communist government. They also have nuclear weapons and have not used them.

Even if Iran's determination to gain nuclear weapons was a given, which it most certainly isn't at this juncture, then history definitely leans towards their use as purely defensive. We all know that the use of nuclear weapons is confined to the United States acting against Japan at the end of WW2. Since then the amount of nuclear weapons and nuclear armed countries, both friends and bitter enemies of the United States, has increased in many orders of magnitude. But we still have never had a nuclear weapon fired in anger since then. Is this simply because every leader of every country that's ever had nuclear weapons was sane, rational and never provoked?

There were so many times where logic would of demanded that nuclear weapons would of been used. Korean War, Vietnam War, Cuban Missile Crisis and the fall of the USSR. All these immensely tense and dangerous times and not a single nuclear weapon ever fired. This isn't coincidence, it stems from the simple and famous concept of mutually assured destruction.

The situation of Iran using nuclear weapons isn't even as favourable, odds wise, as MAD! At least the USSR could of derived some hope from knowing it had the means to destroy the United States a couple of times over. What does Iran have? It could at best make a couple of nuclear warheads before the jig would be up. It would have to deny IAEA inspections months before it developed nuclear weapons. It would just be too hard to hide this activity from the IAEA and still allow inspections.

When they'd deny inspections the World would know they are up to no good. Game over Iran. But for the time being lets assume they some how managed to produce a nuclear weapon without tipping their hand with the IAEA. They have no ICBM's to speak of. They could not reach the USA in their wildest dreams. They could launch a nuke or two at Israel, not enough to wipe them out but enough to seal the complete and utter destruction of the Iranian nation. Where is the benefit of that? I cant see any and although Iranian mullahs seem to us to be harsh and fundamental zealots they are not suicidal morons.

If the Iranians truly are going for nuclear weapons, which I wont say I totally don't believe possible, the worst I can envisage is a repeat of the North Korea. They would use their nuclear arms as a deterrent to attack and provocation from their neighbours and the United States. Every other country since the bomb fell on Nagasaki has used nuclear weapons this way. I find it too much to stomach that we're expected to believe two big assumptions: 1) Iran is actually going for nuclear weapons in spite of the condemnation, self-throat cutting and bridge-burning it would be for them, and 2) that they would be the first country in history to initiate a conflict with nuclear weapons.

Iran is a real threat. They have hundreds of military bases all over the world, their real intent is to take over the world, militarily and financially. Yeah right. Give me a break.

Excellent post Subz, and very good points. Iran with Nukes, in the hands of an extremist is a scary prospect, and I don't see anything wrong with PLANNING to do something about it, however I don't see any reason to do anything about it right now. Yeah, Iran could be going farther to resolve this situation, but I haven't seen any concrete, absolute proof that they ARE working towards nuclear weapons.

Iran might not have bases all over the world, or a huge military, but one or two nukes IF THEY DEVELOP THEM, in the right area, could do a lot of economic damage to the world, by wiping out a large chunk of oil producing capacity, and leaving them the only country in the area producing oil.

[edit on 1/7/2006 by Zaphod58]

And we are suppose to believe that our way of life is under threat from these people. Just paupers pandering to the elite. Spreading democracy to the world. Sorry, it would be hard to spread the American way of life to the world. Their is not enough resources available to believe that.

It is just an excuse to continue looting the resources of other countries to maintain the American way of life. Why stop now?

The end result is unsustainable, the sooner we realize and adapt to this reality, the less bleak the future outcome will be. Have you noticed that they are assembling a shadow government and are hoarding resources? What do they envision for our future? We need to wake up.

*shrug* If that's what you want to take from my posts, and my thoughts, more power too you. I'm not advocating either side, just presenting things how I see them, as to why people are in an uproar over Iran having nukes, and some of the very real fears of what could happen. If we lost a large chunk of oil imports for any length of time, the economic damage would be extensive.

[edit on 1/7/2006 by Zaphod58]

My God, you're right! I am slightly suspicious.

Kill them. Kill them all quick!

i dont recall saying we should invade or that they have nukes or anything, dont assume such.

i was asking subz his opinion.

i just dont understand certain actions by iran, i dont know what to think of iran yet.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Excellent post Subz, and very good points.

Thanks

Originally posted by namehere
i was asking subz his opinion.

And thank you for asking, I appreciate the chance to talk about this highly dangerous topic without having to dodge inflammatory and propaganda driven talking points of "bomb iran!"

A healthy scepticism is needed with Iran, for sure, we would be deluding and endangering ourselves if we believed that Iran was completely benign. With the same token, we are most definitely endangering ourselves with this foolhardy notion of pre-emptive attacks suring up our safety. It's a positively oxymoronic scenario. When you start pre-emptively attacking you effectively force the hands of other nations who don't necessarily like your nation but would normally not even contemplate attacking you. If they feel they are going to get an arse-whoopin' either way they may as well go down fighting, wouldn't you?

So where does that leave us (the West) post-Iraq War? We've given a boat load of countries a 'nothing to lose' standpoint. Couple that with the alienation and downright hatred these policies and invasions have created and you've got one REALLY dangerous World. To pre-emptively bomb Iran would be the icing on the cake. We would force China and Russia's hands then.

For more reading on Iran and its government I suggest having a look at the ATSNN Fact File I compiled on the Islamic Republic.

ATSNN Fact File: Iran

[edit on 7/1/06 by subz]

Didn't mean to direct that at you namehere. More a reaction to TC's 'Tulipwalker' comment than anything you said.

I think any of Iran's recent actions have to be looked at in the light of their position - since the Afghanistan and Iraq occupations, they've been surrounded by a hostile army with the world's largest nuclear arsenal. Would we expect any nation to just roll over, or try to build some defenses?

We can threaten every country in the world, but at some point we have to admit that our actions are the direct cause of their reactions and we're creating the threat to our own security. If we can't see it, I'm sure other countries can and wonder if they'll be the next to be labelled as 'evil' or sponsors of terrorism.

Coallitions and pre-emptive strikes work both ways and a nuclear strike against Iran could put us right at the top of the world's # list and on the wrong side of a world war.

Former Mayor Koch of New York on Fox news said Iran and some other countries in the Middle East already have Nuclear weapons. And the U.S. now knows that pakistan sold them the materials and they have the nukes weaponized on shahab3 and IRBM missiles.