NEWS: Bush Plans Preemptive Nuclear Strike Against Iran

Bad idea, a nuclear strike against Iran is far more likely to get the US into a worse situation than it already is. I have been doing some reading on what conditions must arrise inorder for the use of Nuclear weapons. In all cases, 2 things must occure. The first is that there has to be an agreement from the country where the launch comes from, and the other is its neighbors and allies must be in full concurance of such use. Anything else would be consider an act of war by the other nations of the world. Want to see the EU and the other nations of the world stand up and take action, let the US launch a nuclear attack and it is over for the US.

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
Bad idea, a nuclear strike against Iran is far more likely to get the US into a worse situation than it already is. I have been doing some reading on what conditions must arrise inorder for the use of Nuclear weapons. In all cases, 2 things must occure. The first is that there has to be an agreement from the country where the launch comes from, and the other is its neighbors and allies must be in full concurance of such use. Anything else would be consider an act of war by the other nations of the world. Want to see the EU and the other nations of the world stand up and take action, let the US launch a nuclear attack and it is over for the US.

They won't just nuke US just if they didn't warning them.. it's stupid. They will call US and say WTF???? But if someone nuke US back, then it's over because US will strike all the other ennemies countries because of MAD.

Actually what I am refering to are some of the treaties that the US has with other ally's including that of NATO. Launching a Nuclear weapon requires that the US alert its ally's and let them know. And if it is from any other country or inside a nations waters, they have to have the permission of that government to do it. If they do not, it could spell trouble for the US. And if it is not justified, but then again in a Nuclear attack, there goes your evidence, it could mean that essentially the US is isolated in the world, as the other nations would essentially place an embargo on the US. In short, our economy would fall. And no one would want to do business with us. Sanctions and reparations would be levied against the US.
I had to dig through alot of documentation on the web, but 2 areas came to mind, one was some of the treaties we have, that are public with NATO and the UN. And the UN documentation is very specific on when a Nuclear weapon could be justifiably used. Unfortunately, when it comes to Iran, we do not have that justification as they are essentially no threat to the US. Their weapons systems may or may not reach this country. North Korea is more of a viable threat, as they do have the hardware to deliver a device to detonate on US soil.

Originally posted by mrsdudara
I also want to point out that if we do decide to go to war with Iran, supposedly, all hell will break loose here. A while ago, I was doing a search on "Red Alert", because of a thread hear on ats saying something about kids not allowed to go home when our alert system was on red. What came up from that search was a ton of sites from the millitias here in the US. They said they were on red alert because if we went to war with Iran it would be nuclear. They planned on overthrowing the govt. before the nukes were used.

(a note to Mr. Govt. guy who might be reading this - since I have the internet through sbc who was bought out by AT&T - I am not in the millitia, I do not have any connections with the millitia, this is just what I read on the net....OK?

)

They dispise people who look scared of them, so now you're probably being investigated.

Official media continue functioning as War Pimps:
here's an article that fans the flames of fear without pointing out, as people have done in this thread, that enrichment is around the 3% mark, fine for fuel, useless for weapons... from Radio Liberty:

April 22, 2006 -- The senior U.S. diplomat for arms control says that if Iran's claims of producing enriched uranium are true, then Iran has likely accumulated enough material for more than 10 potential nuclear weapons.

When will the US go all the way and establish a Ministry of Truth?

Just scanned the threads - if this has already been posted please disregard.

It's a great piece with quite a bit of detail

The Plan for Iran

Question...
Is anything known about whether the Iranians have actually started up their reactor yet?

If not, could this be the reason that the calls for a pre-emptive strike are growing all the louder and insistant?

This is from the New Yorker article I posted previously.

While almost no one disputes Iran’s nuclear ambitions, there is intense debate over how soon it could get the bomb, and what to do about that. Robert Gallucci, a former government expert on nonproliferation who is now the dean of the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown, told me, “Based on what I know, Iran could be eight to ten years away” from developing a deliverable nuclear weapon. Gallucci added, “If they had a covert nuclear program and we could prove it, and we could not stop it by negotiation, diplomacy, or the threat of sanctions, I’d be in favor of taking it out. But if you do it”—bomb Iran—“without being able to show there’s a secret program, you’re in trouble.”

In regards to your question, it is suspected the Iranians have had Russian assistance in building underground bunkers (also in the article). So I think there is international agreement that Iran has the facilities and abilities to begin designing the nukes.

As to whether they do or not already? I doubt it. As stated above it is forecasted that within a ten year period they will, if left to their own devices, have nuclear bombs at their disposal.

I personally wouldn't be too quick to rule out a "gift" of a few nuclear war heads from Russia with love. But to make their own even though they are capable of doing so would take too long.

A pre-emptive strike is hotly debated, not just here but nearly everyone I've asked has some pretty strong opinions and valid points both Nay and Yay.

Bush is a puppet, this we know. He's also a megalomaniac and an ego-freak. Would he be led to engage Iran? I have no doubt, that with a little push, and a promise of Historical Significance, he'd do just about anything.

His term is drawing to an end, he's going to go out with a bang I fear. Warranted or not.

A pre-emptive strike, if you believe even a portion of what is in print (from reliable news feeds) is a liklihood.

Opps wrong thread - sorry

originally posted by: DanDanDat
Opps wrong thread - sorry

Relevant dig up though.

I was just pointing out the other day that the media has been war-mongering over Iran every time we have a president of the wrong flavor and there is some kind of burp, fart, or hiccup in the Middle East.

"ZOMG! It's war with Iran and WWIII!!!!11!!!!!"

And this thread is the type of example I was pointing to.

a reply to: ketsuko

This was a perfect find.

its sad looking back on these threads from 2006 and seeing old avatars not seen in a long time.
where have you gone my arguing debating buddies..