It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The idea that your country can choose who and what happens on earth. It makes me sick.
Originally posted by SLAYER69
Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
*** now this doesn't even TOUCH on the fact that by known intelligence the public can see, nothing the United States has in conventional weapons can destroy the Fordow facility. The 30,000lb MOAB goes DEEP. Indeed. Fordow is KNOWN to be deeper. Not by much....but close doesn't count when 100% destruction is absolutely essential. Using Tactical Nuclear Weapons? Oh hell....Fordow won't even know what hit them.....but then, nor will Obama when the world comes down on him with the weight of the entire planet
Devils advocate.
Why would it need to touch the facility?
They could theatrically use 3 or 4 and just obliterate all access deep down and entomb those working there ....
Originally posted by RagingBull
I really don't understand the anti-Israeli sentiment on ATS. Especially with regards to Iran.
Israel has not attacked Iran. Israel has not sponsored terrorist groups against Iran.
Iran has and continues to support terrorist groups against Israel.
Israel, just like any other country, has every right to defend it self.
Originally posted by Domo1
reply to post by Rebroadcast
The idea that your country can choose who and what happens on earth. It makes me sick.
I'm speaking for ALL countries, actually all people when I say we don't need any more countries with nukes.
Originally posted by FoosM
Originally posted by Domo1
reply to post by Rebroadcast
The idea that your country can choose who and what happens on earth. It makes me sick.
I'm speaking for ALL countries, actually all people when I say we don't need any more countries with nukes.
As long as one country has nukes, we all should have nukes.
If you are a US citizen and you believe in the 2nd amendment, you would also agree.
All of us pay (a lot) taxes to our individual governments to protect us from hostile forces.
I want my government to spend their money on the best deterrent possible. If thats
nukes, then that is the answer. If they are squandering our money on stupid defensive
weapons, then they shouldn't be our leaders.
Now, I know you got some panicky arm wavers claiming that if Iran would get nukes they
would nuke Israel. Well so what, thats between Israel and Iran. If that would happen,
guess what, Israel has nukes too. Problem solved, conflict contained.
Originally posted by ascension211
No scenario would be Optimal to the survival of this planet. We have enough natural disasters to deal with. Someone call all their govt's across the planet and tell them to LOVE each other and stop all wars.
We need to focus on the things that are important people. Saving lives not ending them.
Ascension211
Originally posted by beezzer
If everyone in your neighborhood owned a firearm, would that make your neighborhood safer?
Originally posted by mypan
Iran is no walkover and any attacks would galvanised their population as before.
Remember their human wave attacks in the 80's ? Such waste on human lives but they bulldozed through and proved themselves worthy adversary for anybody.
Sure, the US can attack them from afar or even nuke them but they probably have a few dirty bombs in place already. Ultimately it is down to what level of casualties one is prepared to absorb and the mullahs win hands down on this one.
Originally posted by FoosM
Originally posted by beezzer
If everyone in your neighborhood owned a firearm, would that make your neighborhood safer?
Yes
edit on 28-10-2012 by FoosM because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by mypan
Iran is no walkover and any attacks would galvanised their population as before.
Remember their human wave attacks in the 80's ? Such waste on human lives but they bulldozed through and proved themselves worthy adversary for anybody.
Sure, the US can attack them from afar or even nuke them but they probably have a few dirty bombs in place already. Ultimately it is down to what level of casualties one is prepared to absorb and the mullahs win hands down on this one.
Originally posted by mypan
Iran is no walkover and any attacks would galvanised their population as before.
Remember their human wave attacks in the 80's ? Such waste on human lives but they bulldozed through and proved themselves worthy adversary for anybody.
Sure, the US can attack them from afar or even nuke them but they probably have a few dirty bombs in place already. Ultimately it is down to what level of casualties one is prepared to absorb and the mullahs win hands down on this one.
Originally posted by beezzer
Originally posted by followtheevidence
Since when is anti-war synonymous with anti-Israel?
Since Iran started building nukes.
Originally posted by Patriotsrevenge
Originally posted by mypan
Iran is no walkover and any attacks would galvanised their population as before.
Remember their human wave attacks in the 80's ? Such waste on human lives but they bulldozed through and proved themselves worthy adversary for anybody.
Sure, the US can attack them from afar or even nuke them but they probably have a few dirty bombs in place already. Ultimately it is down to what level of casualties one is prepared to absorb and the mullahs win hands down on this one.
Against Iraq back in the 80s sure. Against a division of U.S. Army and Marines with M1-A2 Main battle tanks
They would be chum for the birds! Even if they were that nuts, most probably would have better sense as most are Persians that hate their government and not wacko Islamic s.