High possibility of Nuclear war within 3-6 months?

[OmegaRuby and AlphaSapphire]

^ Yeah but that technology isn't refined yet. Also the rest of the world would still be in danger...
I agree, the sane people would step up to prevent it like they did with the cold war...at least i hope there are still sane people in power...

 

[war rock exe]

I really hope that doesn't end up happening because i want to join the military after i leave high school and i can't die until i get my first GF so NO WAR FOR AMERICA!!!!!.... But hey if i was the president i would do anything to stop iran from hating us....

 

[Mr. X]

The cold war policy was containment. Thats not what they are planning to do. They are planning to attack a country that has no means of defending itself.

Our founding fathers would be rolling in their graves at this. This nation was founded because the people were tired of another country pushing, no, forcing its will upon it. A habit which we have picked up.

I'll say again. If Israel attacks Iran, we can't support Israel and take the moral high ground. And given the pretty shoddy military intelligence that is so rampant, I have doubts that such a strike would we without civilian casualities. Well, given this case and Israel's actions so far it would be a good bet that they would still attack even if they knew it would result in a number of civilian casualties.

I'll say this though. This preemptive military strike **** will set a VERY dangerous precedent, especially since we are not at war with Iran.

 

[lx_theo]

I wouldn't worry about nuclear war. The US has developed technology to destroy missiles in mid-air using lasers. We are fine.

And people aren't retards, they know not to shoot nukes at people.

I'd like to point out why its so important to everyone to keep Iran from having nuclear weapons.

Being a country based on a religion, they are much more likely to be the people who would shoot off those missiles. No offense to any religious people, but its been shown time and time again that religion is a great motivator for giving up your life for a religious and/or ridiculous crusade of whatever course.

Anyone who actually believes Iran should be allowed to gain weapons is not thinking it through entirely.

Israel really shouldn't have them either. They're just as much of a risk of doing something stupid. The main difference is Israel always seems to be on the defensive somehow. It helps keep that in check. Though being our ally helps us dust that issue to the side (The US, for those not from here).

When you get down to it, in modern times, it takes the same sort of crazy to even want to get nuclear weapons as it does to be willing to use them after developing them. Iran, North Korea... I wouldn't trust any country like that with weapons capable of starting a World War with a press of a button.

 

[Ivysaur]

But see, North Korea has annunced that they'll stop their nuclear program and begin talks with the US in exchange for... food. Yes, that. Their citizens are dying from hunger. And having nuclear bombs lets them negotiate getting rid of them- if they hadn't any, there would be nothing to negotiate with.

Iran wants bombs so they aren't deadly scared of being nuked by Israel. They wouldn't dare to use them because that would mean getting nuked in turn a few seconds later. Religious or not, no leader ever wants to see their country annihilated because of them.

 

[Skitty1]

If people would just learn to accept others and stop be ignorant dip sh*ts than we would not even have this problem in the first place.

As for religion...

Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings.

 

[TRIFORCE89]

The cold war policy was containment. Thats not what they are planning to do. They are planning to attack a country that has no means of defending itself.

Our founding fathers would be rolling in their graves at this. This nation was founded because the people were tired of another country pushing, no, forcing its will upon it. A habit which we have picked up.

I'll say again. If Israel attacks Iran, we can't support Israel and take the moral high ground. And given the pretty shoddy military intelligence that is so rampant, I have doubts that such a strike would we without civilian casualities. Well, given this case and Israel's actions so far it would be a good bet that they would still attack even if they knew it would result in a number of civilian casualties.

I'll say this though. This preemptive military strike **** will set a VERY dangerous precedent, especially since we are not at war with Iran.

I totally don't think Israel should strike first. I hope nobody strikes at all, really. But if Israel strikes first... they just kind of proved the point of mid-east extremists and Iran's argument in particular.

 

[Mr. X]

Agreed, and back to my main point.

If Israel attacks first, we can't take the moral high ground if we support them. If we want to take the moral high ground, we'd have to protect the weaker Iran from Israel's bullying.

Here's the diffrence between the two. Iran is a dog that is all bark. He's barking, and barking, and barking. Annoying as **** really, but not a threat. Israel is a dog that is lowly growling and bearing its teeth. It's getting ready to bite someone.

And out of these two, guess which one a sane person is more likely to get put down? The barking annoying one? Or the one that looks like its going to tear a chunk out of the next thing that walks past it?

Both of these countries are taking the 'holy people' **** way out of line either way. Their actions are prime examples of Religion gone bad.

 

[TRIFORCE89]

Agreed, and back to my main point.

If Israel attacks first, we can't take the moral high ground if we support them. If we want to take the moral high ground, we'd have to protect the weaker Iran from Israel's bullying.

Here's the diffrence between the two. Iran is a dog that is all bark. He's barking, and barking, and barking. Annoying as **** really, but not a threat. Israel is a dog that is lowly growling and bearing its teeth. It's getting ready to bite someone.

And out of these two, guess which one a sane person is more likely to get put down? The barking annoying one? Or the one that looks like its going to tear a chunk out of the next thing that walks past it?

Both of these countries are taking the 'holy people' **** way out of line either way. Their actions are prime examples of Religion gone bad.

Well, I don't think that's entirely accurate. You make it sound like one dog is just annoying while the other is just waiting to attack and unprovoked at that.

Iran threatening Israel. Perhaps not the belief held by all of its citizens (I would hope not), but at least its current leader wants to wipe Israel off the map. Yes, he's loud and annoying, but he is also threatening the other dog. If the other dog attacks, it is in self defence.

Again, I don't think Israel should make the first strike. It's not something I'd necessarily support, but at the same time I would understand their point of view.

When I was in elementary school, I was a quiet kid. Some other kids wanted to test me. Because I never got angry, I never teased anyone - I was a goodie goodie. Specifically, they wanted to see how long I'd go without hitting one of them, because I was big and they couldn't get why I didn't use that. A bit of a gentle giant. So, for several months they just... annoyed me. They didn't tease me, or hit me, or attack me. They were just really annoying. Just standing near me and making noises all day long, nonstop. So, eventually I just screamed out "leave.me.alone" and gave a nice big punch. Wham.

Basically, Iran's asking for it. Which I think puts them (or their leader, rather) at fault. It is self defence. I would not support Israel if they struck first, but I wouldn't be surprised. And I wouldn't see what they did as trying to serve some sort of religious purpose.

 

[Mr. X]

Physical aggression in response to words is not self defense. Never has been, never will be.

Legally, its a case of 'You shouldn't have tried provoking him, but he shouldn't have attacked you either. You win your case, he has to pay your medical bills. Both of you, however, need to grow up.'

You know what would screw everyone though? Iran allying itself with China. If Iran agree's to sell oil to China for real cheap, say half current sell price, China would jump at that **** in half a second.

 

[TRIFORCE89]

Physical aggression in response to words is not self defense. Never has been, never will be.

Legally, its a case of 'You shouldn't have tried provoking him, but he shouldn't have attacked you either.'

Okay. Interest of national defense then, if not self-defense. Or something. Whatever the scale, be it a country or an individual, ignoring a threat and hoping for the best is not always the best thing. Sometimes everything cools down and it works out. Other times you find yourself acting too late. Is starting a war the best answer, no. But, something to try and prevent a larger situation from escalating is probably going to happen.

Again, I don't think Israel would be correct in striking first, or at all (since, they kinda aren't supposed to have nukes anyway), I'm just saying Iran wouldn't exactly be innocent in the situation.

Regardless, I think something going to go down with Syria before the Iran/Israel stuff happens. Not really expecting nuclear in either event though (assuming Israel strikes first), at least at first

 

[Mr. X]

If your arguing national defence, then in terms of national defence it would have been best to bomb North Korea for its agression toward South Korea.

I forget, NK launched how many artillery strikes into SK?

Nation defense is a dead argument. War with NK never happened, even though they were asking for it more then Iran is.

Declaring war on someone just because they said bad things about you might have flew back in medieval times. But you'd think/hope that we'd be past this for now.

Personally, I don't give a damn about either country. If they are looking for ****, let them kill each other.

I'm not looking at this as two countries don't like each other. I'm looking at this as something that could easily spiral into world war 2 1/2, or 3.

 

[donavannj]

You know what would screw everyone though? Iran allying itself with China. If Iran agree's to sell oil to China for real cheap, say half current sell price, China would jump at that **** in half a second.

The thing is, China considers any US military action in Iran as an act of war against China, unless they were bluffing back at the end of January when they said that.

 

[Mr. X]

I didn't hear about that, but still, sounds like its specific to US. Not Israel.

 

[donavannj]

I didn't hear about that, but still, sounds like its specific to US. Not Israel.

It was indeed directed at the US. It's relevant because military action is being considered by the US after a month of the US basically saying to Israel to publicly keep its hand off the trigger while simultaneously also keeping its own hand off the trigger.

What's also scary is that it's highly likely Russia would get involved, too.

 

[TRIFORCE89]

If your arguing national defence, then in terms of national defence it would have been best to bomb North Korea for its agression toward South Korea.

I forget, NK launched how many artillery strikes into SK?

Nation defense is a dead argument. War with NK never happened, even though they were asking for it more then Iran is.

Declaring war on someone just because they said bad things about you might have flew back in medieval times. But you'd think/hope that we'd be past this for now.

Personally, I don't give a damn about either country. If they are looking for ****, let them kill each other.

I'm not looking at this as two countries don't like each other. I'm looking at this as something that could easily spiral into world war 2 1/2, or 3.

Two-and-a-half?

Well, war with North Korea wouldn't make a lot of sense in terms of national defense for other countries who aren't SK. SK could have struck NK, because they were the ones threatened/attack. It would be SK's national defense that was threatened. No reason for some other country to get involved before it grows to something larger. SK hasn't really fought back because they don't want to get NK enraged enough to go nuclear on them.

Its not just saying bad stuff. Its not like Ahmadinejad criticized Netanyahu's tie and now he's ready to bomb them. They're being threatened. They've been told that they have no right to be on this earth. And Iran is claiming nuclear development (not necessarily of weapons, but still). There are people involved here. Citizens. If someone is saying they're going to blow you up, why would you sit and wait to see if that happens? Lives would be lost. How that's medieval is beyond me. Now that we're in 2012 we're just passive people now? Sit back, hope for the best, if you die - meh, oh well. You're supposed to protect your people.

Not necessarily through a military strike on them - attacking civilians or military bases or the like, but something significantly smaller with which to put a dent in their weapons development. I think the US suggested executing scientists. Israel does have a pretty damn good covert operations installment, but I don't think that's appropriate either. The scientists are just doing their job. But, some kind of non-lethal sabotage of the development program... if Israel attempts anything, I'd rather it be something like that.

That would be Israel's reasoning. I think its justified, but not sound. If they attack first, it will just ignite something much larger and they'd be worse off.