Best Article on Iran Election Process I've seen

[Kevin]

Perhaps not just for themselves: http://www.cfciowa.org/K017/index.php?opti...l-news&Itemid=7

People really believe Israel will nuke the region? Really?

I have no doubt they would invade and unleash all the other weaponry they have, but nukes, really?

[Lissa]

People really believe Israel will nuke the region? Really?

I have no doubt they would invade and unleash all the other weaponry they have, but nukes, really?

They were prepared to do exactly that against Iraq during Desert Storm is a Skud with chemical weapons landed in Israel. When it comes to defense of Israel, the Israelis react, they don't think about future consequences.

[Occhidiangela]

People really believe Israel will nuke the region? Really?

I have no doubt they would invade and unleash all the other weaponry they have, but nukes, really?

I don't know what people believe, but Israel won't "nuke the region' as that would be a wasteful expenditure of their nuclear munitions. They'll target selective sites for maximum impact. They have, best estimates, between two and four hundred nukes. That isn't enough to "nuke the region" but is enough to make a hell of a mess, both in terms of body count and in environmental poisoning/wind born fallout.

Edit: My latest news, not a great source, is from MSNBC: Militias are clamping down in Iran. Score one point for the militarists.

Occhi

[Kevin]

They were prepared to do exactly that against Iraq during Desert Storm is a Skud with chemical weapons landed in Israel. When it comes to defense of Israel, the Israelis react, they don't think about future consequences.

No, they weren't going to fire nukes in Iraq. They threatened other things, that we bribed them off of, but they weren't going to use a nuke.

[Kevin]

but is enough to make a hell of a mess, both in terms of body count and in environmental poisoning/wind born fallout.

Yes and this is why I believe it's all bluster with them. A reverse jet stream kicks up in the Middle East fairly often and any fallout in countries to the east and north of Israel (i.e. the majority of the folks they are in the biggest disputes with will end up having a fair portion blow back to Israel.

I'm aware of their arsenal. They can do massive damage to anyone. They can do massive damage with conventional weapons as well (they can construct fuel air bombs if they don't already have some stockpiled). I do not see them ever using a nuke, even a tactical one, unless there is a large invasion on their soil. There would be very little point in them using them against Iran at this stage in the game. I do not think their leaders are that irrational. Highly protective and very aggressive but they understand the repercussions the use of such a weapon would bring. They have them and they bluster about them because that is one of the few ways to shout that they whole region should not gang up on them.

[Lissa]

No, they weren't going to fire nukes in Iraq. They threatened other things, that we bribed them off of, but they weren't going to use a nuke.

You answer a weapon of mass destruction with a weapon of mass destruction. I guarentee that if Saddam had fired a Skud at Israel with a Chemical Weapon Warhead, Bagdhad would have been a glass filled crater.

What we did was bribed Israel not to do anything when the Skuds were fired at them cause we knew that if Israel retalliated in anyway, even conventionally, the coalition would have split. This was why Saddam was throwing Skuds at Israel, to get them to react so the coallition would splinter.

[Kevin]

What we did was bribed Israel not to do anything when the Skuds were fired at them cause we knew that if Israel retalliated in anyway, even conventionally, the coalition would have split. This was why Saddam was throwing Skuds at Israel, to get them to react so the coallition would splinter.

Yes, this is not a revelation.

It's also part of the issue now. The international community believes that we can control Israel now. But again, even if there were a chemical hit I still don't think they would have fired a nuke. They are not insane.

One nuke fired by Israel and the entire Islamic world would hit them constantly with everything they had. There wouldn't be the fragile pseudo-peace there is now.

Of course this is how my dad felt about the cold war too so perhaps my view is tainted. Both sides had stable governments. Both sides knew that it was suicide to fire a nuke. Both sides were worried about it, and prepared for it, but the leaders didn't really believe the other side would fire.

I'm much more worried about Pakistan or India firing a nuke and setting things off than the Israeli government. Both of those governments have been very unstable. North Korea would fire one off too because Lil' Kim is insane and so are some of his military leaders. The leaders of Israel are not, they are just in a near impossible situation and have a history with most of the other nations of the region that if they let up the bluster and the threats that they will get hit relatively hard. But the history of much of their military action shows powerful but mostly sensible military strategy. Nukes are generally not sensible.

Oh well. I'm not changing any minds here and I've said my piece.

[--Pete]

Hi,

. . . I still don't think they would have fired a nuke.

I think you're right. For one thing, Israel does not need to use nukes to achieve any of its objectives and using nukes would cost them too much political capital. Israel's nuclear capability is an insurance policy. If their enemies ever get to the point of completely destroying Israel, the nuclear capability will ensure that they are not the only ones destroyed. MAD on a small scale.

I'm much more worried about Pakistan or India firing a nuke . . .

I've been expecting this for over a decade. Perhaps they are more stable than you give them credit for.

North Korea would fire one off too because Lil' Kim is insane . . .

Too true.

--Pete

[Zenda]

The international community believes that we can control Israel now.

I doubt that, because there is no reason to believe so. Israel doesn't have a reputation of always abiding to the rules, does it?

For example, after they bombed a nuclear facility in Iraq, in 1981, the UN unanimously (Resolution 487) ...

... condemned the attack in clear violation of the Charter of the UN and the norms of international conduct.
... called upon Israel to refrain in the future from any such acts or threats thereof.
... called upon Israel urgently to place its own nuclear facilities under the safeguards of the IAEA.
... considered that Iraq is entitled to appropriate redress for the destruction it had suffered.

Well, Israel still has not paid Iraq for the damage, or allowed the IAEA to inspect their facilities. And they are threatening to perform the exact same violation again in Iran, at this very moment.

Ironically, it is this resolution that gives Iran the right to pursue nuclear development.

"... fully recognizes the inalienable sovereign right of Iraq and all other States, especially the developing countries, to establish programmes of technological and nuclear development to develop their economy and industry for peaceful purposes in accordance with their present and future needs and consistent with the internationally accepted objectives of preventing nuclear-weapons proliferation."

[Kevin]

I doubt that, because there is no reason to believe so. Israel doesn't have a reputation of always abiding to the rules, does it?

Then why does the article you linked talk about China and Russia threatening the US if the US can't stop Israel from doing this that an the other thing. Is your unbiased source (I read their disclaimer) not so unbiased?

[Zenda]

One nuke fired by Israel and the entire Islamic world would hit them constantly with everything they had.

It won't get that far. Most likely, after Israel would have bombed a facility, Iran would simply address the UN. Another Resolution against Israel will be made, and terrorism will increase.

[Zenda]

Then why does the article you linked talk about China and Russia threatening the US if the US can't stop Israel from doing this that an the other thing.

Maybe they think that Israel is out of their control, and the only reasonable thing they can do is to warn the USA not to side with Israel? It was directed at Biden's statement that the USA would allow Israel to do anything they deemed necessary, as stated in the article.

Is your unbiased source (I read their disclaimer) not so unbiased?

I wouldn't know. Do they claim to be unbiased? Towards what?

It's not 'my source', btw. Just a view on the situation. I was mostly interested because of the threat from China, to stop their 'unfair' currency manipulations to support the American economy :lol:

[Lissa]

One nuke fired by Israel and the entire Islamic world would hit them constantly with everything they had. There wouldn't be the fragile pseudo-peace there is now.

The the world in general is naive about the US-Israeli relations. Israel does things when it see a potential threat, seems people have already forgotten about the "possible" nuclear reactor in the Syrian desert that Israel bombed a couple years back. While the US Intel backed up the Israeli intel and thought, the US didn't tell Israel to launch the air strikes. This also happened with Iraq back in '81. So don't be surprised if Israel attempts to take out Iran's reactor complex.

Of course this is how my dad felt about the cold war too so perhaps my view is tainted. Both sides had stable governments. Both sides knew that it was suicide to fire a nuke. Both sides were worried about it, and prepared for it, but the leaders didn't really believe the other side would fire.

The nature of most of the nuclear armed countries is that they realize what would happen if they used them. In most cases, this is a deterrent against their rivals, but they understand what would happen if they used them offensively.

I'm much more worried about Pakistan or India firing a nuke and setting things off than the Israeli government. Both of those governments have been very unstable. North Korea would fire one off too because Lil' Kim is insane and so are some of his military leaders. The leaders of Israel are not, they are just in a near impossible situation and have a history with most of the other nations of the region that if they let up the bluster and the threats that they will get hit relatively hard. But the history of much of their military action shows powerful but mostly sensible military strategy. Nukes are generally not sensible.

Oh well. I'm not changing any minds here and I've said my piece.

India and Pakistan have too few to "waste" them and both have China right there breathing down their necks (not to mention Russia and the CIS). If either fired in provocation, they'd be buried quickly, not just by their rival, but by China as well (as China has designs on a several pieces of contested land between India and Pakistan).

As to North Korea, I would be more scared of them selling a bomb to a terrorist organization then them actually using it themselves. North Korea wants money, they don't want to be destroyed and they've already got their Patron worried (China) and have to toe a very close line so they don't get taken out by their own Patron from their Patron feeling threatened.

Iran is the one that scares me the most with it's nuclear ambitions. We can see right now that if they got a bomb they would be the ones most likely to use it themselves. They'd either put one on their short or medium ranged missiles and hit Israel or they'd somehow try and smuggle a warhead into a US port onboardd a ship and detonate it there.

[Zenda]

They are not insane.

Not all of them, but one Israeli minister apparantly suggested sanctions against the USA, because he didn't like Obama's view on Palestine :blink:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid...rticle/ShowFull

[kandrathe]

I agree with your assessment of those "rogue" nations. The biggest fear I have is a radical Sunni, or Shiite attempting to help bring about the Islamic apocalypse. You know, that day when the shepherds of black camels start boasting and competing with others in the construction of higher buildings.

[Jester]

I agree with your assessment of those "rogue" nations. The biggest fear I have is a radical Sunni, or Shiite attempting to help bring about the Islamic apocalypse.

If only everybody would stop combining politics with eschatology, the middle east might look a whole lot less crazy.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

If only everybody would stop combining politics with eschatology, the middle east might look a whole lot less crazy.

Another great reason for eschewing theocracy, and for supporting a separation between the works of religion and the works of the state.

[eppie]

Iran is the one that scares me the most with it's nuclear ambitions. We can see right now that if they got a bomb they would be the ones most likely to use it themselves. They'd either put one on their short or medium ranged missiles and hit Israel or they'd somehow try and smuggle a warhead into a US port onboardd a ship and detonate it there.

Out of the question. First why would they shoot a missle at Israel, knowing that even when Israel would have bombed 6 Iranian cities first the US and europe would destroy Iran (we destroyed Iraq, and they didn't even have a missile that could be shot farther than 5 miles, let alone a nuclear bomb).

And if they (or any other nation) would be interested in sending a bomb to the US, they might have tried that ages ago with a dirty bomb which would make the same kind of statement only would be a thousand times less complicated.

Terrorists might be a threat but I don't think any terrorist group has the resources, knowledge, contacts and plan to do something like that. And again, if they had, they would far more likely try some kind of dirty bomb first. And I think it is clear that some of the old sovjet states are a much easier source of nuclear material than is Iran.


Anything bigger than 9/11 would give the US a 'mandate' to attack every country in the middle east. They would also be supported by Europe, China and russia (who are both not very big friends of islamic extremists) and probably just divide up the middle east between the three of them.

[kandrathe]

Out of the question.

Hmmm, it was Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who said,<blockquote>“On the last day when I was speaking before the assembly, one of a country's group told me that when I started to say "In the name of God the almighty and merciful," he saw a light around me, and I was placed inside this aura. I felt it myself. I felt the atmosphere suddenly change, and for those 27 or 28 minutes, the leaders of the world did not blink. When I say they didn't bat an eyelid, I'm not exaggerating because I was looking at them. And they were rapt. It seemed as if a hand was holding them there and had opened their eyes to receive the message from the Islamic republic."</blockquote>Couple that with his Shiite eschatology, and imminent access to nuclear weapons and you have the recipe of a religious zealot bombing Israel as a prelude to the end of the world. It would be as scary as Bush saying that he had been approached by angels who told him to perform God's will on earth.

[Lissa]

Lissa:

I have mulled over your response, and analysis. If what you suggest is what is going on, and it may well be, then I have to LOL:

Iran is, by being taken over by a militarist faction, turning into ... Iraq, late 1960's.

The more I think of it, the harder I laugh.

Hmmm, I wonder: will the Kurds and Azeris try to split off? I doubt it.

Occhi

And yet more power going to the IRGC as they continue to tight their grip. Iran's going from Theocratic Dictatorship to Militaristic Dictatorship.