Do you think Iran has a nuclear weapons program?

[maddogchen]

just wondering

 

[rickn]

yes, and who can blame them

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Before- Yes

Now- No.

That does not mean that they aren't trying to acquire, or perhaps have acquired a Soviet era nuke.

 

[maddogchen]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Before- Yes

Now- No.

That does not mean that they aren't trying to acquire, or perhaps have acquired a Soviet era nuke.

What changed your mind?

 

[Draccius]

Yes, I do. How developed and organized it is another matter, though.

 

[tnitsuj]

Probably

 

[rickn]

they may have enough materials already. They continue to develop their ballistic missle capabilities, and for what? To deliver what kinds of payloads?

 

[maddogchen]

Hey does someone know if its true what Rumsfield said about Iran building a nuclear reactor that takes in more energy than it actually produces? I think I saw someone say it on the show West Wing too.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: maddogchen

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Before- Yes

Now- No.

That does not mean that they aren't trying to acquire, or perhaps have acquired a Soviet era nuke.

What changed your mind?

What changed my mind or theirs?

 

[Witling]

Do you care if Iran has nuclear weapons? I don't feel it's a threat to us in America.

 

[maddogchen]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: maddogchen

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Before- Yes

Now- No.

That does not mean that they aren't trying to acquire, or perhaps have acquired a Soviet era nuke.

What changed your mind?

What changed my mind or theirs?

Oh i see, you were talking about Iran not your opinion changing.

 

[JackStorm]

I highly doubt Rummy is qualified to make that sorta comment. Last I check he wasn't a nuclear expert. Sounds alot like propaganda to me. Though, if someone could provide a link that proves what Rummy said is true, I would like too see it.

 

[maddogchen]

Originally posted by: Witling
Do you care if Iran has nuclear weapons? I don't feel it's a threat to us in America.

I care, because we suspect Iran of funding terrorists in Lebanon, maybe they might give them a nuke or two. And then they might say hey, now that we have a nuke, instead of using it on Israel, lets bring that nuke over to the US.

 

[tnitsuj]

Originally posted by: maddogchen

Originally posted by: Witling
Do you care if Iran has nuclear weapons? I don't feel it's a threat to us in America.

I care, because we suspect Iran of funding terrorists in Lebanon, maybe they might give them a nuke or two. And then they might say hey, now that we have a nuke, instead of using it on Israel, lets bring that nuke over to the US.

I can't imagine any state givng a whole nuclear weapon to an outside group. That seems to be a highly unlikely proposition.

 

[maddogchen]

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: maddogchen

Originally posted by: Witling
Do you care if Iran has nuclear weapons? I don't feel it's a threat to us in America.

I care, because we suspect Iran of funding terrorists in Lebanon, maybe they might give them a nuke or two. And then they might say hey, now that we have a nuke, instead of using it on Israel, lets bring that nuke over to the US.

I can't imagine any state givng a whole nuclear weapon to an outside group. That seems to be a highly unlikely proposition.

Hmm.. i can imagine North Korea selling it for lots of money. They already traffic missiles and illegal drugs. They have a whole pipeline available to smuggle things out unaware.

Iran has terrorist connections with groups in the Middle East. These groups are loyal to Iran because of their support over the years. Also suicide bombers make for very accurate smart bombs. So if they ever want to hit a target outside their missile range, I think a suicide bomber would be their weapon of choice

 

[LongCoolMother]

how do we know whether to trust the bush admin on something like this anymore? i mean, they did say iraq had WMD. so what makes this time any different? dont get tricked again!!

 

[Crimson]

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: maddogchen

Originally posted by: Witling
Do you care if Iran has nuclear weapons? I don't feel it's a threat to us in America.

I care, because we suspect Iran of funding terrorists in Lebanon, maybe they might give them a nuke or two. And then they might say hey, now that we have a nuke, instead of using it on Israel, lets bring that nuke over to the US.

I can't imagine any state givng a whole nuclear weapon to an outside group. That seems to be a highly unlikely proposition.

So does flying planes into the WTC and the Pentagon. Seemed pretty unlikely just a couple years ago.. now it seems pretty likely doesn't it?

 

[Drphibes]

Flying two planes into a building is a far cry from soliciting the help of another country to give you a tactical nuclear war head. Most of these countries are in a "survivalist mode " right now, especially middle eastern ones . There leaders may be mad men but they didnt become leaders of their countries by being blatent morons. Unlike our country where an idiot can be elected into office, in those places its usually means organizing a revolution and/or siezing power. They are atleast familiar with military stratagy and understand lose lose situatons. They fully realize that giving a terrorist group a warhead is as good as shooting it right from there own back yard. Wich brings us to the reason nukes havent been used at all since ww2. If you touch one off youve basically assured the destruction of yourself and every other country. I guess everyone forgets that a bully dosent push the guy thats bigger than him around especially when he could obliterate them. After all look at us China has nuclear weapon and gas and every other WMD just like we do, and i doubt anyone would argue that Mau isnt a mad man "tiananmen square" comes to mind. WE havent bombed them yet because we knew if we did theyd either a) bust our a** or B) Kick the sh*t out of us real good before we eventually conquord them. Right now all the U.S. is doing is exploiting the smaller countries that have things we want or have grudges against.

 

[maddogchen]

Originally posted by: Drphibes
Flying two planes into a building is a far cry from soliciting the help of another country to give you a tactical nuclear war head. Most of these countries are in a "survivalist mode " right now, especially middle eastern ones . There leaders may be mad men but they didnt become leaders of their countries by being blatent morons. Unlike our country where an idiot can be elected into office, in those places its usually means organizing a revolution and/or siezing power. They are atleast familiar with military stratagy and understand lose lose situatons. They fully realize that giving a terrorist group a warhead is as good as shooting it right from there own back yard. Wich brings us to the reason nukes havent been used at all since ww2. If you touch one off youve basically assured the destruction of yourself and every other country. I guess everyone forgets that a bully dosent push the guy thats bigger than him around especially when he could obliterate them. After all look at us China has nuclear weapon and gas and every other WMD just like we do, and i doubt anyone would argue that Mau isnt a mad man "tiananmen square" comes to mind. WE havent bombed them yet because we knew if we did theyd either a) bust our a** or B) Kick the sh*t out of us real good before we eventually conquord them. Right now all the U.S. is doing is exploiting the smaller countries that have things we want or have grudges against.

Well there's North Korea where an idiot can be popped right out of a woman's womb and become leader/God. Also its a smaller country that we have a big grudge against, smaller than Iran and Iraq...I'm not sure if its bigger than Afghanistan. And we ain't gonna touch it. Its like a live grenade that hasn't gone off in a while, are you really gonna poke it with a stick?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Drphibes
Flying two planes into a building is a far cry from soliciting the help of another country to give you a tactical nuclear war head.

probably wouldn't be "tactical," it requires a very advanced weapons program to make a small bomb.

 

[Drphibes]

True, but the argument holds weather its tactical or not.

 

[ElFenix]

maybe someone is trying to blow smoke up our asses again

 

[Drphibes]

I wasnt refering to smaller as in physical size of a country i was refering to smaller as in military size and north korea would turn south korea into a cratar. They have enough artillary to level soul in several hours. Not to mention we dont have enough stuff there to even slow them down if they were gonna pull a full fleged offensive and we couldnt get enough stuff there for several months. I belive we also discoupled being a mad man and an idiot. Kim has been in control of his country for some time now and from a militaristic standpoint has assured himself breathing room from us why would he so quickly throw it away.

 

[HardWarrior]

I hope they do. It's either that or have their country turned into a US-sponsored re-education camp.

 

[maddogchen]

Originally posted by: Drphibes
I wasnt refering to smaller as in physical size of a country i was refering to smaller as in military size and north korea would turn south korea into a cratar. They have enough artillary to level soul in several hours. Not to mention we dont have enough stuff there to even slow them down if they were gonna pull a full fleged offensive and we couldnt get enough stuff there for several months.

What about the Marines in Okinawa or using our superior airpower to rain down bombs on anything that moves?

On another note, I always thought keeping the capital as Seoul which is within artillery range of NK was a really dumb decision on the part of the SKs. Also keeping US troops so close to the border is too risky. With them so close, it quickly eliminates the one real advantage we have which is air cover and technology. If we pull the troops back, past Seoul, we could use our advantages to destroy 50-70% of NK forces before they even engage our troops.

Anyway, its true what you say that of the 3 axis of evil, Iraq, Iran, and NK, NK is the one with the biggest punch. As for taking on the weakest first, isn't that just a strategy in war? To pick off the weaker links before engaging the big ones? We used that in WW2 in picking off the neighboring countries before going into Germany, or picking off the smaller islands and bypassing strongholds on the way to Japan.