Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: NattyIced on April 14, 2006, 01:28:11 PM
-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060414/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_israel
I keep reading that we will try diplomatic solutions, I just don't think there are any diplomatic solutions with that country. Ahmadinejad is completely nuts, and when someone is completely nuts plus in control of a country, a ****storm tends hit hard and fast.
-
Diplomatic solutions didnt work in Iraq nor will it in Iran
-
nice troll
-
don't get your panties in a bunch,all the media can talk about is WAR WITH IRAN, i think they want a war so they will have something to fill up their 24/7 " breaking news".
Iran is years away from building a BOMB, and negotiations are on going now. Non of the major powers, even Russia, France or China want Iran to have the bomb.
-
Sit back, relax and enjoy it as much as you can.
Nothing will be done. Nothing at all.
When and if a nuclear device is used to devastate some city, I'm pretty sure there won't be anyway to trace its origin with 100% certainty.
Therefore, there won't be any retaliation either.
So, this really isn't anything to get all upset about. Not a thing you can do, no way to prevent it and bad luck if it comes to a theater near you.
-
You may want to cancel your travel plans to Isreal.
-
after reading some quotes on teh bbC from average folk in Iran, they arent concerned and figure if the UN dont like them having nuclear energy then too bad. They dont seem the least bit worried about their version of Bush.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
after reading some quotes on teh bbC from average folk in Iran, they arent concerned and figure if the UN dont like them having nuclear energy then too bad. They dont seem the least bit worried about their version of Bush.
no one said they cannot have nuclear energy, what the Europeans have said is that the Europeans will make the fuel, install it and remove it as needed.
-
Since 1995, we heard "Something needs to be done about Iraq" from democrats and repubs alike after several UN violations. So when we actually did something, the left is crying. If I were the sitting pres, I'd say "nope, we did something in Iraq like you wanted and you burned us..."
-
Originally posted by john9001
Iran is years away from building a BOMB, and negotiations are on going now. Non of the major powers, even Russia, France or China want Iran to have the bomb.
I was wondering... Is there historical precedent for negotiations causing any nation giving up a weapons system?
-
Sure. North Korean and the Clinton Admin did a deal on NK's nuke program. Remember?
Carter was instrumental in negotiating that 1994 nuclear agreement, and that just days after Carter was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
See, there is precedent.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Sure. North Korean and the Clinton Admin did a deal on NK's nuke program. Remember?
Carter was instrumental in negotiating that 1994 nuclear agreement, and that just days after Carter was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
See, there is precedent.
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
I was wondering... Is there historical precedent for negotiations causing any nation giving up a weapons system?
forget what it's called but there is a treaty between USA and Russia to reduce/get rid of nukes and delivery systems.
-
Originally posted by john9001
don't get your panties in a bunch,all the media can talk about is WAR WITH IRAN, i think they want a war so they will have something to fill up their 24/7 " breaking news".
Iran is years away from building a BOMB, and negotiations are on going now. Non of the major powers, even Russia, France or China want Iran to have the bomb.
I think it would be oh so much cheaper if another rich white girl got lost somewhere in the Bahamas.
-
Originally posted by john9001
forget what it's called but there is a treaty between USA and Russia to reduce/get rid of nukes and delivery systems.
I don`t remember what is was named either, but it should have been called Hide And Seek. :D
-
The Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (Start) didn't get rid of nuclear weapons though it just reduced them.
We could still exchange armegeddon if we wanted to.
-
I have 4 solutions to the Iran problem
(http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/interactive/us.aircraft/bombers/11.b52.stratofortress.jpg)
(http://www.is.northropgrumman.com/products/usaf_products/b2/images/b2_2.jpg)
(http://www.greenwood.wa.edu.au/factory/personal/andrew/large_f117_4.jpg)
(http://www.umsonline.edu/courses/expansive_cosmology/mushroomcloud.jpg)
-
Some in Iran are already setting the stage.
http://news.yahoo.com/fc/world/iran
This could be "interesting times".
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
I was wondering... Is there historical precedent for negotiations causing any nation giving up a weapons system?
Does the Cuban (Turkish if you're a soviet communist) missle crisis count?
Do I win something?
-
Originally posted by Toad
Sit back, relax and enjoy it as much as you can.
Nothing will be done. Nothing at all.
When and if a nuclear device is used to devastate some city, I'm pretty sure there won't be anyway to trace its origin with 100% certainty.
Therefore, there won't be any retaliation either.
So, this really isn't anything to get all upset about. Not a thing you can do, no way to prevent it and bad luck if it comes to a theater near you.
We totally flipped out after two big buildings were destroyed and 2,000 people were killed. I don't think that we would just sit back after a significantly bigger attack.
-
Sounds like General Yahya Rahim Safavi is promising the "Mother of All Battles."
Somehow his schtick has a familiar ring to it.
-
Oh, I forgot; we had solid evidence of WMDs before invading Iraq.
-
Originally posted by eskimo2
We totally flipped out after two big buildings were destroyed and 2,000 people were killed. I don't think that we would just sit back after a significantly bigger attack.
Who would you attack?
It's far more likely that the device will be smuggled into a port in an unchecked shipping container than a missile will come arcing down out of the sky with a backtrackable trajectory.
So, a nuke goes off in a major US city. The residue does not point to any particular country, since there is no reliable samples of NK, Pakistani or other unknown enriched uranium.
It may well take YEARS to unravel who did what.
You just gonna start nuking the "likely suspects"?
-
Originally posted by eskimo2
Oh, I forgot; we had solid evidence of WMDs before invading Iraq.
and there's certainly no evidence Iran is working on becoming a nuclear weapon equipped state.
All is good. Peace reigns.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Sounds like General Yahya Rahim Safavi is promising the "Mother of All Battles."
Somehow his schtick has a familiar ring to it.
He's a General.
Isnt that the type of thing Generals are supposed to say.
I dont think he would get much support form his country if he said something like "If you attack, we will surrender"
Unless he's a French general LOL
-
Originally posted by RAIDER14
I have 4 solutions to the Iran problem
(http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/interactive/us.aircraft/bombers/11.b52.stratofortress.jpg)
(http://www.is.northropgrumman.com/products/usaf_products/b2/images/b2_2.jpg)
(http://www.greenwood.wa.edu.au/factory/personal/andrew/large_f117_4.jpg)
(http://www.umsonline.edu/courses/expansive_cosmology/mushroomcloud.jpg)
Now this guy feels left out:
(http://www.highgallery.com/guestphotos/B-1B-001a.JPG)
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
He's a General.
Isnt that the type of thing Generals are supposed to say.
Just like the other guy, saying doesn't make it so.
I don't think there will be open conflict though.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
I was wondering... Is there historical precedent for negotiations causing any nation giving up a weapons system?
Your question is trivial. Washington agreements 1922. US, UK, Japan, Italy - i don't remember all members of that treaty...
There is at least one precedent when a country possessing nuclear weapons and capable of supporting it's nuclear potential voluntarily refused to have nuclear weapons and got rid of them.
-
As for Iran.
the Largest single mistake the US has made with Iran is in Bush's Axis of Evil Speach and including Iran.
What he should have said was "the Government of Iran"
By only saying Iran he included its people in that equasion.
remember, Post 9/11 Iranians were holding Vigils in the streets in support of the victims of 9/11.
That was. Untill Bush's Axis of Evil speach.
HUGE mistake IMO
While a good deal of the population may be pro western and want more of a western type lifestyle. And while they may not particularly love the people in charge.
They very much have a strong sense of national pride and unlike Iraq.
I think you can count on the vast majority of the population to fight.
We wont be at war with just the government,its military and some insurgents but will literally be at war with the entire country
These people will fight. All their people will fight. It wont be just an insurgency.
I say. We took care of Iraq.
Let France Germany Russia deal with Iran. Let them be the badguys on this one.
We can stand on the sidelines, clean up the mess, be the good guys and make nice nice to the Iranians and liberate Iran from France, Germany and Russia after their forces have soaked off.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Your question is trivial. Washington agreements 1922. US, UK, Japan, Italy - i don't remember all members of that treaty...
There is at least one precedent when a country possessing nuclear weapons and capable of supporting it's nuclear potential voluntarily refused to have nuclear weapons and got rid of them.
The Washington treaty limited the size and number of ships in signatories navies, it did not get rid of weapons.
Who gave up nukes? Did they build the infrastructure to build the weapons and then get talked out of it, or did they find themselves suddenly independant and in posession of soviet weapons they did not want?
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
The Washington treaty limited the size and number of ships in signatories navies, it did not get rid of weapons.
Well, US had to abandon some battleship projects, IIRC some of them were already in construction.
I think it's possible to find many examples of "abandoning weapon systems" even if we'll not count Gorby's treason and scrapping missile complexes that didn't fall under SU/US treaties in the 80s.
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Who gave up nukes? Did they build the infrastructure to build the weapons and then get talked out of it, or did they find themselves suddenly independant and in posession of soviet weapons they did not want?
Ukraine was able to maintain their own nukes. They abandoned them and shipped them to RF, and they still boast it. Belorussia and Kazakhstan did the same thing but they don't boast. I think that they probably could maintain their arsenal, but i'm not sure. Ukraine definetly could.
-
Would you say that Ukraine, Belorussia, and Kasakstan were coerced into giving up the weapons or maybe they decided that more or less on their own?
My point is that it seems Iran does not want to give up their (assumed)weapons program and while presently negotiating is prudent, gut feeling says they want to have the ability to nuke some small country.
-
"Gorby's treason.."
ROFLMFAO!!
Gawd, whut a commie tool you are, Boroda!
Lets hear about 'Yeltsin's treason', next. hehehhehehhehhehhehehehe...
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
"Gorby's treason.."
ROFLMFAO!!
Gawd, whut a commie tool you are, Boroda!
Lets hear about 'Yeltsin's treason', next. hehehhehehhehhehhehehehe...
LOL I found that amusing as well.
We each even after all the reductions had enough nuclear weapons to kill off everyone on the planet several times over.
I dont think anyone gave up enough to not still be a considerable threat.
each side just got rid of some of its overkill.
-
Originally posted by Toad
I'm pretty sure there won't be anyway to trace its origin with 100% certainty.
You dont think maybe satellite might pick it up?
-
No, because I don't think they'll use a missile.
Our borders are open; the low-tech, low risk option is to just sneak one into the country and have an Islamic martyr detonate it at an appropriate time.
Think Times Square on New Year's; the Superbowl; the next Presidential Inaugeration; the next State of the Union speech.
Lots of options to kill lots of people, all with a basically untraceable nuke.
The enriched uranium won't be traceable because it'll be from a source that's never been sampled. Think NK or Pakistan or even Iran.
They might even be able to buy a small weapon from some former world power's old inventory. Then the signature off the uranium will point in the wrong direction.
As I said, I think it'll be very, very hard to be 100% sure who did it.
So what then? Nuke 'em all? Who's "all"?
-
Originally posted by Toad
No, because I don't think they'll use a missile.
Our borders are open; the low-tech, low risk option is to just sneak one into the country and have an Islamic martyr detonate it at an appropriate time.
Think Times Square on New Year's; the Superbowl; the next Presidential Inaugeration; the next State of the Union speech.
Lots of options to kill lots of people, all with a basically untraceable nuke.
The enriched uranium won't be traceable because it'll be from a source that's never been sampled. Think NK or Pakistan or even Iran.
They might even be able to buy a small weapon from some former world power's old inventory. Then the signature off the uranium will point in the wrong direction.
As I said, I think it'll be very, very hard to be 100% sure who did it.
So what then? Nuke 'em all? Who's "all"?
True
-
Toad, of the 4 possible targets you suggested I think the last two followed up with a knee jerk retalitory flash 40 minutes later over Tehran would be, as Seagoon might put it...
.. a Trifecta.
:D
-
Hi Rip,
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Since 1995, we heard "Something needs to be done about Iraq" from democrats and repubs alike after several UN violations. So when we actually did something, the left is crying. If I were the sitting pres, I'd say "nope, we did something in Iraq like you wanted and you burned us..."
Actually we've been hearing something needs to be done about Iran since the Islamic revolution in 1979, with precious little actually done about it since then.
As long as we continue to be dependent on middle-eastern oil and determined to pretend that our problems are political and regional rather than ideological, I don't have much hope that that will change.
Oh, and having this kind of thing going on at home makes it even less likely:
"Well, I'll say it right now, "You can't act, Mr. President. If you do act, Mr. President, it is clearly against our interests for you to do that. This is a nation of 70 million people, Mr. President. You already have us in deep trouble because of the incompetence of your civilian leadership, Mr. President, in Iraq. In Iraq we're a long way from being able to be victorious, Mr. President. For God's sake, don't make another stupid mistake." - Joe Biden on Hardball responding to the question what he would say in response to Bush announcing action against Iran.
So while a resolution to the situation might be nice, sans an actual attack by Iran I seriously doubt we will do anything...
- SEAGOON
-
I think i'll stay well clear of inaugerations and State of the Union speeches.
And keep my fingers crossed.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
I think i'll stay well clear of inaugerations and State of the Union speeches.
And keep my fingers crossed.
Me too.
get a better view on TV anyway
-
I predict that the US will attack Iran with major airstrikes, very soon.
-
Originally posted by Toad
No, because I don't think they'll use a missile.
Our borders are open; the low-tech, low risk option is to just sneak one into the country and have an Islamic martyr detonate it at an appropriate time.
Think Times Square on New Year's; the Superbowl; the next Presidential Inaugeration; the next State of the Union speech.
Lots of options to kill lots of people, all with a basically untraceable nuke.
The enriched uranium won't be traceable because it'll be from a source that's never been sampled. Think NK or Pakistan or even Iran.
They might even be able to buy a small weapon from some former world power's old inventory. Then the signature off the uranium will point in the wrong direction.
As I said, I think it'll be very, very hard to be 100% sure who did it.
So what then? Nuke 'em all? Who's "all"?
Was just researching this and found this article, very intesting...
some nuclear explosions do leave an isotopic signature, a DNA-like fingerprint that allows forensic physicists such as Naval Postgraduate School weapons systems analyst Bob Harney to possibly determine the origin of the fissile material in the bomb. Nuclear forensics is not a precise science, Harney warns. Post-attack sites are almost certain to be contaminated with unrelated or naturally occurring radioactivity, and there are numerous, highly enriched uranium stashes in the world with unknown signatures.
http://www.alumni.berkeley.edu/Alumni/Cal_Monthly/September_2005/COVER_STORY-_Berkeleys_Big_Bang_Project_.asp
-
Originally posted by Toad
and there's certainly no evidence Iran is working on becoming a nuclear weapon equipped state.
All is good. Peace reigns.
Hehe, if I didn't know any better, you sound just like our left wingers right prior to us going into Iraq. ;) What if we're wrong a second time, this time in Iran? ;)
-
We cannot do anything until we have absolute proof of existance and intention to use a nuclear weapon. Then we must only do something when it is absolutely proven who it was that nuked the city. The same strategy for each time a city in the US goes up in a mushroom cloud.
Mr President it is YOUR job to PROTECT us from an attack If you don't you have FAILED the American People. If you do ANYTHING before an attack is launched and do not have absolute proof of who, what, when, where, how and why the attack was launched you have FAILED the American People and should be immediately impeached!!!!!
:huh
-
Damned if you do, damned if you don't pretty well sums up the situation.
It'll come down on the side of damned if you don't though.
Put yer fingers in yer ears.... the boom won't be as loud.
-
200 miles from big blue cities is a great place to be.