Author Topic: Something needs to be done about Iran (Read 789 times)

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #15 on:** April 14, 2006, 02:39:13 PM »

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.

RAIDER14 · « **Reply #16 on:** April 14, 2006, 04:46:22 PM »

I have 4 solutions to the Iran problem

Maverick · « **Reply #17 on:** April 14, 2006, 05:08:20 PM »

Some in Iran are already setting the stage.

http://news.yahoo.com/fc/world/iran

This could be "interesting times".

Debonair · « **Reply #18 on:** April 14, 2006, 05:09:32 PM »

Quote

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?

eskimo2 · « **Reply #19 on:** April 14, 2006, 05:11:37 PM »

Quote

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.

Toad · « **Reply #20 on:** April 14, 2006, 05:12:07 PM »

Sounds like General Yahya Rahim Safavi is promising the "Mother of All Battles."

Somehow his schtick has a familiar ring to it.

eskimo2 · « **Reply #21 on:** April 14, 2006, 05:17:07 PM »

Oh, I forgot; we had solid evidence of WMDs before invading Iraq.

Toad · « **Reply #22 on:** April 14, 2006, 05:18:14 PM »

Quote

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"?

Toad · « **Reply #23 on:** April 14, 2006, 05:19:27 PM »

Quote

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.

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #24 on:** April 14, 2006, 05:42:39 PM »

Quote

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

Masherbrum · « **Reply #25 on:** April 14, 2006, 05:46:54 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by RAIDER14
I have 4 solutions to the Iran problem

Now this guy feels left out:

Toad · « **Reply #26 on:** April 14, 2006, 05:49:41 PM »

Quote

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.

Boroda · « **Reply #27 on:** April 14, 2006, 05:53:52 PM »

Quote

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.

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #28 on:** April 14, 2006, 05:55:46 PM »

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.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #29 on:** April 14, 2006, 06:18:50 PM »

Quote

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?