If Iran builds nuclear weapons, will they use them? Will they keep them secure and accounted for? Is a nuclear exchange inevitable?
I bet they already have them, I doubt they would use them, and nuclear war is totally avoidable.
PAX
The only country that Iran would use them against is Israel, and yes, they are crazy enough and pissed off enough at Israel to do it... they should realize the consequences of that action and not do it however...
Iran has nukes? Don't tell Dubya, he'll start another war!
I don't think nuclear war is avoidable. Some terrorist will launch one, then everyone else will fire back.
John Wilken
2002 Cavalier
2.2 Vin code 4
Auto
iran wouldn't nuke israel....4 words.."dome of the rock"..
if it did, however, iran would become a glassfactory in no time..
What if they are only doing all this to have nuclear power plant setup so they can have better ways of creating elec. ?
yeah, I bet that's what North Korea wanted the nuclear plants for too.
Desert Tuners
“When you come across a big kettle of crazy, it’s best not to stir it.”
MY only problem is that there are enough people in Iran that have been brainwashed to the point of thinking that "a weapon unused is a useless weapon."
It'll only be a few years before Iran acquires long range ICBM capability. They already have the medium range tactical rockets that can reach Israel, but the reason they don't do anything is because Israel has the ability to dump nuclear ordinance in Downtown Tehran (even though it's not "official").
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
One or two Iranians I met in the sandbox told me a few things about Iran. The government is screwing them, and they are getting pissed. Iran might be the next guerilla civil war zone.
That would be the only way the US could do anything in Iran. I promise if Iran was treated like Iraq all hell would break loose. Iran is well loved by it's people and by most of it's neighbours. Civil war is the only way to overturn that government. Unfortunately the government forces there are pretty well armed.
PAX
They're well paid is the problem.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
all you guys have to look at history you can start off where ever you want but its all about king of the hill the u.s as much as i love it (i'm canadian) i love canada too but most history and war involes the u.s. slaves ran to canada to be free ww.1 w.w.2 korea cuba,vietnam,iran,afganastan,iraq and it was all about defending the americian way of life well these countrys aren't in the u.s. but all these countrys are trade routes for what....OIL ww.2 the u.s never got involed with sending troops. just selling ammo and guns ..theres nothing wrong with making a buck! the u.s even had a nazi party in the 20's and 30's linberg the flyer was german and was not for it pearl habour happened and then the u.s. had its own fight to worry about but the brits were already fighting them in hong kong. we almost had a nuclear war in the 60' with cuba and russia (bay of pigs) it was a stand off i think now a days its not about the country its more about what gang is going to end up with some old reactor rod and do a hitler on us but i really think that the u.s gov should try and ether kiss and make up with "hostle countrys" <<<not going to happen or stay out of it.. (if too guys are fighting over 5 bucks why jump in? is it for the five bucks are cause you do want to see any one get hurt? why is the u.s still in iraq? sadam was what bush said: the reson were in iraq is to overtake the gov, and get sadaam well they got 'em right? cheers! and hopfully peace!~
http://img86.imageshack.us/img86/4235/jim25ek.jpg
Yes get this logic, this is American logic for you.
We can have all the weapons we want, we have over 3600 ICBMs. We could destroy the World so many times over it really isnt funny.
Another country tries to build a weapons, no, no, no you cant do that, but we can, we can do what we want.
I dont see what the big deal about them building weapons is, they would never use them against the USA. We would nail them right back, and there country would be a vast wasteland.
Also dont give me this, they might start a war with it. Well although the US hasnt used nukes, we have started a war for no reason with another country, which is what people fear Iran will do.
- 2004 Cavalier - 124k, owned since new
Rob S wrote:Yes get this logic, this is American logic for you.
We can have all the weapons we want, we have over 3600 ICBMs. We could destroy the World so many times over it really isnt funny.
China and N Korea have about the same #, toss in India and Pakistan, it's more.
Quote:
Another country tries to build a weapons, no, no, no you cant do that, but we can, we can do what we want.
Actually, the only problem arises when another country sells nuclear weapon technology.
I dont see what the big deal about them building weapons is, they would never use them against the USA. We would nail them right back, and there country would be a vast wasteland.See: suicide bombers.
Quote:
Also dont give me this, they might start a war with it. Well although the US hasnt used nukes, we have started a war for no reason with another country, which is what people fear Iran will do.
The US has used nukes not once, but twice before on a little island nation called Japan... Look up Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
And this isn't the first time a "war" has been started with another country for no reason, Iran would retalliate because they feel they're being pushed into a corner by the US.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:
Quote:
Also dont give me this, they might start a war with it. Well although the US hasnt used nukes, we have started a war for no reason with another country, which is what people fear Iran will do.
The US has used nukes not once, but twice before on a little island nation called Japan... Look up Hiroshima and Nagasaki.[/quote=GAM (The Kilted One)]
And this isn't the first time a "war" has been started with another country for no reason, Iran would retalliate because they feel they're being pushed into a corner by the US.
I'm just gonna say that saved millions of Japanese and American lives...and if the US goes into Iran...then we're just @!#$ stupid. They openly broke seals that the IAEA put on those plants, so its the UN's job to stop it, and that means everyone has to send troops, and we're a little busy right now.
And as much as I dislike Iran, I say let um have the nukes. Isarel has been way to agressive, considering their basicly guests in the area. Not to mention that Iran doesn't have the distance capability to hit the US. So i say let Europe sweat for a while...let um grow a backbone.
Keep in mind Adam, some of us have people that we care about that live in europe, and really, except for countries run by asshats like Milosovec and the like...most of the people over there don't screw with others. Trust me...being over there, i understand why the rest of the world laughs at us.
At least with Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the inevitable fallout, we saw why we shouldn't use them, and at least haven't since then. but when it comes to having them...i could care less. The fundamental flaw with all humanity is that it's our nature to destroy ourselves. As long as people will listen to some blithering idiot that sends people out to die for some bull@!#$ cause while they stay safe behind a veil of protection, the same problems will continue to plage the specie.
Goodbye Callisto & Skađi, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
Adam, Adam, Adam Tisk tisk.. Millions of Japanese and American lives? Saved by nuking two cities, one after pretending not to hear the surrender because the testing wasn't finished? Gimme a break.
Almost all war historians agree that the first bomb stopped the war that would have gone on for another 6 months before Japan would have been forced to surrender anyway, saving about 50 000 soldiers (both US and Japanese). The cost? About 600 000 Japanese civilians. That is some pretty crappy math if you think nukes save lives.
PAX
Keeper I totaly understand where you're coming from. And I agree that they are fine with leaving each other alone. After fighting each other for over 2000 years I'd grow tired of it too.
And Ha, poor Ha, I don't suppose that you knew that more Japanese died in the firebombing of Tokyo than the total dead from Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined did you? And given the tatcitcs used by the Imperial Navy, one could only assume that they were going to use every asset that the Japanese mainland had to fight off the invaders, and we were going to crush them to end the threat. It was destined to be a fight to the death. And I don't know about you, but if I was a war planner I would be for saving as many American lives as possible.
And if I remember correctly, it took both bombs to make them surrender. And looking back, it may seem excessive, I will agree with that. But saying that only one was necessary, that's just incorrect.
I still stand by my statement that if the US even attempts to do anything in Iran without members of the UN at least matching our troop numbers, then I say let them have nukes.
Adam Asmus wrote:I still stand by my statement that if the US even attempts to do anything in Iran without members of the UN at least matching our troop numbers, then I say let them have nukes.
I say leave Iran alone. We're in Iraq on BS reasons, why compound one mistake with two?
When the US was involved in Vietnam, China drew a line and declaired that to be "too close" to Chinese soil. (43rd paralell?) We never crossed that line, neither did Russian troops. I don't think Iran will be that courteous. If they feel threatened they will advance on Iraq for nothing more than driving US forces out, and I don't think they'll warn us when they're coming.
John Wilken
2002 Cavalier
2.2 Vin code 4
Auto
Quote:
Almost all war historians agree that the first bomb stopped the war that would have gone on for another 6 months before Japan would have been forced to surrender anyway, saving about 50 000 soldiers (both US and Japanese). The cost? About 600 000 Japanese civilians. That is some pretty crappy math if you think nukes save lives.
Are u serious?? While I agree the second bomb seemed to be dropped for no reason without waiting on the inevitable Japanese surrender, there i NO WAY that a US invasion of Japan would cost 50K lives... maybe 50K lives in the Navy alone... the US predicted close to 1 million losses based on extrapolations from the battles for Iwo Jima, Okiwana, and others. And this was just US lives... based on the inferiority of Japanese weapons and technology, it would most likely cost the Japanese three or four times more men and women in fighting alone... in addition as supplies ran out and bombs dropped on cities, millions more could die... although the A-boms killed a terrible number of people it would have been MUCH worse... they would have fought to the death and the campaign would have lasted into late 1946.
Quote:
based on the inferiority of Japanese weapons and technology, it would most likely cost the Japanese three or four times more men and women in fighting alone...
3 or 4 times the losses? on their own soil??
Ever heard of Guerilla warefare?
As for the technology, how? we had rifles, they had rifles. We had machineguns, they had machineguns. We had incindiary devices, they.......
Let's face it - On the ground at least, every party to the war was on more or less equal terms.
"i promise we won't get drunk, and go out in boat in the dark, stand up in the boat and fire the gun into the air unless we have life jackets on."
No war planner looking for a surrender would ever suggest that an actual invation of Japan was necessary. Everything I have read (from Generals in the area to war historians) suggest that Japan was about to fall anyway. They were running out of everything. Alll that was needed was a solid naval blockade and about 6 months of waiting. They were on the verge of collapse anyway, and the US was not looking to expand it's territory into Japan. Remember the goal was suprrender, not occupation.
PAX
craig steele wrote:Quote:
based on the inferiority of Japanese weapons and technology, it would most likely cost the Japanese three or four times more men and women in fighting alone...
3 or 4 times the losses? on their own soil??
Ever heard of Guerilla warefare?
As for the technology, how? we had rifles, they had rifles. We had machineguns, they had machineguns. We had incindiary devices, they.......
Let's face it - On the ground at least, every party to the war was on more or less equal terms.
Those were the tactics that they were using. Iwo Jima is a poster child of that tactic, although it isn't in the same sense that we have now. There were tunnels all over Iwo Jima and who knows how many miles of chambers were in Mt. Surabachi, thats why it took the USMC over 3 weeks to take full control of an island that was smaller than Manhatten. It took over 100,000 men.
As for equality, the only reason that it took so long was becuase they had time to dig in. We had the man power, the weapons, and the time to take the island. If it had been a battle for the island, with both sides on equal ground, we would have decimated them. Not to mention the fact that our air superiorty campain had already been completed at that point in time. They had no air power, and what they did they slammed into our carriers. Equal terms? I think not.
Quote:
Alll that was needed was a solid naval blockade and about 6 months of waiting.
You have no idea how many ships that would have taken do you. Lets say the average range for a medium size (about 8-10 inches) gun to be slightly accurate is what...10-12 miles, and thats being generous. Then you need to find the distance of the island chain...I went to this website
here and found out the coast line distance...which is "34,390 kms", the a quick conversion gives it to you in miles...which is this distance (34 390 kilometer = 21 368.955 301 042 mile)
21,370 miles about...with the "diameter of fire" being about 20-25 miles for the average ship gun...it would have taken a little over 1,000 ships to pull it off. I have don't know how many ships the US Navy had at that point in time. But I do know that there we're not enough ships to create an entire country blockade. And I do understand where your coming from, and I also know that hindsight is always 20/20.
Its easy to be an armchair general. I've done it on many occasions, and then I think about the intel that they had at the time. And then usually I agree with what was done by the leader at that point in time.
It was just a lot more efficient to drop Tall Boy and Fat Man than to try invade or blockade the area. The act was done in the name of efficency, and for the sake of saving lives. Not to make you feel bad or anything. I just wanted to show you, and everyone else why it was done that way.
Quote:
3 or 4 times the losses? on their own soil??
Take a look at actual history:
Okinawa: more than 38,000 Americans wounded and 12,000 killed or missing, more than 107,000 Japanese and Okinawan conscripts killed, and perhaps 100,000 Okinawan civilians who perished in the battle.
Iwo Jima: 6000 American dead vs. 22000 Japanese dead
Guam: There were over 7000 American casualties in the battle for Guam; the exact number of Guamanian casualties is unknown. Japanese forces on Guam numbered close to 18,500; just over 1000 of these were taken prisoner
Saipan: Saipan cost the United States 16,525 casualties including 3,426 killed in action but it provided the first B-29 base in the Pacific. Japanese losses were over 29,000.
There are tons more but you can see the Japanese usually suffered more than twice or three times as many losses as the Americans.
Quote:
As for the technology, how? we had rifles, they had rifles. We had machineguns, they had machineguns. We had incindiary devices, they.......
Huh? The US had superior weapons in almost every area... they had superior infantry rifles and automatic assault weapons... they had superior machine guns (.50 cal)... they definately had better tanks and armored vehicles... the Japanese were a foot army by 1945. The US had superior naval forces in almost every way and US aircraft were far superior to the majority of Japanese aircraft.
Tactics wise, the war showed that they fought tough but their tactics were flawed... their tunneling defenses meant that few would survive a battle alive, meaning that they had no veteran troops to fight by late 1945... they were forced to arm ordinary civilians with pikes and pitchforks! They had to use their pitifully obsolete aircraft to do kamikaze attacks... for evey kamikaze hit there were like 10 that were shot down! The island was basically ringed by submarines and supplies would only trickle in. Yes, the battle would be costly but it would cost the Janese alot more
Back on topic folks.
Iran is a different situation.
Adam, I suspect with the IAEA seals comment you're thinking of North Korea. I may be wrong. Either way, if Iran developed their own atomic technology, or they bought it from Pakistan or NK, it doesn't matter. Attacking Iran (by any party) would be fool hardy. They are well armed, well trained, and they have been a state sponsor of terrorism, and one call for jihad would probably net the invading (or liberating party... whatever) groups a lot more trouble than it would be worth.
Israel has been provocative in the past, but I think that the withdrawal destruction of settlements in outlying areas is a sign of good faith. With Ariel Sharon in his current condition, hopefully Isreal will be able to keep on the road to peace... I don't know for certain though. I think the real hope for peace died with Yitzhak Rabin.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
