America is rearing up to attack Iran... (3 Viewers)

[The Brucemaster]

Ok im bored of writing long, verbose replies in this forum so im going to make my argument very simple (that being said im sure ill do so in the future, just not now).

1) Iran denies Israel's sovereignty and openly declares its hostility to The Western World gernerally and more specifically the United States.

2) Iran is developing nuclear weapons.

3) The US does not like any country hostile to it developing nuclear weapons a la NK and Russia.

4) US military commanders are at this time drawing up plans for a full scale military invasion of Iran, alongside other military strategies.

5) These facts lead me to the conclusion that were Iran to complete their development of nuclear weapons a military invasion of Iran is a distinct possibility.

Finally, i will accept that i was wrong when talking about nuclear missiles being shot down, I was assuming and as we know that is the mother of all fuck ups, I apologise.

 

[loquasagacious]

3) The US does not like any country hostile to it developing nuclear weapons a la NK and Russia.

4) US military commanders are at this time drawing up plans for a full scale military invasion of Iran, alongside other military strategies.

5) These facts lead me to the conclusion that were Iran to complete their development of nuclear weapons a military invasion of Iran is a distinct possibility.

You are making a leap here, see if you can guess what it is?



No luck?

How about the US has not invaded either Russia or NK? Invasion is only a real option before they acquire nuclear weapons.

And for varying reasons I have exhaustively identified previously even given a non-nuclear iran, invasion is not likely and I go as far as implausible, laughable and extremely unlikely.

EDIT: Catching on about your assumptions yet?

 

[The Brucemaster]

Well therefore we simply differ in our interpretation of the situation and as interpretation is not factual it cannot be proven, thus i say we just agree to disagree.

Yes, i will also be posting something to this effect in the Argue with WAF thread so dont worry.

EDIT: P.S. Theses is the plural (pronounced the-sea-s) of thesis.

 

[Serius]

As far as killing 500,000 this is a highy unlikely figure for several reasons:
*The invading force is unlikely to be 500,000 strong,
*However strong it is it would be dispersed and thus multiple nuclear strikes would be needed to even approach destroying large chunks of them (the best way to do this being to target the force prior to invasion which is politically untenable and practically impossible due to patriot batteries and aegis cruisers protecting the staging positions.

The reason for the 500 000 figure is because JFK's plan to invade Cuba in the 60's called for a force of 500 000 to invade and establish a beachhead, luckily those plans didnt go through for obscure reasons, because i it had all shit would have gone down as at that stage Cuba had 6 tactical nuclear warheads.
If America was again unsuspecting, their invading force may be more clumped togther and suffer huge casualties...but yeah i didnt factor in the patriot missles or modern tactics/ hopefully they have learnt since then
Still, i was a little hasty with such a huge figure

Your other arguments although logical, havent eased my mind, they are taken under the assumption that the Iranian government would be logical, which i doubt

Bruce was wrong about the shooting down a nuke, they dont actually explode, at worst they"fizzle" which basically means no mushroom cloud or large explosion, but a shitload of radiation sprayed everywhere, what he was talking about was highly volatile 1960's nukes which had a chance to detonate if a peice of plutonium was pushed into another peice[during the explosion of being shot down] which would create a small [maybe 5-10 kiloton] blast and spread radiation alot further, This problem only ever really existed with the manual drop out of hatch style bomb that was pretty crude

Israel[although my knowledge here is also patchy] has been suspected of having a single nuclear device since about the mid1950's and theres some suspect information about it [e.g England shipping materials that could be used to build a bomb in 1956 and france helping to build a nuclear reactor in the same year]but no facts as such[the info is classified] The earliest known with some sort of evidence time for Israel having experimental nuclear weopons was about 1964[ courtesy of Mordechai Vanunu, a traitor who divulged government secrets and 18 years in prison]
Israel has about 200 nukes, so any war between them and Iran, Iran would be destroyed no questions asked, there is no way they could first strike and take out every facility in Israel, not to mention that Israel used to[probably still does] have a program whereby bombers are kept in the air in rotations with nukes during times of tension [ i.e they are probably doing it right now] so yeah, Iran would be in trouble

 

[HotShot]

The reason for the 500 000 figure is because JFK's plan to invade Cuba in the 60's called for a force of 500 000 to invade and establish a beachhead, luckily those plans didnt go through for obscure reasons, because i it had all shit would have gone down as at that stage Cuba had 6 tactical nuclear warheads.
If America was again unsuspecting, their invading force may be more clumped togther and suffer huge casualties...but yeah i didnt factor in the patriot missles or modern tactics/ hopefully they have learnt since then
Still, i was a little hasty with such a huge figure

Your other arguments although logical, havent eased my mind, they are taken under the assumption that the Iranian government would be logical, which i doubt

Bruce was wrong about the shooting down a nuke, they dont actually explode, at worst they"fizzle" which basically means no mushroom cloud or large explosion, but a shitload of radiation sprayed everywhere, what he was talking about was highly volatile 1960's nukes which had a chance to detonate if a peice of plutonium was pushed into another peice[during the explosion of being shot down] which would create a small [maybe 5-10 kiloton] blast and spread radiation alot further, This problem only ever really existed with the manual drop out of hatch style bomb that was pretty crude

Israel[although my knowledge here is also patchy] has been suspected of having a single nuclear device since about the mid1950's and theres some suspect information about it [e.g England shipping materials that could be used to build a bomb in 1956 and france helping to build a nuclear reactor in the same year]but no facts as such[the info is classified] The earliest known with some sort of evidence time for Israel having experimental nuclear weopons was about 1964[ courtesy of Mordechai Vanunu, a traitor who divulged government secrets and 18 years in prison]
Israel has about 200 nukes, so any war between them and Iran, Iran would be destroyed no questions asked, there is no way they could first strike and take out every facility in Israel, not to mention that Israel used to[probably still does] have a program whereby bombers are kept in the air in rotations with nukes during times of tension [ i.e they are probably doing it right now] so yeah, Iran would be in trouble

those bombers will not be carrying nukes - too dangerous. they will be carrying bombs. but the main point is iran stands no chance, israel is near. america is watching, russia and china are eagerly interested. so iran has little chance atm, once they acquire nuclear weapons that changes things. but i dont think they will still have a chance. once iran has nukes i think the arab states will at once ally with america, there is no way that they will nuclear explosion near them and have the nuclear fallout and ruin their country.

 

[davin]

i think you're assuming too much about how much damage a nuke does. i don't believe its as widespread as you're talking about


so, here's the question, which country will the u.s. invade? because the president of Venezuela has just started training a civilian militia because the u.s. is going to soon invade there as well

 

[Demandred]

http://dailytelegraph.news.com.au/story/0,20281,18841970-5001032,00.html

40,000 suicide bombers are ready to die should the West attack Iran.

IMO, considering the threats he is making I think this Iranian president is a threat and must be pacified.

Bloody religious fanatics...

 

[loquasagacious]

Brucemaster: You're wrong, just like in the other thread you say shit and make assumptions, I prove them wrong, you have a cry and say "agree to disagree because i refuse to concede despite running out of arguments, logic and tissues".

Serius: Thanks for the nuke info - re: their system of readiness for cost and security/safety reasons I would assume that Israel operates a system of silos in secure locations housing solid-fuel relatively short range weapons not unlike say Tridents used in nuclear armed subs.

Hotshot: Correct Iran will never attack Israel in a first strike, incorrect that arab states would turn against Iran if she became a nuclear power. I believe they would turn toward Iran as Iran would have become a regional power and present a more credible face for pan-islamist resistance to the west.

Davin: This depends on the nuke, in general though nukes are bad and do a hell of a lot of damage. And the US won't invade anyone, Chavez is just consolidating his own (tenuous) hold on power by creating an alternate powerbase to the army and stirring anti-US feelings.

Demandred: The tele isn't the best source, people who say they'll become suicide bombers are higher than people who do. Also as previously mentioned it is domestically politically prudent for Irans leaders to whip up anti-US feelings, it consolidates their positions.

 

[davin]

oh, i'm not saying that because Chavez said it, the U.S. will invade, just that it does seem to be a big thing to say of "well, America is going to invade there now".... i think thats thrown about too quickly

 

[loquasagacious]

Its a big thing among jaded lefty intellectuals and misguided communist students.....

 

[HotShot]

I dont think Iran will be invaded while America is getting bashed over in Iraq and Afghanistan.

nice ass...

invasion is too diffiult at the moment, unless non-american forces are prepared to invade for america?

 

[Riewe]

It seemed to take several years before the latest Iraq war was started so i seriously doubt that USA will attack Iran in the next few years. They will go the diplomatic route for some time, to show everybody they are trying to solve it peacefully, then when they have built up enough supplies etc they will begin.

But this will be from the American side, the Iranians could start something beforehand in which case this theory is blown out of the water.