Iran claims it has nukes

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » January 18, 2005, 10:17 am

According to the BBC website banner - Iran fears no invasion as "we have developed the greatest deterrent".

Discuss.

Fash · Post by **Fash** » January 18, 2005, 10:26 am

the quicker we start pulling out of iraq, the quicker we can zerg iran. i think it is almost certain there will be conflict with iran within the next 4-8 years.

/ooc clerics seeking rez at tehran graveyard plz

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » January 18, 2005, 10:26 am

I just went to BBC.com and saw no such banner, Link please.

Animalor · Post by **Animalor** » January 18, 2005, 11:45 am

Misleading titles for teh win!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle ... 184175.stm

BBC News Article wrote:Defence Minister Ali Shamkhani said Iran did not fear attack, in comments that were published on Tuesday but may not be a direct response to Hersh's article.

"We can claim that we have rapidly produced equipment that has resulted in the greatest deterrent," he said, without giving further details.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » January 18, 2005, 12:01 pm

So what else would you assume the "greatest deterrent" is?

Fash · Post by **Fash** » January 18, 2005, 12:18 pm

they have tom green and are threatening to release him?

Rivera Bladestrike · January 18, 2005, 12:52 pm

Fash wrote:they have tom green and are threatening to release him?

Seriously, that is worse than a nuke.

Animalor · Post by **Animalor** » January 18, 2005, 12:56 pm

vn_Tanc wrote:So what else would you assume the "greatest deterrent" is?

I never said they didn't have nukes. But the article also doesn't specify that Iran has weapon grade plutonium and and a delivery system for it.

I wouldn't be surprised if this administration blazed into Iran like they did Iraq.

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » January 18, 2005, 1:03 pm

Ok, when you find out the most powerful (if not strategically inept) nation on the planet may have plans to quickly adress and topple your regieme... instead of playing the nuke card, wouldn't you want to, oh, find a way to placate them instead of egging them on?

Throwing that up into the air sets dollarsigns flashign in Cheney's eyes at the same time a bullseye pops up in Bush's.

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » January 18, 2005, 1:18 pm

And just think, Iran offered up... not an Olive branch or a handshake but possibly a place to start talks from after 9/11 but Mr.Warmonger had to go and include them in the Axis of Evil... yes Mr. Bush WORDS do have consequences... unluckly for us you just keep talking.

Marb

Nick · Post by **Nick** » January 18, 2005, 1:29 pm

Yes, the US has artfully avoided doing exactly what Bin Laden wanted them to do.

Oh wait, no, they played right into his hands and still do with each passing day.

grats

Tyek · Post by **Tyek** » January 18, 2005, 1:51 pm

And just think, Iran offered up... not an Olive branch or a handshake but possibly a place to start talks from after 9/11 but Mr.Warmonger had to go and include them in the Axis of Evil... yes Mr. Bush WORDS do have consequences... unluckly for us you just keep talking.

This is not meant as a slam, just an honest question.

Are you implying that if we had talked to them instead of calling them a name they would not have pursued nucular (Bush version of Nuclear) weapons? Bush is not a smart man, but I think Iran was going to pursue them whether we were friends or not. I would guess there are at least have a dozen of our "Friends" Israel among them pursuing them as well. You have growing countries and they are doing the same thing Russia and the US did, having an arms race.

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » January 18, 2005, 2:01 pm

That is exactly what I'm hinting at...

Iran was / is at another crossroads, the college kids are getting ansy. They pushed for an Islamic revolution and are now poised for Democracy.

After 911 America should have opened talks with Iran to encourage Democracy... note I said encourge, to let their people make the decisions. They were ready to support our fight against the Taliban and would have if we would have made the first move.

Remember that Iran HATES Iraq. If we had played our cards correctly we could have walked into Iraq with the help of the Sunni and been out in a couple of years.

IF Iran felt safe from Iraq and America I don't think they would have pursued the nukes... at least not right now. As it is we are sitting on the doorstep with Isreal close by. The Clerics that were almost "open" to discussions quickly had to save face with their people and began to open shun the US again after the President's statements... things could have gone much differently.

...ah if I were...

Marb

Apostate · Post by **Apostate** » January 18, 2005, 5:17 pm

Tyek wrote:I would guess there are at least have a dozen of our "Friends" Israel among them pursuing them as well.

Israel been a nuclear power for almost 40 years. They've gone on nuclear alert both during the 6 day war and the Yom Kippur war. A regional arms race would be fairly one sided, since the arab world has a lot of catching up to do to approach Mutually Assured Destruction ala the cold war.

Pherr the Dorf · Post by **Pherr the Dorf** » January 18, 2005, 6:36 pm

And if you think it is logistically possible for the US to invade Iran you are a simpleton

Nick · Post by **Nick** » January 18, 2005, 6:59 pm

It would be funny as hell to watch the US embassy get raped all over again

Assuming there even is one there anymore......

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » January 18, 2005, 7:04 pm

Iran would be much harder to invade than Iraq. The best we could do is take the air assault approach and pound them day and night for a few years straight. Tomahawks are $1 million each. Launch maybe 2,000 of those and then start with the laser guided bombs and bunker busters.

We couldn't steamroll Iran without a lot more casualties than we had in Iraq, but we could do serious damage to their communications, any nuclear plants they may have, ammo dumps, any jets of tanks they have, all from offshore or from our new base of operations in Iraq.

As has been mentioned previously in this forum, we can't leave Iraq with a strong Iran still present. We need to equalize the situation a bit. It's a great opportunity to knock them back a decade in the nuclear arms race as well.

There's still a strong student movement to westernize Iran. I don't think we'd have to take the same approach as we did with Iraq. If we caused enough chaos, a revolution might crank up which would occupy Iranians internally and give Iraq a chance to rebuild enough to resume their war with Iran.

Anyone else have a better solution?

Jice Virago · Post by **Jice Virago** » January 18, 2005, 7:33 pm

Iran is bluffing, but even if they were not, their access to nukes is not our worst concern. Israel will be the next country to use a nuclear weapon in a military capacity. I do not honestly beleive they will wait for Iran to complete its nuke program and will just glass the whole fucking area until they are satisfied that there are no more nukes in Iran. Unfortunately, our handling of Korea is proven that no one is willing to deal with a nuclear power militarily. This is why Iran is probably bluffing that they already have nukes; it keeps the US from mounting the inevitable invasion that the Bush Corp has probably long planned on and it might fake out Israel long enough to get their program actually finnished. Of course, it is my opinion that they are bluffing, they might actually have some nukes thanks to some shoddy book keeping during the fall of USSR.

Edit- Solution? Get the fucking Israel puppet neocons out of the foreign policy decision making process and cut Israel off from foreign aid until they get the fuck out of palistine and/or make peace with them. Demonstrating that we are just as willing to crack down on Israel for acts of aggression as we are the Iraqis would go a long way towards establishing us as a stabilizing influence to the region, and not an invader. We cannot stop other countries from developing nukes, short of a complete military takeover of the world, so our best option is to provide incentive to these future nuclear powers to resort to diplomacy as a primary means of solving their problems. All that our current policy does is send the message that unless you are Israel, your only means of avoiding getting invaded is to develop nukes as quickly and quietly as possible.

Mr Bacon · Post by **Mr Bacon** » January 18, 2005, 7:58 pm

"Wait, Iraq and Iran are separate countries?"

Seebs · Post by **Seebs** » January 19, 2005, 12:29 am

I have an issue differentiating between the term Greatest deterrent and Rosie O'Donnel's twat.

nobody · Post by **nobody** » January 19, 2005, 12:47 am

Seebs wrote:I have an issue differentiating between the term Greatest deterrent and Rosie O'Donnel's twat.

and twat would that be? heheh, now seriously folks...

the college kids are antsy but they don't trust the US anymore than they trust their own govt. afterall they still listen to al jazeera and believe their propoganda. the US would be stupid to repeat it's mistake in iran. not to say they don't have a plan to deal with a nuclear threat but trying to topple them isn't is one of them, i don't believe. and i wouldn't put it past iran to have nbc's.

Siji · Post by **Siji** » January 19, 2005, 1:48 am

We couldn't steamroll Iran without a lot more casualties than we had in Iraq

-had

+are having

We haven't left Iraq. Only the WMDs have.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » January 19, 2005, 3:22 am

Siji wrote:
We couldn't steamroll Iran without a lot more casualties than we had in Iraq
-had

+are having

We haven't left Iraq. Only the WMDs have.

Don't confuse steamrolling a country with occupying a country. We blew threw Iraq with just a handful of casualties. We are accumulating losses now while occupying the country and dealing with insurgents.

Iran would put up much more of a fight during the initial invasion. We could still do it but it would be uglier than Joan Rivers on a good day.

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » January 19, 2005, 3:41 am

Teenybloke wrote:It would be funny as hell to watch the US embassy get raped all over again

Assuming there even is one there anymore......

You and I are generally on the same side of the coin when it comes to political matters, even if you're sometimes an idiot in your expression of them, but this here is a little far. Funny as hell? Try and backpedal from that statement, we all could use a laugh.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » January 19, 2005, 8:50 am

Did I see in Rice's speech yesterday she used words to the effect of "getting Iran and NKorea to give up their nuclear weapons"? Instead of "weapons programs" or "attempts to develop"?
Hmm?

Nick · Post by **Nick** » January 19, 2005, 2:18 pm

Yeah I read that a few hours after I posted it, realised it was frankly a bit shitty.

Here is your 'back pedal'.

I think the US needs something serious to happen to it before it even considers sorting itself out, although since 9/11 it appears to have made them more hysterical.

Something massively humiliating with low casualty rates (ala Iran embassy rerun) may cause them to strap their balls on.

I see Winnows point on this, but he doesn't seem to understand it is that very behaviour that put us here in the first place. Can any American these days honestly hold their hand on their heart and say their country has done ANYTHING to change this situation from Anti American Arabs to Pro American Arabs? (The Saudi Royals don't count!)

The point was to make the US safer, so that no more 9/11's happen......in the long run do you really think this has helped that cause?

And if you do get attacked, would it be a surprise? Or unjustified?

Dregor so h8