[quote]Mufasa wrote:
The U.S. has flown Predators over suspected nuclear sites in Iran AT LEAST since 2005.
[/quote]
Airspace-violating bastards!
[quote]streamline wrote:
This is a good thing for a couple of reasons.
-
If they attack with them, they open the door to their doom.
-
Having them and not using them gives them the respect of the international community. Plus the security against their enemies.
It’s not a country that has missiles one has to worry about. It’s those without who are scared of those with, that we should be worried about.[/quote]
A regional atomic attack like this would convince most people in the world that we need to turn over our sovereignty to an international body that will police the globe. “If wars are between nations, well, let’s just get rid of nations.”
I hope though that Bilderberg has a back-up plan.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
jawara wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
I would imagine that U.S. Predators and the Israeli Moussad got some GREAT pictures of the “launch”…
On a serious note, I’m not so much concerned about any Iranian strategic advantage gained… Pakistan should be much more of a worry at this point.
My concern is for the absolute Hell that will be unleased if some “inspired” Mullah wants to launch one of these things into Israel.
We can only hope that they are smarter than that.
Mufasa
I don’t Predators have the range to be able to make it to Iran. I now they sound all high speed but they really aren’t all that.
The U.S. has flown Predators over suspected nuclear sites in Iran AT LEAST since 2005.
While spy satellites can detect different signals along the electromagnetic spectrum…and can yield very high-resolution pictures…Predators have special sensors that analyze the air to detect radiation levels consistent with uranium enrichment.
If we are not currently using them in Iran, its because the current operational Wing is tied-up in Iraq and Afghanistan; not because of operational range.
Mufasa
[/quote]
In this case, I could see how bombing could become a joyful event. Having evil people exterminated is definitely a cause of joy.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
I hope though that Bilderberg has a back-up plan.
[/quote]
Had to google that. Interesting read, always good to know people are talking. Talking is what the world is lacking greatly. Wouldn’t mind being a fly on the wall for one of those meetings, mums the word. With the media printing what every they want. I can totally agree with their desire for closed door invitation only policy.
Thanks for the tip, I’ll sleep better!
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
“If wars are between nations, well, let’s just get rid of nations.”
[/quote]
And the governments that run them.
[quote]archiewhittaker wrote:
lixy wrote:
Iran shouldn’t make missiles. In fact, nobody should but the USA.
I get it now.
You’re in Sweden, no Iranian missile would be launched at your position. The rest of the Western world are getting nervous and territorial.
The next one will hit close to Israel, that’s my prediction.
[/quote]
Israel, they camp out on less than 1% of the world’s real estate and cause 99% of the problems. Would anyone be truly upset if they did get blasted back to the caveman days? They’re nothing more that a bunch of whiners and instigators. We kiss their booties and clean up after them.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
Sifu wrote:
That was a solid fuel rocket. We have big problems now. So much for the chosen one asking them to unclench their fist.
Exactly - a solid fuel rocket is a whole new ballgame - easy storage, instant launch = bad news
It is also easy to increase their range because you just make them bigger, on a liquid fueled rocket this takes a lot of engineering. The solid fuel burns from the inside out, so the outer layers of fuel acts as part of the outer casing, that makes it easy to increase their range. It also gives a very good power to weight ratio, because they don’t need a thick outer casing likew fireworks.
Solid fuel is also a lot easier to ship launch than the liquid fueled Scuds that the Iranians were test firing from ships in the Caspian sea a few years ago. This new missile has a range of 1200 miles so they could use it to drop a nuke on New York or LA from far out at sea. [/quote]
Do you actually believe this crap you spout?
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Sifu wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
Sifu wrote:
That was a solid fuel rocket. We have big problems now. So much for the chosen one asking them to unclench their fist.
Exactly - a solid fuel rocket is a whole new ballgame - easy storage, instant launch = bad news
It is also easy to increase their range because you just make them bigger, on a liquid fueled rocket this takes a lot of engineering. The solid fuel burns from the inside out, so the outer layers of fuel acts as part of the outer casing, that makes it easy to increase their range. It also gives a very good power to weight ratio, because they don’t need a thick outer casing likew fireworks.
Solid fuel is also a lot easier to ship launch than the liquid fueled Scuds that the Iranians were test firing from ships in the Caspian sea a few years ago. This new missile has a range of 1200 miles so they could use it to drop a nuke on New York or LA from far out at sea.
Do you actually believe this crap you spout?[/quote]
are you really this slow?
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Sifu wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
Sifu wrote:
That was a solid fuel rocket. We have big problems now. So much for the chosen one asking them to unclench their fist.
Exactly - a solid fuel rocket is a whole new ballgame - easy storage, instant launch = bad news
It is also easy to increase their range because you just make them bigger, on a liquid fueled rocket this takes a lot of engineering. The solid fuel burns from the inside out, so the outer layers of fuel acts as part of the outer casing, that makes it easy to increase their range. It also gives a very good power to weight ratio, because they don’t need a thick outer casing likew fireworks.
Solid fuel is also a lot easier to ship launch than the liquid fueled Scuds that the Iranians were test firing from ships in the Caspian sea a few years ago. This new missile has a range of 1200 miles so they could use it to drop a nuke on New York or LA from far out at sea.
Do you actually believe this crap you spout?[/quote]
What he wrote about solid fuel vs. liquid fuel is absolutely true. It is exponentially easier to manipulate a solid fuel rocket than a liquid fuel one. You can easily have variable thrusts over time just by changing the shape of the solid fuel. It’s easy as pie, and even an undergraduate could calculate and draw a thrust-vs.-time graph. Doing the same with liquid fuel, however, is very difficult.
Would Iran drop a rocket on anybody? Is it a major breakthrough if Iran now has solid fuel rocket? I don’t know.
But the part about solid vs. liquid rocket fuels in the post you quoted is correct.
[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
Sifu wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
Sifu wrote:
That was a solid fuel rocket. We have big problems now. So much for the chosen one asking them to unclench their fist.
Exactly - a solid fuel rocket is a whole new ballgame - easy storage, instant launch = bad news
It is also easy to increase their range because you just make them bigger, on a liquid fueled rocket this takes a lot of engineering. The solid fuel burns from the inside out, so the outer layers of fuel acts as part of the outer casing, that makes it easy to increase their range. It also gives a very good power to weight ratio, because they don’t need a thick outer casing likew fireworks.
Solid fuel is also a lot easier to ship launch than the liquid fueled Scuds that the Iranians were test firing from ships in the Caspian sea a few years ago. This new missile has a range of 1200 miles so they could use it to drop a nuke on New York or LA from far out at sea.
Do you actually believe this crap you spout?
What he wrote about solid fuel vs. liquid fuel is absolutely true. It is exponentially easier to manipulate a solid fuel rocket than a liquid fuel one. You can easily have variable thrusts over time just by changing the shape of the solid fuel. It’s easy as pie, and even an undergraduate could calculate and draw a thrust-vs.-time graph. Doing the same with liquid fuel, however, is very difficult.
Would Iran drop a rocket on anybody? Is it a major breakthrough if Iran now has solid fuel rocket? I don’t know.
But the part about solid vs. liquid rocket fuels in the post you quoted is correct.[/quote]
I’m not talking about that, I’m talking about the idea of Iran launching a nuclear missile at LA or New York. This isn’t Hollywood. Deterrence works against states. Iran has actually been a pretty conservatives regional power since 1979. Remember, Iraq attacked them.
And if sifu and co. are trying to start the bomb Iran drumbeat, Gates himself has said bombing Iran would, at most, set their nuclear program back a few years. So that’s not a solution.
"Of course, not everyone shares the apocalyptic rhetoric of the â??strike-before-itâ??s-too-lateâ?? crowd. Indeed, less fevered minds understand that even if Iran developed a rudimentary nuclear capability, the United States and Israel would have a huge missile advantage. According to the Federation of American Scientists, the U.S. has over 5,000 warheads deployed and a large number in reserve, while estimates of the Israeli stockpile range from 80 to 200 nuclear devices. At present, Iran has none and, even under worst-case scenarios, is unlikely to have more than a handful in the years to come.
…
Any time the conventional wisdom is so one-sided, it makes sense to ask whether it is truly wise or simply an unreasoning article of faith. What has been missing from the debate is a consideration of the possible benefits of Iran crossing the nuclear threshold. No doubt even this suggestion will strike many as the height of academic muddle-headedness. But there are compelling theoretical and historical reasons to think that, far from being a crisis, Iranian membership in the nuclear club might be beneficial to everyoneâ??even Israel.
The theoretical basis for this admittedly counterintuitive claim is political scientist Kenneth Waltzâ??s famous Adelphi Paper, â??The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: More May Be Better.â?? Waltz is not a marginal figure on the lunatic fringe, but rather ranks among the most influential international-relations theorists of the past 30 years. First published in 1981 by the prestigious International Institute for Strategic Studies in Londonâ??hardly a crackpot outfitâ??the paper argues that because nuclear weapons are only useful for deterrence of attacks upon their possessorâ??s homeland, their proliferation, unlike that of other weapons that can be used for offensive operations, should reduce the frequency and intensity of wars. His central assumption is that rational states quickly realize this is the consequence of the nuclear revolution.
…
But for many participants in todayâ??s debate about the Iranian nuclear program, history is irrelevant because they think that the mullocracy in Iran is fundamentally different from the Cold War nuclear powers. They make two related arguments. First, Iran is an autocratic regime with little concern for the lives of its citizens, so it would not be deterred from nuclear war simply by the risk of suffering millions of casualties. Second, because Iran is a theocracy, it does not make rational strategic calculations, which are central to Waltzâ??s theory.
Proponents of the first proposition suffer from historical amnesia. The first two nuclear adversaries the United States facedâ??Stalinâ??s Soviet Union and Maoâ??s Chinaâ??were hardly democratic regimes. Indeed, they rank among historyâ??s most totalitarian political systems. Yet neither of these totalitarian regimes risked nuclear war.
Both regimes engaged in mass murder of their own citizens. Conservative estimates of the human cost of Stalinâ??s rule begin at 20 million deaths. Mao killed approximately the same number of his countrymen. Despite these sanguinary tendencies, neither regime was willing to risk nuclear war with the United States.
Both also indulged in irresponsible nuclear rhetoric. Stalin publicly pooh-poohed the American atomic bomb when told about it by President Truman at Potsdam in July 1945. Behind the scenes, however, he understood that atomic weapons represented a dramatic change in the nature of warfare and secretly began a crash program. The rhetoric of cavalier dismissal concealed a deep concern about nuclear weapons that, in turn, induced caution.
During his 1957 speech at the Moscow Meeting of Communist and Workersâ?? Parties, Mao also dismissed the nuclear-armed United States as â??a paper tigerâ?? and remarked elsewhere that a nuclear war with the U.S. would not be such a catastrophe because â??if worse came to worst and half of mankind died, the other half would remain while imperialism would be razed to the ground and the whole world would become socialist.â?? But in private conversations with Field Marshal Sir Bernard Law Montgomery in September 1961, he argued that nuclear weapons â??are not something to use. The more there are, the harder it will be for nuclear wars to break out.â?? This latter view apparently governed Chinese behavior.
The second objection to Waltzâ??s nuclear optimism is that Iran will not behave as a rational actor because it is an Islamic theocracy that values the afterlife more than the here and now. True, revolutionary Iran fought an eight-year war with Iraq and suffered almost a million casualties. But this is hardly evidence that its leadership and population have a martyrdom complex. It was, after all, secular Iraq, rather than Iran, that started the war, and the Islamic Republic was the first to accept the United Nationsâ?? ceasefire in 1988 once it became clear that the conflict had reached a stalemate. This behavior hardly indicates an irrational commitment to fight to the last Iranian.
There is no doubt that the rhetoric of some Iranian leaders, particularly President Mahmoud Ahmadinejadâ??s florid threats that Israel will be â??wiped off the mapâ?? and his ludicrous denials of the Holocaust, has been inflammatory and irresponsible. Yet we need to keep in mind that Iran is a much more complex political system than most Western media accounts suggest, and its president is not the most significant political actor in that country.
More importantly, when one looks systematically at recent Iranian history, as Trita Parsi has done in his essential Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the U.S., two things become clear. Iranian behavior toward the United States and Israel has been remarkably consistent, both before and after the Islamic Revolution. That continuity is largely explained by a realpolitik not so different from the logic that informed the policies of the Cold War superpowers.
At various times under both the Shah and the mullahs, Iran sought regional hegemony; at other times, under both regimes, it made overtures to the United States and even to Israel. Thus there is little reason to think that Iran would behave any differently than the Soviet Union or Communist China with nuclear weapons. If we could live with those rogue nuclear states, which were willing to sacrifice millions of their own people to advance an eschatological ideology, there is scant reason to think Iran poses a more serious threat."
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
"Of course, not everyone shares the apocalyptic rhetoric of the â??strike-before-itâ??s-too-lateâ?? crowd. Indeed, less fevered minds understand that even if Iran developed a rudimentary nuclear capability, the United States and Israel would have a huge missile advantage. According to the Federation of American Scientists, the U.S. has over 5,000 warheads deployed and a large number in reserve, while estimates of the Israeli stockpile range from 80 to 200 nuclear devices. At present, Iran has none and, even under worst-case scenarios, is unlikely to have more than a handful in the years to come.
…
Any time the conventional wisdom is so one-sided, it makes sense to ask whether it is truly wise or simply an unreasoning article of faith. What has been missing from the debate is a consideration of the possible benefits of Iran crossing the nuclear threshold. No doubt even this suggestion will strike many as the height of academic muddle-headedness. But there are compelling theoretical and historical reasons to think that, far from being a crisis, Iranian membership in the nuclear club might be beneficial to everyoneâ??even Israel.
The theoretical basis for this admittedly counterintuitive claim is political scientist Kenneth Waltzâ??s famous Adelphi Paper, â??The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: More May Be Better.â?? Waltz is not a marginal figure on the lunatic fringe, but rather ranks among the most influential international-relations theorists of the past 30 years. First published in 1981 by the prestigious International Institute for Strategic Studies in Londonâ??hardly a crackpot outfitâ??the paper argues that because nuclear weapons are only useful for deterrence of attacks upon their possessorâ??s homeland, their proliferation, unlike that of other weapons that can be used for offensive operations, should reduce the frequency and intensity of wars. His central assumption is that rational states quickly realize this is the consequence of the nuclear revolution.
…
But for many participants in todayâ??s debate about the Iranian nuclear program, history is irrelevant because they think that the mullocracy in Iran is fundamentally different from the Cold War nuclear powers. They make two related arguments. First, Iran is an autocratic regime with little concern for the lives of its citizens, so it would not be deterred from nuclear war simply by the risk of suffering millions of casualties. Second, because Iran is a theocracy, it does not make rational strategic calculations, which are central to Waltzâ??s theory.
Proponents of the first proposition suffer from historical amnesia. The first two nuclear adversaries the United States facedâ??Stalinâ??s Soviet Union and Maoâ??s Chinaâ??were hardly democratic regimes. Indeed, they rank among historyâ??s most totalitarian political systems. Yet neither of these totalitarian regimes risked nuclear war.
Both regimes engaged in mass murder of their own citizens. Conservative estimates of the human cost of Stalinâ??s rule begin at 20 million deaths. Mao killed approximately the same number of his countrymen. Despite these sanguinary tendencies, neither regime was willing to risk nuclear war with the United States.
Both also indulged in irresponsible nuclear rhetoric. Stalin publicly pooh-poohed the American atomic bomb when told about it by President Truman at Potsdam in July 1945. Behind the scenes, however, he understood that atomic weapons represented a dramatic change in the nature of warfare and secretly began a crash program. The rhetoric of cavalier dismissal concealed a deep concern about nuclear weapons that, in turn, induced caution.
During his 1957 speech at the Moscow Meeting of Communist and Workersâ?? Parties, Mao also dismissed the nuclear-armed United States as â??a paper tigerâ?? and remarked elsewhere that a nuclear war with the U.S. would not be such a catastrophe because â??if worse came to worst and half of mankind died, the other half would remain while imperialism would be razed to the ground and the whole world would become socialist.â?? But in private conversations with Field Marshal Sir Bernard Law Montgomery in September 1961, he argued that nuclear weapons â??are not something to use. The more there are, the harder it will be for nuclear wars to break out.â?? This latter view apparently governed Chinese behavior.
The second objection to Waltzâ??s nuclear optimism is that Iran will not behave as a rational actor because it is an Islamic theocracy that values the afterlife more than the here and now. True, revolutionary Iran fought an eight-year war with Iraq and suffered almost a million casualties. But this is hardly evidence that its leadership and population have a martyrdom complex. It was, after all, secular Iraq, rather than Iran, that started the war, and the Islamic Republic was the first to accept the United Nationsâ?? ceasefire in 1988 once it became clear that the conflict had reached a stalemate. This behavior hardly indicates an irrational commitment to fight to the last Iranian.
There is no doubt that the rhetoric of some Iranian leaders, particularly President Mahmoud Ahmadinejadâ??s florid threats that Israel will be â??wiped off the mapâ?? and his ludicrous denials of the Holocaust, has been inflammatory and irresponsible. Yet we need to keep in mind that Iran is a much more complex political system than most Western media accounts suggest, and its president is not the most significant political actor in that country.
More importantly, when one looks systematically at recent Iranian history, as Trita Parsi has done in his essential Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the U.S., two things become clear. Iranian behavior toward the United States and Israel has been remarkably consistent, both before and after the Islamic Revolution. That continuity is largely explained by a realpolitik not so different from the logic that informed the policies of the Cold War superpowers.
At various times under both the Shah and the mullahs, Iran sought regional hegemony; at other times, under both regimes, it made overtures to the United States and even to Israel. Thus there is little reason to think that Iran would behave any differently than the Soviet Union or Communist China with nuclear weapons. If we could live with those rogue nuclear states, which were willing to sacrifice millions of their own people to advance an eschatological ideology, there is scant reason to think Iran poses a more serious threat."
http://www.amconmag.com/article/2009/may/18/00006/[/quote]
still proving that volume does not equal validity? good for you
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
jawara wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
I would imagine that U.S. Predators and the Israeli Moussad got some GREAT pictures of the “launch”…
On a serious note, I’m not so much concerned about any Iranian strategic advantage gained… Pakistan should be much more of a worry at this point.
My concern is for the absolute Hell that will be unleased if some “inspired” Mullah wants to launch one of these things into Israel.
We can only hope that they are smarter than that.
Mufasa
I don’t Predators have the range to be able to make it to Iran. I now they sound all high speed but they really aren’t all that.
The U.S. has flown Predators over suspected nuclear sites in Iran AT LEAST since 2005.
While spy satellites can detect different signals along the electromagnetic spectrum…and can yield very high-resolution pictures…Predators have special sensors that analyze the air to detect radiation levels consistent with uranium enrichment.
If we are not currently using them in Iran, its because the current operational Wing is tied-up in Iraq and Afghanistan; not because of operational range.
Mufasa
[/quote]
I still doubt we fly Predators into Iran. If one were shot down or went down because of mechanical failure the political ramifications would be catastrphic. I can’t picture Obama signing off on sending one in either.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
The U.S. has flown Predators over suspected nuclear sites in Iran AT LEAST since 2005.
Airspace-violating bastards![/quote]
If they don’t like it, then they can shoot them down. why are your panties in a bunch?
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
tGunslinger wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
Sifu wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
Sifu wrote:
That was a solid fuel rocket. We have big problems now. So much for the chosen one asking them to unclench their fist.
Exactly - a solid fuel rocket is a whole new ballgame - easy storage, instant launch = bad news
It is also easy to increase their range because you just make them bigger, on a liquid fueled rocket this takes a lot of engineering. The solid fuel burns from the inside out, so the outer layers of fuel acts as part of the outer casing, that makes it easy to increase their range. It also gives a very good power to weight ratio, because they don’t need a thick outer casing likew fireworks.
Solid fuel is also a lot easier to ship launch than the liquid fueled Scuds that the Iranians were test firing from ships in the Caspian sea a few years ago. This new missile has a range of 1200 miles so they could use it to drop a nuke on New York or LA from far out at sea.
Do you actually believe this crap you spout?
What he wrote about solid fuel vs. liquid fuel is absolutely true. It is exponentially easier to manipulate a solid fuel rocket than a liquid fuel one. You can easily have variable thrusts over time just by changing the shape of the solid fuel. It’s easy as pie, and even an undergraduate could calculate and draw a thrust-vs.-time graph. Doing the same with liquid fuel, however, is very difficult.
Would Iran drop a rocket on anybody? Is it a major breakthrough if Iran now has solid fuel rocket? I don’t know.
But the part about solid vs. liquid rocket fuels in the post you quoted is correct.
I’m not talking about that, I’m talking about the idea of Iran launching a nuclear missile at LA or New York. This isn’t Hollywood. Deterrence works against states. Iran has actually been a pretty conservatives regional power since 1979. Remember, Iraq attacked them.
And if sifu and co. are trying to start the bomb Iran drumbeat, Gates himself has said bombing Iran would, at most, set their nuclear program back a few years. So that’s not a solution.[/quote]
You are certainly not the brightest bulb in the Christmas tree. The Iranians having the ability to take out New York is a big deal. There are more Jews in New York than Israel. If they nuke Israel they will have to nuke New York as well. New York is one of the places that the IDF draws it reserves from. During the 1973 war they were flying charter flights of reservists out of JFK.
The Iranians are not that conservative and they certainly don’t keep to themselves. The only reason why they haven’t done more so far is because they have been more or less contained. That is why they work through proxies like Hizbollah. You should learn about that. While you are at it you should learn about the Jewish community center the Iranians blew up in Argentina. They have spread death and destruction far outside their borders for no good reason.
Detterence is way over rated. Especially when we are dealing with a bunch of ultra religious zealots. Just for your information the word zealot comes from an ultra religious sect of Jews who were called the Zealots. The Zealots were the ones who lead the uprising agaisnt Rome and finally ended up cornered on top of Mt Masada. The Iranians are reading from almost the exact same rulebook as the Zealots. They are both apocolyptic, messianic cults who believe that the messiah is going to rescue them when the apocolypse comes. So there is nothing to fear with bringing on the apocolypse because it will herald the return of the Messiah or in the case of the Iranians the Mahdi.
People like that having the ability to wipe out entire cities is a huge risk to take. Setting them back a few years is much better than allowing them to go nuclear. If we have to in a few years we just repeat it. They are not going to have the resources to keep rebuilding.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
calm the fuck down bitches![/quote]
Oh thank god! I didn’t want to have to be the one to say it…
But in following with that thought- a missle! How scary! We neither defend against those things nor have a bunch of bigger ones stockpiled…
[quote]Sifu wrote:… The Iranians having the ability to take out New York is a big deal. There are more Jews in New York than Israel. If they nuke Israel they will have to nuke New York as well. New York is one of the places that the IDF draws it reserves from. During the 1973 war they were flying charter flights of reservists out of JFK.
The Iranians are not that conservative and they certainly don’t keep to themselves. The only reason why they haven’t done more so far is because they have been more or less contained. That is why they work through proxies like Hizbollah. You should learn about that. While you are at it you should learn about the Jewish community center the Iranians blew up in Argentina. They have spread death and destruction far outside their borders for no good reason.
Detterence is way over rated. Especially when we are dealing with a bunch of ultra religious zealots. Just for your information the word zealot comes from an ultra religious sect of Jews who were called the Zealots. The Zealots were the ones who lead the uprising agaisnt Rome and finally ended up cornered on top of Mt Masada. The Iranians are reading from almost the exact same rulebook as the Zealots. They are both apocolyptic, messianic cults who believe that the messiah is going to rescue them when the apocolypse comes. So there is nothing to fear with bringing on the apocolypse because it will herald the return of the Messiah or in the case of the Iranians the Mahdi.
People like that having the ability to wipe out entire cities is a huge risk to take. Setting them back a few years is much better than allowing them to go nuclear. If we have to in a few years we just repeat it. They are not going to have the resources to keep rebuilding.
[/quote]
You bring up some lucid and valid points. The Iranians are being taken very seriously, but the missile thing is being talked about as a “smoking gun” to possible take the attention off what they’re really doing. The reality of hitting main land USA with a missile is incredibly remote. But a dirty bomb assembled out of lesser components would wreak havoc in any US city and that threat is REAL.
And who is selling them missile makings and nuclear technology? They can’t make them out of sand, oil and camel shit. Which are their 3 main industries.
BG
[quote]beachguy498 wrote:
You bring up some lucid and valid points. The Iranians are being taken very seriously, but the missile thing is being talked about as a “smoking gun” to possible take the attention off what they’re really doing. The reality of hitting main land USA with a missile is incredibly remote. But a dirty bomb assembled out of lesser components would wreak havoc in any US city and that threat is REAL.
And who is selling them missile makings and nuclear technology? They can’t make them out of sand, oil and camel shit. Which are their 3 main industries.
BG
[/quote]
Russia and China and North Korea . . . .
The insertion of a missile and launcher into one shipping container among the millions being transported to and from the US is a very easy thing to accomplish if you plan to launch from sea (not passing US import inspection) within a 1,000 miles of the US coast. The shorter the distance you choose to launch from the less reaction time the US has, and we do not have an extensive anti-missile defense system covering the thousands of miles of coastline. A simple dirty bomb load and a solid fuel rocket in the hands of a nation that has sworn to destroy America is the nightmare that haunts every one of us now - and if it doesn’t, you are deluding yourself . . . . That’s not even talking about EMP devices that could set us back into the stone age . … but hey - let’s talk and be friends . . . I guess no one here understands the “Peace of Saladin” . . .
[quote]beachguy498 wrote:
Sifu wrote:… The Iranians having the ability to take out New York is a big deal. There are more Jews in New York than Israel. If they nuke Israel they will have to nuke New York as well. New York is one of the places that the IDF draws it reserves from. During the 1973 war they were flying charter flights of reservists out of JFK.
The Iranians are not that conservative and they certainly don’t keep to themselves. The only reason why they haven’t done more so far is because they have been more or less contained. That is why they work through proxies like Hizbollah. You should learn about that. While you are at it you should learn about the Jewish community center the Iranians blew up in Argentina. They have spread death and destruction far outside their borders for no good reason.
Detterence is way over rated. Especially when we are dealing with a bunch of ultra religious zealots. Just for your information the word zealot comes from an ultra religious sect of Jews who were called the Zealots. The Zealots were the ones who lead the uprising agaisnt Rome and finally ended up cornered on top of Mt Masada. The Iranians are reading from almost the exact same rulebook as the Zealots. They are both apocolyptic, messianic cults who believe that the messiah is going to rescue them when the apocolypse comes. So there is nothing to fear with bringing on the apocolypse because it will herald the return of the Messiah or in the case of the Iranians the Mahdi.
People like that having the ability to wipe out entire cities is a huge risk to take. Setting them back a few years is much better than allowing them to go nuclear. If we have to in a few years we just repeat it. They are not going to have the resources to keep rebuilding.
You bring up some lucid and valid points. The Iranians are being taken very seriously, but the missile thing is being talked about as a “smoking gun” to possible take the attention off what they’re really doing. The reality of hitting main land USA with a missile is incredibly remote. But a dirty bomb assembled out of lesser components would wreak havoc in any US city and that threat is REAL.
And who is selling them missile makings and nuclear technology? They can’t make them out of sand, oil and camel shit. Which are their 3 main industries.
BG
[/quote]
If they have the will to hit the US, they have a way. The lesson of Pearl Harbor and 9/11 is underestimating the threat to us can have severe consequences. If the Iranians hit us they aren’t going to mess around with a dirty bomb it will be the real deal. Just based upon the information they have shared with the IAEA they have about enough fissile material for 1-3 bombs right now. What we don’t know is what their secret programs have produced.
Then there is what they have from the black market. They may have already purchased a nuke. They did turn over to the IAEA a working warhead design that they purchased from the AQ Khan network that was based upon a Chinese design. So they have had the opportunity to study an actual warhead design. Additionally when the North Koreans conducted their test there was an Iranian team of Physicists that participated. They had a building setup for monitoring the test that was identical to the one that the North Koreans built for themselves. The implication of that is they had identical monitoring facilities so they learned just as much from that test as the Koreans did.
So the reality of the mainland US getting hit is not incredibly remote that missile they tested has the range to be a real threat and it isn’t going to get any better. That is why we need to keep pushing ahead with missile defense.