Iran's nukes - Page 6 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Txjake · #76 11-16-2011, 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chilcutt

Ok, I pass then...but if someone wasnt anywiser, you could be interpreted as being a homicidal maniac, and definanately not a good model for an Honorably Discharged War Vet who has long been de-briefed.

It's easy to get labled here
and not so easy to be un-labled.

Peace to you and Yours.

JC

AL salam laka

Botnst · #77 11-16-2011, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Honus

Never happened.

You are well qualified for high office.

Hatterasguy · #78 11-16-2011, 09:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chilcutt

I am no missile/ballistics expert, but just wonder if a Nuclear missle sent from Iran could even REACH the U.S.? If not, whats the problemo.

No, they might have the technology at best to lob one at Israel, but not here. China is only barely able to do that, only a handful of countries can launch a proper ICBM, and only I would say 4 could launch a meaningful attack, IE more than one. (USA, Russia, France, UK, maybe one or two more at best)

Nukes are also traceable, threw their fission material. Every bomb has a signature that is traceable, so say one goes off in a port in LA. From the radiation you can determine where it came from, IE is it Russian, or Iranian?

This would be national suicide on Iran's part considering that with our nuclear capabilities left over from the cold war we could literally flatten them and wipe out probably over 90% of their population in 30 minutes, or less.

The whole nuclear war thing between countries is IMHO out dated and over hyped. Only really the US and Russia ever prepared to fight a proper WW3; no one else can, and they won't develop it since its not useful anymore. Iran is simply fishing for a bargaining chip, they want one bomb, we have over 5k and the ability to deliver them, quickly.

B-52 MITO departure, Minot AFB, ND - YouTube

This is what the end of the world would look like,

Hatterasguy · #79 11-16-2011, 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

That was Reagan's strategy until Saddam quit using it to kill-off his Shiite cannon fodder. Saddam's purpose, which he stated many times, was to control the oil supply to the world from the Middle East. He had the usual pan-Arab unity dream of the typical Baathist dictator. He recognized (like Frank Herbert described in his series) that the world demands oil and he who controls oil controls the world.

Saddam's next move was to seize the Kuwaiti oil fields and then KSA and the Emirates. That didn't work out so well for him either. So he cast about for a new approach.

I still think we could have used him. If not the CIA or NSA could have just offed him without the military assets.

spdrun · #80 11-16-2011, 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatterasguy

This would be national suicide on Iran's part considering that with our nuclear capabilities left over from the cold war we could literally flatten them and wipe out probably over 90% of their population in 30 minutes, or less.

10 times over if they wanted to -- again, they're not crazy or stupid to that extent.

chilcutt · #81 11-17-2011, 01:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatterasguy

No, they might have the technology at best to lob one at Israel, but not here. China is only barely able to do that, only a handful of countries can launch a proper ICBM, and only I would say 4 could launch a meaningful attack, IE more than one. (USA, Russia, France, UK, maybe one or two more at best)

Nukes are also traceable, threw their fission material. Every bomb has a signature that is traceable, so say one goes off in a port in LA. From the radiation you can determine where it came from, IE is it Russian, or Iranian?

This would be national suicide on Iran's part considering that with our nuclear capabilities left over from the cold war we could literally flatten them and wipe out probably over 90% of their population in 30 minutes, or less.

The whole nuclear war thing between countries is IMHO out dated and over hyped. Only really the US and Russia ever prepared to fight a proper WW3; no one else can, and they won't develop it since its not useful anymore. Iran is simply fishing for a bargaining chip, they want one bomb, we have over 5k and the ability to deliver them, quickly.

B-52 MITO departure, Minot AFB, ND - YouTube

This is what the end of the world would look like,

Damn, wasant all this nuke/commie/scare crap played out in the 50's....

Hatterasguy · #82 11-17-2011, 10:26 PM

Well no if you look at your history the cold war and nuclear stock piles hit their peak in the late 60's. Also it didn't actually end until about 20 years ago.

The ability to wipe a country off the face of the earth like the finger of God coming down isn't such a bad thing if you have it. Luckily its too expensive to develop these days so no one else is going to do it.

These days its one useful function is to keep countries with only maybe one or two nuclear devices honest.

Botnst · #83 11-17-2011, 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatterasguy

Well no if you look at your history the cold war and nuclear stock piles hit their peak in the late 60's. Also it didn't actually end until about 20 years ago.

The ability to wipe a country off the face of the earth like the finger of God coming down isn't such a bad thing if you have it. Luckily its too expensive to develop these days so no one else is going to do it.

These days its one useful function is to keep countries with only maybe one or two nuclear devices honest.

True, but only if they share the same moral and ethical values as you have. This is one reason we spent so much time, treasure and lives vs the USSR -- we did not share similar values until very late in the game.

Now put that in context with Iran: Would you say our values are more similar to the USSR or Iran? How do they differ? What does it mean?

Hatterasguy · #84 11-17-2011, 10:36 PM

The best way to handle Iran is to do what they are doing, covert actions to open the country up. A drop of Iphones would be much more affective than an atomic bomb.

Having said that people are people, they don't really change to much. They like money, food, their families, and usually don't really want to die. Their isn't a country that can't be bargained with, just might have to go about it in different ways sometimes.

Took us 40 years to come to an understanding with the Russians.

spdrun · #85 11-17-2011, 10:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatterasguy

The best way to handle Iran is to do what they are doing, covert actions to open the country up. A drop of Iphones would be much more affective than an atomic bomb.

I've had that idea with North Korea -- but use One Laptop Per Child laptops loaded with a large subset of the Korean wikipedia. Bet if word gets around, KJI would be dangling from a lamp post inside of a year.

Botnst · #86 11-17-2011, 10:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatterasguy

The best way to handle Iran is to do what they are doing, covert actions to open the country up. A drop of Iphones would be much more affective than an atomic bomb.

Having said that people are people, they don't really change to much. They like money, food, their families, and usually don't really want to die. Their isn't a country that can't be bargained with, just might have to go about it in different ways sometimes.

Took us 40 years to come to an understanding with the Russians.

It wasn't the Russians who were our adversaries. It was the fanatical communist leadership who pursued ideology over all other considerations with a religious zeal. The same in Iraq: The people want their children to grow up in a better world than their own. The fanatics have a wholly different belief system based on a peculiar messianic superstition. The key is to separate the the people from the leaders without presenting a threat to Persian pride and nationalism. In my opinion, Obama is on the right track with that by challenging the leadership with no overt threat to the Persian people.

I also agree with you that the best wedge is between the leaders and people is factual information made available at the lowest level possible and as freely as possible. Dropping 20 million cellphones and satellite TV antennas over the country would do far more than any number of nukes.