How Iran would retaliate if it comes to war

[Scott & Lai 12]

Plus as I mentioned. Given the amount of monitoring of Iran, any missile launch could be swiftly intercepted before it became a danger to our country.

Maybe for our country, given the distance, but what about Israel? Or should our attitude be, "** them, sucks to be them."?

Is Israel a US state? No.

They are an ally though, and should be given the defense the treaties call for. But if they want to first strike Iran, then they are on their own, and should deal with the consequences of their own actions.

Given the close proximity of Iran and Israel, how do we defend Israel against a nuclear attack by Iran once the missile is in the air?

[Dan J 277]

Plus as I mentioned. Given the amount of monitoring of Iran, any missile launch could be swiftly intercepted before it became a danger to our country.

Maybe for our country, given the distance, but what about Israel? Or should our attitude be, "** them, sucks to be them."?

Is Israel a US state? No.

They are an ally though, and should be given the defense the treaties call for. But if they want to first strike Iran, then they are on their own, and should deal with the consequences of their own actions.

Given the close proximity of Iran and Israel, how do we defend Israel against a nuclear attack by Iran once the missile is in the air?

What strategic advantage does Iran have by attacking first?

They would need quite a few missiles to wipe Israel off the map. Iran using nuclear weapons has only one outcome for Iran. Its complete and utter destruction.

For Iran, nuclear weapons are a political pawn. They can use them to taunt Israel or the US to take a first strike (which is strategically advantageous), or use them as a tool to gain more influence in the world community.

The question is not what do we do to defend against Iran using nuclear missiles, since our retaliation with them doing so, would obliterate their country. The question is, do we play right into their hand?

[GaryC 7]

Wow, just wow. The niave thinking here is just astounding.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Wow, just wow. The niave thinking here is just astounding.

I think you're overreacting a little. To be honest.

[GaryC 7]

Wow, just wow. The niave thinking here is just astounding.

I think you're overreacting a little. To be honest.

Sorry, I don't think so. But it does show the stark differences between the two sides of this issue. Tell me, and be honest. Which one of these two ideals would you feel safer with? Trust Iran and don't act until attacked or eleminate the threats before they can hurt us. I know you would probably want something in the middle but just assume you could only chose one or the other.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The problem there is that you're asking me to buy into a set of assumptions about inevitable and imminent attack. If you buy into that stuff I can see why the choice is black and white. If you don't well...

It isn't beyond the realm of possibility that Iran, like North Korea wants nukes - not to launch some sort of Doomsday massacre but as a bargaining chip to secure their own position and prevent it from being undermined by other countries. I mean that seems to be why Saddam wanted them...

As authoritarian as the Iranian government is - I rather doubt they spend their time sitting around in little rooms, twirling their moustaches and plotting how to destroy the world. They may be hardline - but its dismissive to suggest that they're stupid or insane.

[mawilson 2,133]

The problem there is that you're asking me to buy into a set of assumptions about inevitable and imminent attack. If you buy into that stuff I can see why the choice is black and white. If you don't well...

It isn't beyond the realm of possibility that Iran, like North Korea wants nukes - not to launch some sort of Doomsday massacre but as a bargaining chip to secure their own position and prevent it from being undermined by other countries. I mean that seems to be why Saddam wanted them...

I agree. Nuclear weapons are a powerful bargaining chip, which is why it's very important not to let them have it.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The problem there is that you're asking me to buy into a set of assumptions about inevitable and imminent attack. If you buy into that stuff I can see why the choice is black and white. If you don't well...

It isn't beyond the realm of possibility that Iran, like North Korea wants nukes - not to launch some sort of Doomsday massacre but as a bargaining chip to secure their own position and prevent it from being undermined by other countries. I mean that seems to be why Saddam wanted them...

I agree. Nuclear weapons are a powerful bargaining chip, which is why it's very important not to let them have it.

I dunno - we've heard before how the availability of firearms in the US make society safer. Surely the same reasoning could apply to nuclear proliferation

[mawilson 2,133]

The problem there is that you're asking me to buy into a set of assumptions about inevitable and imminent attack. If you buy into that stuff I can see why the choice is black and white. If you don't well...

It isn't beyond the realm of possibility that Iran, like North Korea wants nukes - not to launch some sort of Doomsday massacre but as a bargaining chip to secure their own position and prevent it from being undermined by other countries. I mean that seems to be why Saddam wanted them...

I agree. Nuclear weapons are a powerful bargaining chip, which is why it's very important not to let them have it.

I dunno - we've heard before how the availability of firearms in the US make society safer. Surely the same reasoning could apply to nuclear proliferation

It's not about safety, it's about remaining in control of that region.

[eric&gen 0]

The Iranians can just throw stones.

[HAL 9000 96]

If military action is inevitable, its very very important that Iran attacks first.

Iran is playing a game of taunting the US and or Israel into attacking it. If either the US or Israel plays into this, the attacking country would be perceived as the aggressor. They would also be forced into a protracted war, with little if any support from the international community.

If the US were to attack first. Iran would begin openly interfering in Iraq. Destabilizing any progress and costing us billions and many more lives.

If Israel were to attack first. Not only would you have a conventional war, you would have Iran supplying guerrilla groups in and near Israel.

If Iran were to attack first. The case could be made for an international response. Iran would have less support of other Arab countries.

We no longer have the resources to keep attacking everyone we don't agree with. We have billions of debt from Iraq that has significant economic consequences. Our military is already stretched thin in our current commitments. The morale of many in the military has been depleted by our protracted engagement in Iraq. Public support for polices of open imperialism is waning.

And you'd think that some people would learn...

Plus as I mentioned. Given the amount of monitoring of Iran, any missile launch could be swiftly intercepted before it became a danger to our country.

Maybe for our country, given the distance, but what about Israel? Or should our attitude be, "** them, sucks to be them."?

I think we can protect them as we have in the past. We had Patriots in Israel back in GWI. If they want our protection, they can ask for it. They may also want to disclose their arsenal while at it.

Plus as I mentioned. Given the amount of monitoring of Iran, any missile launch could be swiftly intercepted before it became a danger to our country.

Maybe for our country, given the distance, but what about Israel? Or should our attitude be, "** them, sucks to be them."?

I think we can protect them as we have in the past. We had Patriots in Israel back in GWI. If they want our protection, they can ask for it. They may also want to disclose their arsenal while at it.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Mavi is so bought and paid for

[HAL 9000 96]

Given the amount of monitoring of Iran, any missile launch could be swiftly intercepted before it became a danger to our country.

do you really believe that?

Both you and I know that missiles with payload capacity can be quite easily detected. If not by us then by our friends. If we want to be gung ho about things lets have our friends in the region sponsor certain detection abilities with fast response elements. Oh... we already do don't we?

[HAL 9000 96]

Plus as I mentioned. Given the amount of monitoring of Iran, any missile launch could be swiftly intercepted before it became a danger to our country.

Maybe for our country, given the distance, but what about Israel? Or should our attitude be, "** them, sucks to be them."?

Is Israel a US state? No.

They are an ally though, and should be given the defense the treaties call for. But if they want to first strike Iran, then they are on their own, and should deal with the consequences of their own actions.

Given the close proximity of Iran and Israel, how do we defend Israel against a nuclear attack by Iran once the missile is in the air?

Need to listen to Bill sing it...

Wow, just wow. The niave thinking here is just astounding.

I think you're overreacting a little. To be honest.

Sorry, I don't think so. But it does show the stark differences between the two sides of this issue. Tell me, and be honest. Which one of these two ideals would you feel safer with? Trust Iran and don't act until attacked or eleminate the threats before they can hurt us. I know you would probably want something in the middle but just assume you could only chose one or the other.

What threat is there proof of?

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

Given the amount of monitoring of Iran, any missile launch could be swiftly intercepted before it became a danger to our country.

do you really believe that?

Both you and I know that missiles with payload capacity can be quite easily detected. If not by us then by our friends. If we want to be gung ho about things lets have our friends in the region sponsor certain detection abilities with fast response elements. Oh... we already do don't we?

detection of launch isn't what i was questioning. it was the alleged swift interception that you spoke of.