ISS: Teheran could have nukes in '09

[Ban Hammer 13,337]

I currently don't know of any ordinance, that if detonated in Israel, would reach US soil.

it would

April 26, 1986. Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant near Pripyat, Ukraine. At 01:23 local time the fourth reactor explodes and causes a nuclear meltdown, blanketing nearby towns with a lethal dose of radiation.

Large areas in Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia are badly contaminated, resulting in the evacuation and resettlement of over 336,000 people. According to official post-Soviet data, about 60% of the radioactive fallout landed in Belarus. The truth is that a plume of fallout drifted throughout western Russia and Europe, reaching its dark hands as far as the UK and even crossed the sea, to North America.

http://www.vrmag.org/issue28/CHERNOBYL_21_YEARS_LATER.html

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

My point was simple... that an Iranian nuclear attack on Israel will illicit a US military response to Iran. PERIOD... there is no arguement even from you Paul that this won't happen

I think an isolated incident would likely necessitate a military response from the UN. A full scale nuclear war is an entirely unknown quantity.

[Yoink 7]

My point was simple... that an Iranian nuclear attack on Israel will illicit a US military response to Iran. PERIOD... there is no arguement even from you Paul that this won't happen

I think an isolated incident would likely necessitate a military response from the UN. A full scale nuclear war is an entirely unknown quantity.

Not full scale nuclear war but a single nuclear detonation... Who will be the majority player in a UN response?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

My point was simple... that an Iranian nuclear attack on Israel will illicit a US military response to Iran. PERIOD... there is no arguement even from you Paul that this won't happen

I think an isolated incident would likely necessitate a military response from the UN. A full scale nuclear war is an entirely unknown quantity.

Not full scale nuclear war but a single nuclear detonation... Who will be the majority player in a UN response?

I think his point is not about whether or not the US would retaliate, but about whether they should.

I get (and agree with) the idea of non-intervention - but pushing it in relation to potentially world-ending events is just ridiculous.

Edited January 28, 2009 by Paul Daniels

[Yoink 7]

they will

[childress_london 3]

RE: "Iran will most likely have produced enough enriched uranium to make an atomic bomb by the end of 2009, according to a paper released Tuesday by Mark Fitzpatrick of the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS). He clarified, however that before the uranium could be used for a nuclear weapon, it would have to be further enriched."

OK every time I turn around they have a new timetable for Iran to be capable of making a nuclear weapon. Some earlier, some later. I really think they have no clue as to how much the Iranians have at any given moment and are making guesses.

Also note the article states that the uranium would still have to be further enriched even after they have enough. So that implies further processing needed before a nuclear weapon could be made. This extends the timetable even further I would think. I don't understand why they keep trying to predict "when" Iran will be able to make a nuclear bomb when they don't have sufficient information to make that assumption.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

they will

Of course they will.

[almaty 19]

they will

i also, think you are right..usa will..

[Peikko 1,575]

Shouldn't that be 'would'?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Shouldn't that be 'would'?

Shouldn't that shouldn't be "sharn't"?

[spookyturtle 9,465]

As I say - full scale nuclear war is a ridiculous example to push non-interventionism on. There's no precedent for it - and the threat posed to international security is such that its simply insane to dismiss it as a local problem.

Absolutely insane and naive to dismiss it as a local problem. The whole world would become involved.

[mRx 16]

If Iran pursued a nuclear program with the intent of destroying, or "wiping out" Israel, then it would be the sole responsibility of Israel to defend themselves in any way they see fit.

This doesn't concern the US at all, and shouldn't. While we should definetely diplomatically discourage such action, protecting the sovereignty of other nations is nowhere allowed in the US Constitution, and therefore shouldn't be funded by the USA. Why meddle in international issues that don't concern us?

When it comes to a nuclear war in the MENA I think there is precedent for intervention, given that it would likely lead to world war. It doesn't mean of course that we should be gung ho for yet another protracted war with another country on someone else's behalf.

I think you got that backwards. World wars are due to entangling alliances and intervening with issues that don't concern us. Without those alliances, there would be no world war, only local conflicts.

And what do you think the effects of a local nuclear conflict would be?

I don't know, local fallout?

But, seriously, if there are countries locally that would be effected by a nuclear attack, then wouldn't you think that those countries would act for their own survival?

Still, doesn't involve us.

Matt if you're going to push this angle - it makes more sense to do so in relation to regional territorial conflicts, and not unprecedented wars using WMD which will have clear and obvious impacts far beyond the intial site of trouble.

However many countries the "impact" spreads are however many countries should be involved. The specifics, as I see them, are irrelevant. Land disputes, invasions, bombings, even nuclear attacks, are only problems of those countries that are involved.

Now obviously if Iran threatened Mexico with air-burst nuclear ordinance, then of course, this effects us, and however many countries surround us. A congressional declaration of war would be warranted.

I currently don't know of any ordinance, that if detonated in Israel, would reach US soil.

Presumably the rest of the world could reduce itself to radioactive slag, and the US would be entirely unaffected.

As I say - full scale nuclear war is a ridiculous example to push non-interventionism on. There's no precedent for it - and the threat posed to international security is such that its simply insane to dismiss it as a local problem.

But how did a conflict between Israel and Iran become a "full scale" nuclear war?

If our country is not in danger, and the people living in it are safe, then how would "intervening" in a hypothetical Iran/Israel war, preserve the safety and liberty of America and her people?

I just cannot see it.

But if our hypothetical "conflict" get's escalated to full scale nuclear war, then as I've said, our security may very well be compromised, warranting an action to defend America. But if there is no threat to American security, then there is absolutely nothing to gain from intervention, only needless loss of American lives, and increased compromise of American security.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If Iran pursued a nuclear program with the intent of destroying, or "wiping out" Israel, then it would be the sole responsibility of Israel to defend themselves in any way they see fit.

This doesn't concern the US at all, and shouldn't. While we should definetely diplomatically discourage such action, protecting the sovereignty of other nations is nowhere allowed in the US Constitution, and therefore shouldn't be funded by the USA. Why meddle in international issues that don't concern us?

When it comes to a nuclear war in the MENA I think there is precedent for intervention, given that it would likely lead to world war. It doesn't mean of course that we should be gung ho for yet another protracted war with another country on someone else's behalf.

I think you got that backwards. World wars are due to entangling alliances and intervening with issues that don't concern us. Without those alliances, there would be no world war, only local conflicts.

And what do you think the effects of a local nuclear conflict would be?

I don't know, local fallout?

But, seriously, if there are countries locally that would be effected by a nuclear attack, then wouldn't you think that those countries would act for their own survival?

Still, doesn't involve us.

Matt if you're going to push this angle - it makes more sense to do so in relation to regional territorial conflicts, and not unprecedented wars using WMD which will have clear and obvious impacts far beyond the intial site of trouble.

However many countries the "impact" spreads are however many countries should be involved. The specifics, as I see them, are irrelevant. Land disputes, invasions, bombings, even nuclear attacks, are only problems of those countries that are involved.

Now obviously if Iran threatened Mexico with air-burst nuclear ordinance, then of course, this effects us, and however many countries surround us. A congressional declaration of war would be warranted.

I currently don't know of any ordinance, that if detonated in Israel, would reach US soil.

Presumably the rest of the world could reduce itself to radioactive slag, and the US would be entirely unaffected.

As I say - full scale nuclear war is a ridiculous example to push non-interventionism on. There's no precedent for it - and the threat posed to international security is such that its simply insane to dismiss it as a local problem.

But how did a conflict between Israel and Iran become a "full scale" nuclear war?

If our country is not in danger, and the people living in it are safe, then how would "intervening" in a hypothetical Iran/Israel war, preserve the safety and liberty of America and her people?

I just cannot see it.

But if our hypothetical "conflict" get's escalated to full scale nuclear war, then as I've said, our security may very well be compromised, warranting an action to defend America. But if there is no threat to American security, then there is absolutely nothing to gain from intervention, only needless loss of American lives, and increased compromise of American security.

I responded to this post:

If Iran pursued a nuclear program with the intent of destroying, or "wiping out" Israel, then it would be the sole responsibility of Israel to defend themselves in any way they see fit.

I don't think I'm interpreting it incorrectly. You seem to be saying that the US should not intervene or respond militarily in the event of a first strike nuclear attack. As I say - there is no precedent for this, and the global security implications are such that it would likely be impossible to remain neutral - this being a volatile part of the world and all.

Again - I agree with the idea of non-intervention, but I think its a poor argument to apply in relation to nuclear based conflict.

Edited January 29, 2009 by Paul Daniels

[mRx 16]

My point was simple... that an Iranian nuclear attack on Israel will illicit a US military response to Iran. PERIOD... there is no arguement even from you Paul that this won't happen

I think an isolated incident would likely necessitate a military response from the UN. A full scale nuclear war is an entirely unknown quantity.

I would agree with that second sentence.

Grandoner, of course that would provoke a US response, and I've never disputed that it wouldn't. If Iran so much as flew a military trainer plane over the border into Israel, then we would be in there in a heartbeat.

My question and objection is, why?

Of course it's easy to see that we have and have had many Jewish, pro-Israel cabinet members in the United States defense department, so it's apparant that they're getting their goals and objectives met under the guise of "American security and interests". It's sickening that this country must put everything on the line so some powerful politicians and advisors can satisfy their individual interests in foreign countries.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

My point was simple... that an Iranian nuclear attack on Israel will illicit a US military response to Iran. PERIOD... there is no arguement even from you Paul that this won't happen

I think an isolated incident would likely necessitate a military response from the UN. A full scale nuclear war is an entirely unknown quantity.

I would agree with that second sentence.

Grandoner, of course that would provoke a US response, and I've never disputed that it wouldn't. If Iran so much as flew a military trainer plane over the border into Israel, then we would be in there in a heartbeat.

My question and objection is, why?

Of course it's easy to see that we have and have had many Jewish, pro-Israel cabinet members in the United States defense department, so it's apparant that they're getting their goals and objectives met under the guise of "American security and interests". It's sickening that this country must put everything on the line so some powerful politicians and advisors can satisfy their individual interests in foreign countries.

I don't agree with intervening in the case of the example you cited. I do think its warranted in relation to a nuclear attack.