Why would Iran attack anybody - with a nuke or anything else?

They keep telling us what a threat is this horrible Iran. That if they got a nuke they might use it against Israel or somebody else that they don't like.

OK. Iran sends a missle with a nuke that lands somewhere in Israel, causes damage, kills people etc. Next day, Iran is blown off the map, ceases to exist. They of course know this will happen if they use their nuke, but they do it anyhow.

Please help me here. Why would they do that? Why would they do something to absolutely ensure their own destruction? Makes no sense and anybody who spits this line of bullshit does so for one reason, and one reason only, and that's because they want to attack Iran.

Same thing with Saddam. The neo-cons keep saying to this day that a fight with SH was inevtiable so the right thing to do was to attack them when we did. Why was a fight inevitable? What was SH going to fight us with? Why would he pick yet another fight with us and get his sorry ass kicked yet again?

Again, no sense here, only the mis-guided justifications of lunatics who revel in war. Period.

... because they don't have any nukes now and won't have any for the next 20-30 years, at least. The Bush administration's attempts to fabricate a WMD case vs. Iran are laughable because uranium enrichment technology for nuclear power production results in a product that is some orders of magnitude less enriched than uranium needed for a nuclear weapon. The equipment needed to produce highly enriched uranium suitable for nuclear power takes up the space of 2 football fields. If Iran ever attempts to acquire such technology, the plant will be readily observable by satellite so that it can be destroyed by Israeli or U.S. missiles.

:applause:

It is absurd after all evidence states(even from our own intelligence agencies who lied for them about Iraq) they are not a threat....they wait a few months and then start the lies again.

This is only possible with the complicity of the US Congress and the Corporate media.

The US Congress has been supporting attacking Iran with their "Iran Freedom Support Act" even people we trust like John Conyers.
Focusing on replacing the US Congress is the most important thing we can do right now.
www.peacecandidates.com

As for the Corporate media....where is V when you need him? We need to take back our public airwaves.

To produce DU weapons you only need a small amount of uranium. DU shells can pierce M1A1 abrahams tanks, and it would render the US conventional force in the ME obsolete. Thus the US warmongers are scared.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3313755&mesg_id=3313755

I also seriously doubt they said Israel should be wiped out.

There is a lot of misinformation out there.

I suggest getting Target Iran by Scott Ritter.

Iran has oil and to hell to those who live there, this is how this thuggish regime we have thinks.

Every generation needs some excuse to support massive defense budgets over social programs.

When the US stops making them an enemy.

:thumbsup:

on another nation was the US--against Japan in 1945.

the only country in the world to do so.

Including ours.

and you'll better understand. :rofl:

Rachel Maddow frequently points out the ill-conceived stereotype that Iran is a nation desiring to expand into other nations, even though they haven't shown that type of military aggression.

the IMC needs a new enemy so they can justify their rape of the American tax payer. Look at the way we are re-demonizing Russia. Is Russia realy going to nuke us? Hardly.

Even assuming Iran GETS a nuclear weapon, what kind of nut job would think they have any sort of hegemony in the issue or the region against a nation that has more than 200?

The day that Iran gets its first nuke (i.e. years and years and years from now) it will be faced with a country that has them targeted with dozens, if not hundreds.

What's to fear from Iran? Little or nothing.

Israel does, however, DEMAND complete nuclear hegemony in the region.

n/t

Proliferation Treaty, so again, we will keep on supporting Israel and damn those Middle Eastern countries. (double standard is being applied again).

A ground denoted nuke would still leave a radiological footprint of where the nuke was created.

Thus a counter-strike would still occur.


I think you will find ballistic missiles are a better form of deterrence than some guy in a truck.

Our first two atomic weapons weighed 8,800 and 10,000+ lbs respectively. Dispel the fantasy that some tourist will just backpack into a city somewhere.

:nuke:

that mutually assured destruction is not a deterrent for some, including some leaders of countries.

Therefore, just because their country may be bombed in retaliation, doesn't necessarily mean that it would deter them forever.

that exist for the same effect, than relying on a third party.


With a missile you can dictate where and when a strike will occur and abort if necessary. You get a lot more destructive effect when you air burst a nuclear weapon as well.


Can you cite a past historical precedent when a state actor (Including the U.S) has given chemical, biological or nuclear weapons to non-state actors? In addition to the loss of leverage over that third party the benefits of doing so are tenuous at best.

is on his way, may send nuclear missiles himself not caring what would happen in retaliation.

I think you will find if an alien culture visited Earth they would not note the differences in human culture but the similarities, including our propensity for making war.

You think that the Soviets were happy when the "crazy" Chicoms went nuclear in 1959? You think the level of distrust is markedly different depending on what side of the India-Pakistan border you are on?



The closest we came to nuclear annihilation was on Raygun's watch so I can't say we are superior to anyone else.



Nuclear programs can act in a similar manner to space races, inspiring national pride and sense of accomplishment independent of whatever political party is currently in power.



Bush caused the downfall of a relatively moderate Iranian government and if Mahmoud Ahmadinejad worries you so much take solace in his 2009 term expiration.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3313755

Or the NIE saying they stopped their weapons program in 2003.

http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/20071203_release.pdf

"Iran is a grave threat. It has an illicit nuclear program. It supports terrorism across the region and militias in Iraq. It threatens Israel's existence. It denies the Holocaust,"
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/05/obama_counters_mccain_on_appea.html

Your candidate seems to be advocating the unnecessary addition of nuclear fallout and poisoning of the Earth after hostilities began between Iran and Israel.

How would America's interests be served by dropping more nuke tonnage on Russia's back-door?





Would she really follow through or does she just need more AIPAC money?

policy for decades and Obama, if elected, will continue with that deterent plan.

If war breaks out, Isreal's 400+ thermonuclear warheads are more than sufficient at depopulating Iran's landmass.


Adding deterence to an after the fact event is materially wasteful, environmentally idiotic and against the security interests of this country.





CLINTON: Well, the question was, if Iran were to launch a nuclear attack on Israel, what would our response be? And I want the Iranians to know that if I am president, we will attack Iran. And I want them to understand that. Because it does mean that they have to look very carefully at their society. Because whatever stage of development they might be in their nuclear weapons program, in the next 10 years during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them. That's a terrible thing to say, but those people who run Iran need to understand that. Because that, perhaps, will deter them from doing something that would be reckless, foolish, and tragic.

it must be true?

Some of us put more stock in the truth than in love of a politician.

Also only DK and Gravel are right about Iran, most of the candidates were in the "Iran is the enemy" camp.

Instead of dragging primary bullshit into this, why don't you LEARN SOMETHING.

I can admit Obama is WRONG on this issue, can you admit Hillary is wrong? Can you?

we can hasten the end times and all be wafted up into heaven??? those crazies..as in BOOSH???

proof that an ENTIRE nation cares not a wit for the destruction of that nation if only they could wipe Israel off the map?? IGNORANCE is the only word that comes to mind, because any other word denotes evilness of purpose!

potential profit for Iran by attacking any other Nation.

The "Iran Threat" is a dead herring and it stinks like one.

is to depict Iran as a evil, irrational, implacable, foe. Otherwise people will ask perfectly sensible questions like this.

Of course, it's a caricature, if not downright cartoonish. But for people with cartoonish views of the world, it fits right in.

So some excuse has to be made to sucker the 29% into thinking we have to attack them. Besides, there is PROFIT to be made by cheney's puppet-masters .

1. You don't have to use a bomb to benefit from it.

If you can threaten nuclear war, you cow your enemies; you have something to use in order to prevent attacks. If they think you're sufficiently crazy, you can make threats and see people respond.

Imagine this: There's a war with Israel, and Iran theatens to use a nuclear bomb if Israel doesn't cave. If they say yes, then they lose. If Israel says no, and Iran's serious, what does it matter to Israel that the US might destroy Iran the next day--or that Israel itself might be able to get off a few missiles? If Israelis love life more than oppression, they might cave. But *only* if they think Iran's serious. (It's even a greater problem if you seriously doubt the US would respond at all. Some presidents might; I don't think most would.)

Hence the problem with taking nuclear strikes off the table. At that point they're not longer a deterrent, and are expensive and dangerous paper weights or monotonously boring scultures.

2. Having the technology allows you to share it. We saw that with Khan.

3. Having the technology makes rivals envious. We saw that in S. Asia, as well as with the US/USSR/China.

4. Having the technology ups the ante as far as stand-offs and mistakes go. Cf. US/USSR in the waters near Cuba; there have been a close call or two in addition to that. And let's just put the threat of missing nukes under the "mistake" category.

5. Having the technology makes the threat of locally grown crazies all that much worse. Consider the recent anxiety over Pakistan's nukes--were they in a safe place, if the militants take over would they fall into the wrong hands, etc., etc. (Ok, granted that that debate showed a lack of map-reading ability, still it's a serious issue when discussing hypotheticals.)


Which of these do you see as a plus, or at the least as neutral?

Requires that some have rights and others do not. Disarming Iran means disarming Israel too.

Please read about today's development here, you can also find more in my journal about U.S./Israeli preparations:

The Israeli government, in passing new legislation aimed directly at investigations surrounding PM Ehud Olmert, has all but confirmed that a hawkish Israeli-U.S. alliance has plans to strike Iranian infrastructure sometime before the end of the year and most likely when the U.S. Navy has had a chance to refuel, tune up, and redeploy it's carrier task forces to the region in the early fall.

The Knesset passed legislation today that would supercede previous legislation involving the indictment of a Prime Minister. Previously, if a Prime Minister were convicted of a felony during his term in office, they would have to resign their position after the conviction, but the new law, requires any acting Prime Minister to resign during an indictment, and thus, whether the charges are substantiated or not.

The term of Israel's PM is now extremely susceptible to mere political machinations and accusations, and, perhaps in response to the passage of the new law, PM Olmert announced today that diplomatic and economic sanctions had been "exhausted" with Iran and that joint U.S./Israeli Naval operations should be firmly considered.

All this in keeping with the plans of the Bush administration to provide for a "unique...scheduling" opportunity to occur in the fall, with the arrival of naval forces in the Gulf area.

Any U.S. imposed blockade on the shipment of oil through the Strait of Hormuz will be seen as a direct provocation of Iran's government and industry, and will further add to the already dire U.S. oil economy.

Any conflict arising out of such an action will also invoke the "continuity of government" plans which the administration set forth last year, plans which grant the administration the authority to usurp the powers of the Congress and Judiciary should any conflict arise, and postpone elections as long as they see fit.

While a permanent military dictatorship is obviously ridiculous, it is clear that the administration might use just such a conflict to further the political and economic goals of the corporate/U.S. military complex in the region, and handcuff the next president to a hornet's nest stretching from Afghanistan to Iraq, and including Iran.