| |
| ..
Posted: 6/12/2008 12:10:48 PM | How would you feel if you were an Iranian looking at Israel's 150+ nukes? & 150 is the LOW estimate, some put it at 400. Just why the **** does Israel need FOUR HUNDRED nukes?
& having been on a couple of Iranian warships, you couldn't meet a nicer bunch of sheep eaters :) | |
|
| Iran warning Israel of a very painful response if it launched a military strike
Posted: 6/12/2008 12:38:37 PM | | I'm pretty sure Israel has in flight re-fueling capabilities and has radar guidance and jamming systems far beyond any of their neighbors. Iran’s air defense system is Russian based and at least 2 generations behind militarily and would be brushed aside as was Iraq’s and Serbia’s. Israel could strike anywhere in Iran and come back the next day and do it again. The only thing Iran's military has of any note is a bunch of highly un -accurate Russian missiles from the 90's, a bunch of late generation fighters that are no match for the IAF and thousands of men willing to martyr themselves. In a high tech air was none of these would be of much consequence. And it is also doubtful any of Iran's neighbors are going to leap to their defense since they are viewed as the primary threat in their area and not Israel. At most they could use there Hezbollah friends in Lebanon to cause trouble on Israel borders but I would imagine the Israelis would be prepared for that. | |
|
| |
| Iran warning Israel of a very painful response if it launched a military strike
Posted: 6/12/2008 2:32:41 PM | ^You're right but then so is Sanderick. You just don't realize you're both talking about two different things.
Iran IS in a precarious position. As middle-eastern nations go, I'm not sure I think it's really all that dangerous to let them have any sort of nuclear arsenal. The real issue, as far as I'm concerned is with allowing the weapons to proliferate.
If I thought Iran would only use any nuclear weapons it might possess for self-defence then really, whatever. The problem is with where Iranian sympathies lie. There is a genuine threat to security if Iran becomes a nuclear power. I can't see them ever launching a first strike against any nation no matter how much they may be inclined to do so. However, there can be no doubt that many if not all of Iran's powerful and elite would gladly hand over a bomb to any terrorist organization so long as said organization were seeking to hit either Israel or (less likely but still plausible) America. It really depends on who's in power in Iran. Ahmedinejad is an astute politician and he chooses his words carefully. Frankly , I don't believe he'd ever be so myopic as to assist anybody by giving them access to nukes. Sooner or later the trail will lead back to Iran in that case and as smart as he is, he must know this. It's about who else is in any position of power in Iran and just how radical their ideology might be. That , unfortunately, is the real problem I figure.
I think there's always a certain amount of truth in what Ahmedinejad says where it concerns his nation's security. He is, after all, surrounded now by the US which also happens to be the world's greatest single military and economic power....ever. It's not easy to have an argument with a collosus like that without first making sure that if things get out of hand, his back is covered so to speak.
The other danger of course is the potential for the proliferation of nuclear arms among other nations. Iran after all, is a sovereign nation. With a nuclear arsenal there won't be any check on who Iran wants to "help". In a situation like that, war becomes almost inevitable. From a military stand-point, the smartest thing to do to safeguard Western interests is to simply put a stop to the problem before it actually becomes one. From a diplomatic stand-point, the US can't actively interfere in Iran itself. We already know that the UN won't do anything no matter what happens so somebody is going to have to bite the bullet and do the dirty work of a full scale ground invasion and occupation if Iran gets too close to acquiring nuclear weapons. While the country is stable (and as I said, I don't think that the state itself is a direct threat to anybody really) once it's done, there's no putting the genie back in the bottle. If there's enough of a threat, there can't be a "Oh...if only we'd done something when we had the chance" situation.
So it's tricky as we all know. Where Israel is concerned, well they've learned their lesson time and time again. They simply won't allow for the possibility that Iran is being in any way truthful. As well they shouldn't. That's what Sanderick was saying. Forget all other Israeli history except the fact that it was established by a people who were nearly exterminated in Europe while the world looked on and happily cheered half the time. Can anybody with any instinct for self-preservation really fail to understand why Israel would take such an extreme view to outside threats ?
And let's not forget by the way : Israel isn't Siberia. One bomb goes off anywhere in that country and it doesn't matter what side you take on the Israeli/Palestinian question , they're all screwed. It would like setting off a bomb in Manhattan but expecting it to have no effect on Harlem. The pro-Palestinian side might well be wise to remember this even if some among them secretly hope that Iran does get the bomb and give it to somebody on the terrorist watchlist. | |
|
| |
Home
login 
