|
|
Post by jerryfmcompushaft on Sept 4, 2012 11:53:35 GMT -5
Israel is not happy with the way the nuclear threat posed by Iran is being handled by the US and its allies. A firmer stance is called for, while the US wants more time for sanctions to work. The question I have is - How much more time?
JERUSALEM - Israel's prime minister on Sunday urged the international community to get tougher against Iran, saying that without a "clear red line," Tehran will not halt its nuclear program. The tough language from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reflected differences that have emerged between Israel and its allies, particularly the U.S., over how to deal with Iran. Israel has warned that the Iranians are quickly approaching weapons capability and that the threat of force must be seriously considered. The U.S. says sanctions and international diplomacy must be given more time to work. Netanyahu, speaking to his Cabinet, said that a new report issued by the U.N. nuclear agency showing progress in the Iranian nuclear program bolstered his claim that international pressure is not working. "I believe that the truth must be said, the international community is not drawing a clear red line for Iran, and Iran does not see international determination to stop its nuclear program," Netanyahu said. Link to full article
|
|
|
|
Post by mcnoch on Sept 7, 2012 12:14:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by jerryfmcompushaft on Sept 7, 2012 14:35:17 GMT -5
I don't worry so much about Iran mounting a nuclear attack on Israel as I do worry about nuclear weapons ending up in the hands of Hamas, al Qaida, Taliban, or some other terrorist group who can introduce it into some western capital and pull of another World Trade Center on steroids. Should that happen, who do we retalliate agains? If Iran bombs Isreal the response is without question. If a shadow terrorist group sets of a nuclear device in Berlin - what is the response? And against whom?
|
|
|
|
Post by mcnoch on Sept 8, 2012 1:26:04 GMT -5
Nuclear devices are too complicate to handle even for state supported terror-organizations; the needed logistics are overwhelming the capabilities of groups that have to operate hidden. And history has shown that no nuclear power has allowed significant nuclear material to fall into the hands of terrorists. Russia and Pakistan (both sponsors of state-terrorism) have cracked down massively onto groups involved in such activities.
All security agencies agree that the highest risk for placing even just a dirty bomb is coming from domestic terrorists, middle-class, well-educated and most likely white. Our own domestic terror-organizations have shown much more willingness for mass-casualties then the Islamistic terrorists.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sir John on Sept 8, 2012 3:52:29 GMT -5
Given what our peace loving Iranian brothers have been saying of recent years, I think it would be foolish to assume that they are not fanatical enough to try it.
ALL of islam hates the Jewish people for their occupation of Israel, and their koran tells them that conquered land remains muslim forever! Thus they still claim ownership of SPAIN!
Israel has been 'owned' by many people since the days of Moses for about 2000 years before mohammad was even born.
If I was Netanyahu, I would not bet my nation on the assumption that sanity will prevail in Iran.
SJ
|
|
|
|
Post by jerryfmcompushaft on Sept 8, 2012 8:39:51 GMT -5
Nuclear devices are too complicate to handle even for state supported terror-organizations;
And flying an airliner into a building is childs play? I'm not willing to bet on terrirists not being able to figure out how to set off a nuclear device....
(Wishful thinking is a poor defense)
|
|
|
|
Post by mcnoch on Sept 8, 2012 17:38:34 GMT -5
The most popular enemies are not necessarily the most dangerous. As I said, security agencies draw sometimes a quite different conclusion than fear- and terror-loving media channels.
|
|
|
|
Post by jerryfmcompushaft on Sept 9, 2012 8:43:40 GMT -5
The most popular enemies are not necessarily the most dangerous. As I said, security agencies draw sometimes a quite different conclusion than fear- and terror-loving media channels. Are you suggesting that Iran, when they successfully build a nuclear weapon, won't be inclined to give one to these domestic terrorists? Therefore we shouldn't worry about Iran becoming a nuclear power? |
|
|
|
Post by mcnoch on Sept 9, 2012 12:18:39 GMT -5
Yes, I don't believe that the Iran would give a nucelar device to one of the domestic terror-groups in the USA. They need the nuclear bomb to ensure their regional power position. It is not a weapon to be used against the USA. If you want to be worried about Iran becoming a nuclear power then due to what it means to the balance of power in the persian-arab-area. A strong Iran might have a power-projection well into CIS, Asia and up to Turkey.
|
|
|
|
Post by jerryfmcompushaft on Sept 9, 2012 13:14:04 GMT -5
You really don't believe that Iran could build two bombs, keep one and give the other (a smaller "suitcase bomb") to a terrorist group within the US to commit a mass casualty attack on a US target? Why wouldn't they?
|
|
|
|
Post by Sir John on Sept 9, 2012 13:59:34 GMT -5
I expect that if Iran has the actual capability of producing a nuke, they are capable of producing multiple nukes. Depending on the output of enriched uranium which they are working on as we speak, it could run into the dozens at a guess.
Plan A would be to match those nuke warheads to a medium range missile capable of hitting Israel, or any major city (or US Base) in the region.
I expect that 'miniaturization' down to a suitcase may be a stretch unless they have the Russian plans in their pocket, always possible of course. Something down to a shipping container or a truck would be easy.
Personally, I would put NOTHING past them when it comes to hating the infidel, or the Jew.
|
|
|
|
Post by mcnoch on Sept 10, 2012 9:54:52 GMT -5
You really don't believe that Iran could build two bombs, keep one and give the other (a smaller "suitcase bomb") to a terrorist group within the US to commit a mass casualty attack on a US target? Why wouldn't they? Because the Iran is not interested what happens in the USA. It is the USA that is interested what happens in Iran. The Iran is using the USA only because it is the cheapest way to get world-wide attention. Be against the USA and you immediately get the media attention of the western world. This effect works only with the USA. If you claim that you are an enemy to e.g. New Zealand, nobody would take notice (except some shocked gentlemen in the NZ foreign service), but you can be as obscure a country as we have many on the world, and you are live on CNN. The ego-boost system is always the same. To get that attention you need to fuel the American love of being hated and offer from time to time some thrilling terror-treats for their media channels. Always when Iran wants to bring up the issue that the Pan-Arab-Persian Empire would be better than those ideas of the long-dead Pan-Arabian movement, it is tweaking a bit Israel to show the Arab world that they are the real, the good one, fighting for the Palestinians while the Arab is ignoring this topic. ANd Israel learned that the Iran-topic might get them US and European weapon-systems for free, as none of those areas want to be involved in this game. "So, here, Israel, are some chips to play on our behalf. Iran is using the US attention to get more concessions from its Arab neighbors. This worked very well over the last decades, so it is a known game now. What happened when Pakistan went nuclear? – Nothing! What happened when NK went nuclear? – Nothing! What will happen when Iran goes nuclear? - Nothing! Sorry about sounding a bit cynical, but it is like this. |
|
|
|
Post by jerryfmcompushaft on Sept 10, 2012 10:02:32 GMT -5
I certainly hope you are right because it looks like Iran WILL go nuclear since very little is being done to stop them. If you are wrong I fear the consequences will be something neither of us will like.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sir John on Sept 10, 2012 15:30:53 GMT -5
Matthias,
Like Jerry, I sure hope you are right, and accept the result of "nothing" in the context of 'Mutually Assured Destruction' and 'Mutual Terror'. It has saved the world from WW3 since 1945.
But this time we are dealing with different people and different attitudes. This bunch truly believe they will go to a better place with lots of virgins to keep them company. The threats and posturing has been increasing as the Iranian nuke program progresses.
As I said, I would not gamble my nation on Iranian sanity or 'realpolitik'.
SJ
|
|
|
|
Post by jerryfmcompushaft on Sept 11, 2012 8:16:56 GMT -5
One thought, John. Would you consider selling some of you gold and silver and investing in Prayer Rugs?
|
|
