How dangerous is Iran?

T

tj_mlnr

Inactive
Today, many people in the government seem to be convinced that Iran poses an imminent threat to the safety of the United States of America. If Iran were able to develop a nuclear device, they would almost certainly use this weapon against the US.

Or would they?

In today’s age of religious terrorism, were such terrorists able to get their hands on such a device, I would say that this fear is justified. People who are perfectly willing to blow themselves up for their beliefs would not think twice about using a nuclear device against their enemies. It is obvious that they do not care about the consequences to themselves, their family members and their country. To them, the end justifies the means.

But, is it not so that, unlike the above-mentioned terrorists, the leaders of countries such as Iran have little to gain and everything to lose by either using nuclear weapons, or supplying them to third party terrorists?

They would not use them for they know the response to such an attack. Right now, they have what basically every politician wants (i.e. power/control/money), and they’ll want to protect this. By using a nuclear device, they would lose everything. Their motivation is totally different from these religious terrorists, which are people who have nothing to lose, and everything to gain.

Also, they would not supply a nuclear device to third party terrorists. First of all, all nuclear material can be traced in one way or the other, and eventually the trace would lead back to Iran. Second, they would never relinquish such awesome power to a group outside of their immediate control. It is one thing to supply terrorist organizations on a smaller scale with money and conventional arms. But when you start talking about nukes, the scale dramatically changes.

To countries like Iran, the real power of a nuclear device lies in its threat. It knows that the US is far less likely to attack them were they in possession of a nuclear device. (Think of North Korea)

This is an issue that’s been on my mind for a while now. I am not worried about us taking action, but I AM worried about us taking the wrong kind of action against Iran, and that having disastrous consequences.

That being said, I am most certainly NOT advocating that it is OK for Iran to get their hands on a nuke. Far from it.

I’d appreciate your thoughts on this subject. Do you think Iran is a danger, and if yes, what would be the best way of dealing with them?
 
They could easily supply such a device to a third party non state actor, AKA terrorist group, and construct whatever plausible deniabilty they can when the device is detonated in San Francisco. Only if evidence is chained back to them would they be worried. Even then, Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton would rather negotiate us into slavery, whilst Algore would simply surrender.
 
Iran poses a significantly higher threat than Iraq did when they were thought / assumed to have WMD. That being said, the US is not in a very good position for military action against Iran with our troops spread very thin in Afgahnistan and Iraq.

The most likely scenario is to let the Israelis 'handle' the situation with an air attack on Iran's nuke facilities while we 'look the other way'. (It was just on the news that Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert made a surprise trip to Moscow on Thursday to discuss Iran's nuclear program with Russian President Vladimir Putin - to tell Russia that Israel will not allow Iran to develop nukes.
 
Also, they would not supply a nuclear device to third party terrorists. First of all, all nuclear material can be traced in one way or the other, and eventually the trace would lead back to Iran. Second, they would never relinquish such awesome power to a group outside of their immediate control. It is one thing to supply terrorist organizations on a smaller scale with money and conventional arms. But when you start talking about nukes, the scale dramatically changes.
Click to expand...

As you state, Iran already provides material support to terrorists. I don't know how we would trace the nuke back to Iran after it is used by terrorists; after all, the nuke has been blown up, so there's no evidence left to trace (but I'm no nuke expert). I'm not willing to trust Iran to 'do the right thing' by limiting its support of terrorists to only conventional weapons, training, and money.
 
when the device is detonated in San Francisco
Click to expand...

Wouldn't a terrorist group risk harming their own by attacking SF?:D

Seriously, I think JWT has it right. We'll let Israel do the dirt work here, then the libbs will bash them for being warmongers and call for the creation of a Palistinian state that just happens to to be located where Israel is today.
 
Thanks very much for your replies. If you’d allow me I would like to explore this topic some more.

Armored Man/Fremmer: Given the possible consequences, why do you think that they would supply a third party with nuclear weapons? They (Iran) know they will never be able to take out the entire US, and they know our response will be to basically incinerate Iran. Would the objective be worth the potential loss?

JWT/Grymster: What would be the consequence for Israel (and for the US) if they were to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities? And do you feel we are in a position to effectively back-up Israel if needed?

I am looking forward to your answers as I have been pondering over these very questions for quite a while.
 
As you state, Iran already provides material support to terrorists. I don't know how we would trace the nuke back to Iran after it is used by terrorists; after all, the nuke has been blown up, so there's no evidence left to trace (but I'm no nuke expert). I'm not willing to trust Iran to 'do the right thing' by limiting its support of terrorists to only conventional weapons, training, and money.
Click to expand...

Unless I'm mistaken it actually is possible to trace a detonated nuclear weapon back to its source. The difficulty varies, depending on whether the enrichment facility adds "markers" to the material, and whether or not we have access to that facility to record the characteristics of the material it produces.

In other words, if we required Iran to facilitate this tracking as a condition of our allowing their nuclear program to go forward unhindered, it's likely we'd be able to trace a device detonated by a third party back to them (assuming it came from them, of course).
 
Iran isn't the threat politicians make them out to be. I believe they won't be able to produce a Nuke on their own based on the fact that the Israeli's didn't do it on their own. They banded together with S.Africa to produce a nuke out of materials that they smuggled out of the US (whom I believe turned a blind eye). Besides- I don't see Israel as a threat to the US, and I don't see Iran as a threat to the US though they are a threat to Israel, Saudi, Iraq, Syria, UAE, Kuwait, India, Afghanistan etc...

The Iranians will be dealt with if they get too close. They are particularly vulnerable for all the sabre rattling they do. It is a country that would not be hard to hurt badly with a small investment of weaponry and with a blockade. I lose no sleep over Iran.

Syria who recently got their nuclear facility bombed by Israel can attest to the vigilance of the Israelis. A good book on the subject is "Giddeon's Spies".
 
Iran is a threat but not for the reasons being cited by our elected officials. Iran has delivery systems already available. Shorter range but in existence nonetheless. A nuke on a missile is a direct and immediate threat to Israel now and to Europe later. It is a threat to the US eventually.

What people are missing is that when Iran gets its nukes it has just erected an umbrella under which it can wage unrestricted 4th generation warfare. Iran's nukes will standoff serious retaliation for any atrocities committed by various client terror groups. A target state's ability to respond to an atrocity will be greatly hindered with Iran holding up a nuclear umbrella. This no different than the standoff reached between the US and the old soviet union. Rather than eliminate war as originally envisioned, the nuclear standoff merely guaranteed unending brushfire wars. Our war with islamofascist terrormongers is shaping up to be a replay of the cold war.
 
Unless I'm mistaken it actually is possible to trace a detonated nuclear weapon back to its source. The difficulty varies, depending on whether the enrichment facility adds "markers" to the material, and whether or not we have access to that facility to record the characteristics of the material it produces.
Click to expand...

Given the losses from various facilities during and after the Cold War, tracing the materials might easily lead one back to Hanford, Savannah River, or Oak Ridge in the US, or the Russian equivalent thereof. Who do we retaliate against when the material comes from within our borders or a defunct state?
 
Given the losses from various facilities during and after the Cold War, tracing the materials might easily lead one back to Hanford, Savannah River, or Oak Ridge in the US, or the Russian equivalent thereof. Who do we retaliate against when the material comes from within our borders or a defunct state?
Click to expand...

This is true. My point is that if Iran set up their own facility, and then if a weapon made from that material was used here, it's possible we might be able to trace it back to them. Which was the question asked. But yeah, obviously if it comes from one of our own plants then it hasn't exactly helped us.
 
It been stated time after time that the munitions are coming from them! At this time they are the FAT feeding the fire! With the North Koreans And the Chines, The Ex USSR, Who do you think? Someone is selling toys!

Who do you think is supplying the AK's and Rpgs????

The bad part is We shipped some massive number of Stingers, Where are they?

Last time I heard, we could account for 5,000 uses! We gave them the to the Taliban. The people we are fighting right now! This was don to move the USSR out of Pakistan! It worked but now they turned on us!

I bet there is some 10,000 out there stashed!

There was some 12 Nukes not accounted for after the fall of the USSR!

Where are those?
 
OK so I'm Iran. I cook up a nice little nuke and join Pakistan, India, Israel, Britan , Russia et al and make myself into a nuclear power. Am I just going to take it as read that my nuke is going to work? No, I'll test it first. Nobody in the world will be able to miss that. You'll get on the radar one way or another.

Until this happens, Im not a nuclear power. So why would anyone come and bomb me back into the stoneage? It'd have to be a pre-emptive strike. Guilty before proven innocent. I for one have NOT forgotten the following. No WMD in Iraq, S.Hussein had no involvement with AlQueda or the 9/11 attacks.

The current action by the US in Iraq has been given so many names it'd make a Washington Spin doctor puke. The US and Israel should leave Iran alone and engage her leaders in positive discussion. Diplomacy before all else, military action only when all else fails.
 
They are dangerous. However, we have our hands in too many confrontations already. If a strike is going to be done, let Isreal do it. Isreal won't get bogged down with all of the UN bullcrap and world opinion like the US does.

Hopefully it does not come to that point.
 
JWT/Grymster: What would be the consequence for Israel (and for the US) if they were to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities? And do you feel we are in a position to effectively back-up Israel if needed?
Click to expand...

Israel will be publicly vilified for their efforts, while privately many of the same people vilifying them will celebrate Iran's set-backs. As for the US being in a position to back the Israelis up, of course we're in excellent position militarily. Problem is we don't have the political wherewithal to even mount even the most feeble defense of our borders and therefore our own sovereignty, much less come to the aid of an ally. The terrorist governments of the middle east may once again attack Israel in a concerted fashion, but likely only to thier own embarassment.... as usual. Meanwhile, we'll stand by, shuffling our feet like the lumbering morons we are!

Just ask if you'd like to hear how I really feel.:D
 
In my opinion, Iran is a real threat. It is true that the regime is unpopular, but what is the captive population possible of achieving for regime change? Very little. The government of Iran has a firm monopoly on violence.

Regarding nukes: for the US, Israel, or NATO to retaliate is of negligible deterrence. Of added difficulty is the method perfected by Al Qaeda; strike the primary target and the potential retaliators. Therefore a strike on Israel would be done in concert with a strike on Wash. DC, London, Paris... and so on.

Would Iran really strike first? Yes. Consider the Islamo-supremacist literature that identifies the USA as the DAJJAL (false messiah) and Jews as the 'followers of the DAJJAL'. The review of the literature clearly designates the USA and Israel as equivilent targets. One succesful mega-terror attack would chop off the giant at the knees. The retaliation would eradicate a limited number of the extensive Ummah. Therefore the shift in relative power would favor the Hizbollah. There can be no deterrence, only prevention.

Consider the utopian fantasies of the Nazies, Japanese, and Communists. With conventional weapons the harm was cataclysmic. What is the effect if utopian killers get 'weapons of apocalyptic destruction'?


Check out www.mahdiwatch.org.
 
Given the possible consequences, why do you think that they would supply a third party with nuclear weapons? They (Iran) know they will never be able to take out the entire US, and they know our response will be to basically incinerate Iran. Would the objective be worth the potential loss?
Click to expand...

The possible consequences? I'm not willing to risk leaving to Iran the decision about supplying nukes to terrorists. The terrorist don't need to "take out the entire US"; a major city here or in Israel would have disasterous consequences. The "potential" loss to Iran is just that: potential. And Iran knows that. The terrorists who use the nukes certainly know that, and they won't care about a potential loss to anyone, anyway.

No WMD in Iraq, S.Hussein had no involvement with AlQueda or the 9/11 attacks.
Click to expand...

This is all irrelevant to the issue of whether Iran should be allowed to possess nuclear weapons. And it won't matter a bit if Manhattan is reduced to a smouldering pile of radioactive ash.

The US and Israel should leave Iran alone and engage her leaders in positive discussion.
Click to expand...

Positive discussion, indeed. :rolleyes: Iran wants to wipe Israel off of the face of the earth, and their definition of positive discussion toward the US consists of supplying terrorists with IEDs to blow up our troops in Iraq, and providing training, money, and arms to terrorists.
 
We Are Not Alone in Apposing Nuclear Weapons in Iran

We are not alone in apposing nuclear weapons in Iran. The vast majority of countries in the Middle East and around the world are apposed to Iran having nuclear weapons. They aren’t always vocal in their stance and get very little media coverage. Most Middle East countries are not only concerned about nuclear weapons. They are also very concerned about Iran exerting its influence as a conventional power.

Even without launching missiles or giving a nuclear devise to a terrorist group, Iran will be a serious threat to the region. The nuclear umbrella mentioned above would be as much of a problem as a direct attack.

I also don’t believe Iranian actions are driven by the “logical” though process we use in the West.

Of course, if I had an easy solution to all this I’d be making the big bucks.
 
Nukes, the last resort of the corrupt.

Can anyone imagine the world we will be bequeathing to our children will be like if even a 'limited' exchange of nuclear weapons takes place?? Think about it for a minute........ And while you're thinking about it, consider this. I recently had to do a job in Tasmania for my company. When I finished up, I booked a taxi from my hotel to the airport in Hobart. My driver for the 30 minute journey was a gentleman from Iran. He was a family man and had in his heart the desire for his children and relatives to prosper and have satisfying, happy lives. He was a Muslim and regularly worshiped his God. Sure, he had emigrated to Tasmania and so had a few of his extended family. But in his brief as a father and husband he was no different to me, a church of England, Anglo Saxon.

Was he a threat to me? most definitely not! Our governments will have us think that the Iranian people are swarming through the streets looking for throats to slit and babies to eat but its all total b*ll-s*it. As many WW1 and WW2 veterans will attest, the regular folk are regular throughout the world. We don't want to kill and maim each other, when we do kill and maim it's because we've been educated or brainwashed that "they're going to do it to you! Better do it to them first!" And in this fashion, the regular folks have fought the rich man's wars throughout history! Prove me wrong!

Why else would you want to kill someone who is no real, present threat to yourself. Why? Why go to another country, thousands of miles away and kill and maim people?????? If they're INVADING I'd be fighting alongside you but when you have to get in a plane and fly for hours, and the target people have no way of doing that themselves.... what sense does it make?

The furphy of "we have to fight them there so we don't have to fight them here" HUH? When did the Iraqi forces ever have the means to invade America? Also, where and how will Iran deliver a nuclear weapon to America and detonate it?? In a suitcase? It aint going to have the effect of the Nagasaki bomb or maybe it is a figment of the propagandists imagination.

My eldest Daughter (9) said to me the other day. "Daddy, I read that the sun was going to burn out and that all the people on earth would die!" and I said "well, the scientists have predicted that but it wont happen for millions of years" "But what about the people then" responded my daughter, and I said "Sweetheart, the way were going , there won't be anyone left to worry about".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top