There will be a nuclear bomb attack somewhere in our lifetime

[Liberty]

whether is israel vs. iran
USA vs. iran.
anybody vs. iran.
anybody vs. israel.
etc.

you know why? Because MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) does not matter to religious fanatics because they work for the afterlife. Dying doesn't matter for them. Sam Jackson once said hold onto your butts, I am inclined to agree.

 

[waltky]

Israel `bout to smite Iran's nuclear bomb makin' facility...

Israel mulling Iran attack: official
Fri, Nov 04, 2011 - NUCLEAR THREAT: The official confirmed a report that the Israeli prime minster and defense minister both favor an attack, but that they do not yet have enough support

An official said that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is trying to persuade his Cabinet to authorize a military strike against Iran’s suspected nuclear weapons program — a discussion that comes as Israel successfully tests a missile believed capable of carrying a nuclear warhead to Iran. It remained unclear whether Israel was genuinely poised to strike or if it was saber-rattling to prod the international community into taking a tougher line on Iran. Israeli leaders have long hinted at a military option, but they always seemed mindful of the practical difficulties, the likelihood of a furious counterstrike and the risk of regional mayhem.

Wednesday’s developments unfolded as the International Atomic Energy Agency is scheduled to focus on the Iranian program at a meeting later this month. The West wants to set a deadline for Iran to start cooperating with an agency probe of suspicions that Tehran is secretly experimenting with components of a weapons program. Israeli leaders have said they favor a diplomatic solution, but recent days have seen a spate of Israeli media reports on a possible strike, accompanied by veiled threats from top politicians. In a speech to parliament this week, Netanyahu said a nuclear-armed Iran would pose a “dire threat” to the world and “a grave, direct threat on us, too.”

Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman was dismissive of the reports, but added: “We are keeping all options on the table.” The government official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was discussing sensitive internal deliberations, said the option is now being debated at the highest levels. The official confirmed a report on Wednesday in the Haaretz daily that Netanyahu and Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak both favor an attack, but do not yet have the support of a majority of the Cabinet. The official also said Israel’s top security chiefs, including the heads of the military and Mossad spy agency, oppose military action.

It is generally understood that such a momentous decision would require a Cabinet decision. Israel’s 1981 destruction of Iraq’s nuclear reactor was preceded by a Cabinet vote. Reflecting the mood in Israel, military expert Reuven Pedatzur wrote in Haaretz that “if anyone can save Israel from catastrophe, it is the Israeli air force commander,” who might simply tell Netanyahu that an attack on Iran “cannot achieve its goals.” Several months ago, the newly retired head of Mossad, Meir Dagan, caused a stir by warning publicly against attacking Iran, saying a strike would be “stupid” and would risk unleashing a region-wide war.

Israel mulling Iran attack: official - Taipei Times

 

[zzzz]

whether is israel vs. iran
USA vs. iran.
anybody vs. iran.
anybody vs. israel.
etc.

you know why? Because MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) does not matter to religious fanatics because they work for the afterlife. Dying doesn't matter for them. Sam Jackson once said hold onto your butts, I am inclined to agree.

And who's lifetime is that? For those alive in 1945 it already happened in their lifetimes.

I cannot say for certainty that a state would allow any terrorist access to nuclear weapons. "Today's patriot is tomorrow's terrorist" is the saying that comes to mind and most people in power recognizes the inherent problems with relinquishing control of these weapons to someone out of their control.

However, there is a real possibility of the use of tactical nuclear weapons by states in a surgical scenario like an Israeli strike against underground nuclear targets. But the only way someone will use a nuke is if the other guy does not have one.

 

[waltky]

zzzz wrote: But the only way someone will use a nuke is if the other guy does not have one.

... and...

...most people in power recognizes the inherent problems with relinquishing control of these weapons to someone out of their control.

Not necessarily so. What better way for a country such as Iran or No. Korea to attack the U.S. than through a third party such as a terrorist organization? The intermediary need not have the knowledge to assemble a bomb, but only the money to buy one. And control can be had by simply selling one at a time with no further sales until the first is used.

Of course subterfuge can be used to purchase the bomb only to turn around and use it on the seller. But most terrorists are single minded fanatics who can be relied upon to do what the sponsoring state wants.

 

[Douger]

I'll bring the marshmallows. You bring the hot dawgz.

 

[Divine Wind]

whether is israel vs. iran
USA vs. iran.
anybody vs. iran.
anybody vs. israel.
etc.

you know why? Because MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) does not matter to religious fanatics because they work for the afterlife. Dying doesn't matter for them. Sam Jackson once said hold onto your butts, I am inclined to agree.

I don't consider Christians to be "religious fanatics" even though we believe and "work for the afterlife". Mortal death doesn't matter to a true believer. Our immortal soul is all that matters.

That said, I agree that we'll probably see a nuke go off somewhere within the next 20 years or so. Probably somewhere in Israel or Europe. The West doesn't need to use nukes except for total war since modern HE weapons are powerful and accurate enough to take out anything deemed necessary without destroying everything around it.

 

[editec]

There will be a nuclear bomb attack somewhere in our lifetime

Could happen, I suppose.

 

[Sallow]

It will likely occur because some conservative fruitcake thinks that a nuclear war is "winnable". And be that as it may, the United States is the only country in history to use nuclear weapons against another country..and on a civilian target.

Lest anyone forget.

 

[Liberty]

It will likely occur because some conservative fruitcake thinks that a nuclear war is "winnable". And be that as it may, the United States is the only country in history to use nuclear weapons against another country..and on a civilian target.

Lest anyone forget.

man you are such a partisan hack haha. also, dropping those two bombs was a good idea. so many more civilians and americans would have died otherwise and you know it.

 

[zzzz]

zzzz wrote: But the only way someone will use a nuke is if the other guy does not have one.

... and...

...most people in power recognizes the inherent problems with relinquishing control of these weapons to someone out of their control.

Not necessarily so. What better way for a country such as Iran or No. Korea to attack the U.S. than through a third party such as a terrorist organization? The intermediary need not have the knowledge to assemble a bomb, but only the money to buy one. And control can be had by simply selling one at a time with no further sales until the first is used.

Of course subterfuge can be used to purchase the bomb only to turn around and use it on the seller. But most terrorists are single minded fanatics who can be relied upon to do what the sponsoring state wants.

The problem there is that nuclear material are like fingerprints. The nuclear material has identifiable characteristics dependent upon where the material was manufactured. This can also be identified after an nuclear event or an explosion. If a state let a terrorist get a weapon and that weapon was triggered then the injured party could infer that that state was complicit or actively involved in the attack and thereby invite a nuclear response.

 

[Sallow]

It will likely occur because some conservative fruitcake thinks that a nuclear war is "winnable". And be that as it may, the United States is the only country in history to use nuclear weapons against another country..and on a civilian target.

Lest anyone forget.

man you are such a partisan hack haha. also, dropping those two bombs was a good idea. so many more civilians and americans would have died otherwise and you know it.

Ah...so again you show that you are so woefully ignorant of both history and geopolitics that you come up with an insult and a very cursory rebuttal.

The fact remains that this is the only country that has used nuclear weapons. That's a fact. Got it?

And there is at least one very crazy islamist country that possesses nuclear weapons that has some very clear reasons for using them. But guess what? It hasn't. And that would be Pakistan. Add in..Iran hasn't initiated a conventional war against another country in over a century.

 

[Divine Wind]

It will likely occur because some conservative fruitcake thinks that a nuclear war is "winnable". And be that as it may, the United States is the only country in history to use nuclear weapons against another country..and on a civilian target.

Lest anyone forget.

Even if you were correct, although I do not believe you are, what does this have to do with terrorists or a rogue nation detonating a weapon in a city belonging to their enemies?

 

[techieny]

yep

 

[waltky]

Granny says, "Dat's right, dat Ammerjabberjaw is a sneaky lil' Shiite - he liable to park a submarine off our shore an' launch one o' dem EMP missiles when we least expect it an' den invade Israel (our 51st state) when our 'lectricical is knocked out...

'Iran, not al-Qaida, biggest Mideast threat to US'
11/04/2011 : US military official warns of Iranian threat "to our interests and to our friends," days before release of UN report on Tehran's nuclear program; Sarkozy: France won't stand by if Israel's existence is threatened.

Iran is the biggest threat to the United States in the Middle East, surpassing al-Qaida, which is down but not out, a senior US military official said on Friday. "The biggest threat to the United States and to our interests and to our friends, I might add, has come into focus and it's Iran," said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. Speaking at a forum in Washington, the official said he did not believe Iran wanted to provoke a conflict, however, and added he did not know if the Islamic state had decided to build a nuclear weapon.

Next week, the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations nuclear watchdog, is expected to release a report that includes evidence of Iranian nuclear research which makes little sense if not weapons related, Western diplomats said. The report, however, is expected to stop short of declaring outright that Iran is attempting to develop nuclear weapons. French President Nicolas Sarkozy condemned Iran's nuclear program on Friday and said France would not stand idly by "if Israel's existence were threatened." Sarkozy was speaking at a G20 summit of world leaders .

"Iran's behavior and this obssessional desire to acquire nuclear military (capability) is in violation of all international rules, and France condemns firmly the lack of respect for these rules," he said in the French Riviera resort of Cannes. Western powers, including Israel, suspect Tehran of developing nuclear weapons -- something Iran denies -- and have imposed sanctions in an attempt to curb its program. The United States and Israel have repeatedly hinted at possible use of force against Iranian nuclear sites, drawing threats of fierce retaliation from the Islamic Republic.

Defense Minister Ehud Barak said Friday that Israel's position on Iran has not changed, despite recent Israeli media reports of a possible strike on Iran. "I propose we wait and see the IAEA report," he said, adding that he believes that if the UN nuclear watchdog will be "daring enough to say bluntly what they know about [Iran's] nuclear program," the world will understand that the Iranian threat is international in scope. Speaking in an interview with Stephen Sakur on the BBC, the defense minister repeated Israel's position that Iran must be prevented from obtaining nuclear weapons and that no options should be taken off the table to that end.

'Iran, not al-Qaida, biggest Mid... JPost - Iranian Threat - News

See also:

Iran cautions ‘reckless’ US to avoid ‘collision course’
Sat, Nov 05, 2011 - Iran has warned the US not to set the two countries on a collision course over Tehran’s nuclear enrichment program, as heightened diplomatic tensions reflect growing concern that the Middle East might be on the verge of a new conflict.

Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi spoke amid reports that the Israeli Prime Minister -Benjamin Netanyahu has been trying to rally support within his country for an attack. The Guardian revealed that the UK was advancing contingency plans to join US forces in a possible air and sea campaign against military bases in Iran.

The revelations led to NATO insisting on Thursday that it would play no part in any military action and provoked the rebuke from Salehi, who insisted that any attack by either Israel or the US would provoke immediate retaliation. He also accused Washington of recklessness. “The US has unfortunately lost its wisdom and prudence in dealing with international issues,” he told reporters during a visit to Libya. “Of course we are prepared for the worst, but we hope that they think twice before they put themselves on a collision course with Iran.”

In a separate interview with a Turkish newspaper, Salehi claimed Tehran was ready for war with Israel. “We have been hearing threats from Israel for eight years. Our nation is a united nation ... such threats are not new to us,” he said. “We are very sure of ourselves. We can defend our country.”

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2011/11/05/2003517549

 

[R.C. Christian]

New q ler bombs are cool yo! Kill those Evul persions.

 

[Sallow]

It will likely occur because some conservative fruitcake thinks that a nuclear war is "winnable". And be that as it may, the United States is the only country in history to use nuclear weapons against another country..and on a civilian target.

Lest anyone forget.

Even if you were correct, although I do not believe you are, what does this have to do with terrorists or a rogue nation detonating a weapon in a city belonging to their enemies?

Because unless conservative idiots keep on defunding American Agencies charged with capturing that sort of material..it won't happen.

They, while working in unison with countries like Russia and newly minted Balkan states have stopped them.

Nuclear material is really hard to get..and if you get it..it's hard to transport.

 

[Sallow]

Granny says, "Dat's right, dat Ammerjabberjaw is a sneaky lil' Shiite - he liable to park a submarine off our shore an' launch one o' dem EMP missiles when we least expect it an' den invade Israel (our 51st state) when our 'lectricical is knocked out...

'Iran, not al-Qaida, biggest Mideast threat to US'
11/04/2011 : US military official warns of Iranian threat "to our interests and to our friends," days before release of UN report on Tehran's nuclear program; Sarkozy: France won't stand by if Israel's existence is threatened.

Iran is the biggest threat to the United States in the Middle East, surpassing al-Qaida, which is down but not out, a senior US military official said on Friday. "The biggest threat to the United States and to our interests and to our friends, I might add, has come into focus and it's Iran," said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. Speaking at a forum in Washington, the official said he did not believe Iran wanted to provoke a conflict, however, and added he did not know if the Islamic state had decided to build a nuclear weapon.

Next week, the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations nuclear watchdog, is expected to release a report that includes evidence of Iranian nuclear research which makes little sense if not weapons related, Western diplomats said. The report, however, is expected to stop short of declaring outright that Iran is attempting to develop nuclear weapons. French President Nicolas Sarkozy condemned Iran's nuclear program on Friday and said France would not stand idly by "if Israel's existence were threatened." Sarkozy was speaking at a G20 summit of world leaders .

"Iran's behavior and this obssessional desire to acquire nuclear military (capability) is in violation of all international rules, and France condemns firmly the lack of respect for these rules," he said in the French Riviera resort of Cannes. Western powers, including Israel, suspect Tehran of developing nuclear weapons -- something Iran denies -- and have imposed sanctions in an attempt to curb its program. The United States and Israel have repeatedly hinted at possible use of force against Iranian nuclear sites, drawing threats of fierce retaliation from the Islamic Republic.

Defense Minister Ehud Barak said Friday that Israel's position on Iran has not changed, despite recent Israeli media reports of a possible strike on Iran. "I propose we wait and see the IAEA report," he said, adding that he believes that if the UN nuclear watchdog will be "daring enough to say bluntly what they know about [Iran's] nuclear program," the world will understand that the Iranian threat is international in scope. Speaking in an interview with Stephen Sakur on the BBC, the defense minister repeated Israel's position that Iran must be prevented from obtaining nuclear weapons and that no options should be taken off the table to that end.

'Iran, not al-Qaida, biggest Mid... JPost - Iranian Threat - News

See also:

Iran cautions ‘reckless’ US to avoid ‘collision course’
Sat, Nov 05, 2011 - Iran has warned the US not to set the two countries on a collision course over Tehran’s nuclear enrichment program, as heightened diplomatic tensions reflect growing concern that the Middle East might be on the verge of a new conflict.

Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi spoke amid reports that the Israeli Prime Minister -Benjamin Netanyahu has been trying to rally support within his country for an attack. The Guardian revealed that the UK was advancing contingency plans to join US forces in a possible air and sea campaign against military bases in Iran.

The revelations led to NATO insisting on Thursday that it would play no part in any military action and provoked the rebuke from Salehi, who insisted that any attack by either Israel or the US would provoke immediate retaliation. He also accused Washington of recklessness. “The US has unfortunately lost its wisdom and prudence in dealing with international issues,” he told reporters during a visit to Libya. “Of course we are prepared for the worst, but we hope that they think twice before they put themselves on a collision course with Iran.”

In a separate interview with a Turkish newspaper, Salehi claimed Tehran was ready for war with Israel. “We have been hearing threats from Israel for eight years. Our nation is a united nation ... such threats are not new to us,” he said. “We are very sure of ourselves. We can defend our country.”

Iran cautions ?reckless? US to avoid ?collision course? - Taipei Times

Iran has no interest in attacking anyone. It does have an interest and good cause, to defend itself. It's had it's government subverted by American Spook ops many times before. Including a full on coup.

 

[Divine Wind]

It will likely occur because some conservative fruitcake thinks that a nuclear war is "winnable". And be that as it may, the United States is the only country in history to use nuclear weapons against another country..and on a civilian target.

Lest anyone forget.

Even if you were correct, although I do not believe you are, what does this have to do with terrorists or a rogue nation detonating a weapon in a city belonging to their enemies?

Because unless conservative idiots keep on defunding American Agencies charged with capturing that sort of material..it won't happen.

Any specific instances or examples in mind or is this just partisan bashing?

Iran has no interest in attacking anyone.

Not overtly, but covertly it's funding a lot of terrorism in the region.

 

[westwall]

It will likely occur because some conservative fruitcake thinks that a nuclear war is "winnable". And be that as it may, the United States is the only country in history to use nuclear weapons against another country..and on a civilian target.

Lest anyone forget.

If it happens (and i really hope it doesn't) it won't be for the reason you state. It will be a terrorist attack against some easy civilian target because that's what terrorists do. They attack easy targets. No matter how stupid conservatives get they realise that there as no such thing as a winnable nuclear war. Survivable maybe, but never winnable.

As far as our use against Japan, it was done for two reasons, the first was obviously to save American lives. The second reason was to keep Russia out of the region. There was an additional benefit in the saving of at least 800,000 Japanes civilians as well.

That is unarguable, though many will because they are so anti nuclear. But the records of the Japanese military exist and they say that they would have fought to the bitter end in a giant display of mass seppuku. The two bombs showed Hirohito the folly of that line of reasoning and so he ordered the surrender. Even with that, the Japanese hardliners attempted a coup to prevent the surrender, and several pitched battles were fought for control of the government.

This too is well known and documented. To argue against that is ignorant and a denial of fact.

 

[Divine Wind]

As far as our use against Japan, it was done for two reasons, the first was obviously to save American lives. The second reason was to keep Russia out of the region. There was an additional benefit in the saving of at least 800,000 Japanes civilians as well.

That is unarguable, though many will because they are so anti nuclear. But the records of the Japanese military exist and they say that they would have fought to the bitter end in a giant display of mass seppuku. The two bombs showed Hirohito the folly of that line of reasoning and so he ordered the surrender. Even with that, the Japanese hardliners attempted a coup to prevent the surrender, and several pitched battles were fought for control of the government.

This too is well known and documented. To argue against that is ignorant and a denial of fact.

While you are correct, I think the whole reason America's use of atomic weapons to stop a war we didn't start is a distraction from the OP to further a person's particular anti-US political agenda.