Why is the thought of Iran with nukes so threatening

[deltex1]

While the reality of US nukes scares no one?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

While the reality of US nukes scares no one?

The US is not run by religious fanatics that believe that the end of the world is a good thing.

 

[martybegan]

While the reality of US nukes scares no one?

The US isn't the enemy of a small country with a highly centralized population that could be decimated by a well timed first strike.

 

[blackhawk]

We'll we have never vowed to wipe a country off the map for one.

 

[deltex1]

While the reality of US nukes scares no one?

The US is not run by religious fanatics that believe that the end of the world is a good thing.

Who is the US run by and how do they propose to prevent the end of the world by religious fanatics with nukes?

 

[deltex1]

While the reality of US nukes scares no one?

The US isn't the enemy of a small country with a highly centralized population that could be decimated by a well timed first strike.

We are the enemy of large countries with a like capability.

 

[deltex1]

We'll we have never vowed to wipe a country off the map for one.

Is that a good thing?

 

[martybegan]

While the reality of US nukes scares no one?

The US isn't the enemy of a small country with a highly centralized population that could be decimated by a well timed first strike.

We are the enemy of large countries with a like capability.

Large countries with sophisticated command and control systems, countries with a long track record of never using the weapons they have made. Countries with enough weapons to make sure MAD is a viable result of any nuclear exchange.

Nukes are weapons that are LESS likely to be used the more each side has of them. The problem with Iran getting nukes is the chance they think they can survive a first strike against Israel and withstand any retaliatory strike. They also have the hope that any first strike on thier part would be so overwhelming that the rest of the world would prevent any Israeli retaliation. A stupid hope surely, but governments make mistakes of logic just like people do.

 

[Sunni Man]

The paranoid zionist government of Israel has manufactured the Iranian nuclear threat for financial and political reasons.

And are miffed that the U.S. government won't buy into their delusion. ...

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

If Iran had nuclear weapons then regime change in that country, a dream for many U.S. politicians and defense contractors, would be next to impossible for the U.S. to facilitate.

 

[deltex1]

The US isn't the enemy of a small country with a highly centralized population that could be decimated by a well timed first strike.

We are the enemy of large countries with a like capability.

Large countries with sophisticated command and control systems, countries with a long track record of never using the weapons they have made. Countries with enough weapons to make sure MAD is a viable result of any nuclear exchange.

Nukes are weapons that are LESS likely to be used the more each side has of them. The problem with Iran getting nukes is the chance they think they can survive a first strike against Israel and withstand any retaliatory strike. They also have the hope that any first strike on thier part would be so overwhelming that the rest of the world would prevent any Israeli retaliation. A stupid hope surely, but governments make mistakes of logic just like people do.

So they are certain they only have Israel retaliation to be concerned with? What gives them that idea?

 

[martybegan]

We are the enemy of large countries with a like capability.

Large countries with sophisticated command and control systems, countries with a long track record of never using the weapons they have made. Countries with enough weapons to make sure MAD is a viable result of any nuclear exchange.

Nukes are weapons that are LESS likely to be used the more each side has of them. The problem with Iran getting nukes is the chance they think they can survive a first strike against Israel and withstand any retaliatory strike. They also have the hope that any first strike on thier part would be so overwhelming that the rest of the world would prevent any Israeli retaliation. A stupid hope surely, but governments make mistakes of logic just like people do.

So they are certain they only have Israel retaliation to be concerned with? What gives them that idea?

They could be assuming that IF they were able to completely reduce the Israeli population say by 80% that the rest of the world might accept a arab fait accompli with nothing more than dire protests.

Again, it wouldnt be correct, but it could be what they are thinking. The japanese thought the US would sue for peace after pearl harbor and one big naval battle, they were wrong. Bin Laden thought the US would leave Saudi Arabia with thier tail between thier legs after 9/11, they were wrong. The US govt thought Iraq would be stable after we got rid of Saddam, we were wrong.

 

[deltex1]

If Iran had nuclear weapons then regime change in that country, a dream for many U.S. politicians and defense contractors, would be next to impossible for the U.S. to facilitate.

I would think that Iran WITH nukes would be a windfall for defense contractors...think of all the alternative weapons systems we would need.

 

[deltex1]

Large countries with sophisticated command and control systems, countries with a long track record of never using the weapons they have made. Countries with enough weapons to make sure MAD is a viable result of any nuclear exchange.

Nukes are weapons that are LESS likely to be used the more each side has of them. The problem with Iran getting nukes is the chance they think they can survive a first strike against Israel and withstand any retaliatory strike. They also have the hope that any first strike on thier part would be so overwhelming that the rest of the world would prevent any Israeli retaliation. A stupid hope surely, but governments make mistakes of logic just like people do.

So they are certain they only have Israel retaliation to be concerned with? What gives them that idea?

They could be assuming that IF they were able to completely reduce the Israeli population say by 80% that the rest of the world might accept a arab fait accompli with nothing more than dire protests.

Again, it wouldnt be correct, but it could be what they are thinking. The japanese thought the US would sue for peace after pearl harbor and one big naval battle, they were wrong. Bin Laden thought the US would leave Saudi Arabia with thier tail between thier legs after 9/11, they were wrong. The US govt thought Iraq would be stable after we got rid of Saddam, we were wrong.

Would it not be better to make it crystal clear that attacking ANYONE would result in turning them to dust?

 

[martybegan]

So they are certain they only have Israel retaliation to be concerned with? What gives them that idea?

They could be assuming that IF they were able to completely reduce the Israeli population say by 80% that the rest of the world might accept a arab fait accompli with nothing more than dire protests.

Again, it wouldnt be correct, but it could be what they are thinking. The japanese thought the US would sue for peace after pearl harbor and one big naval battle, they were wrong. Bin Laden thought the US would leave Saudi Arabia with thier tail between thier legs after 9/11, they were wrong. The US govt thought Iraq would be stable after we got rid of Saddam, we were wrong.

Would it not be better to make it crystal clear that attacking ANYONE would result in turning them to dust?

The question is can they believe the rest of the world would back that up? Its similar to the worry the west has about Israel just lashing out after being nuked, and not just hitting Iran, but hitting Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and even Jordan, Saudi and Lebanon.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

If Iran had nuclear weapons then regime change in that country, a dream for many U.S. politicians and defense contractors, would be next to impossible for the U.S. to facilitate.

I would think that Iran WITH nukes would be a windfall for defense contractors...think of all the alternative weapons systems we would need.

How has that worked out with North Korea having nukes? No, there's much more profit in invading, overthrowing a government, and occupying the country for years.

 

[deltex1]

They could be assuming that IF they were able to completely reduce the Israeli population say by 80% that the rest of the world might accept a arab fait accompli with nothing more than dire protests.

Again, it wouldnt be correct, but it could be what they are thinking. The japanese thought the US would sue for peace after pearl harbor and one big naval battle, they were wrong. Bin Laden thought the US would leave Saudi Arabia with thier tail between thier legs after 9/11, they were wrong. The US govt thought Iraq would be stable after we got rid of Saddam, we were wrong.

Would it not be better to make it crystal clear that attacking ANYONE would result in turning them to dust?

The question is can they believe the rest of the world would back that up? Its similar to the worry the west has about Israel just lashing out after being nuked, and not just hitting Iran, but hitting Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and even Jordan, Saudi and Lebanon.

The "rest of the world" has no say when it comes to OUR vital interests and that of our allies...we hog tie ourselves enough without their equivocations. IMHO

 

[Katzndogz]

If Iran had nuclear weapons then regime change in that country, a dream for many U.S. politicians and defense contractors, would be next to impossible for the U.S. to facilitate.

I would think that Iran WITH nukes would be a windfall for defense contractors...think of all the alternative weapons systems we would need.

How has that worked out with North Korea having nukes? No, there's much more profit in invading, overthrowing a government, and occupying the country for years.

The difference is, North Korea does not have a religious extremist running the nuclear program who believes charged by Allah to destroy the world so that the 12th imam can restore order.

If Iran had nuclear power they would build sufficient bombs to create Dar al Islam. They would not threaten to use them like North Korea, they would actually use them, as soon as possible. There is no form of deterrent that can be used against fanatics like that. The American left likes to think that Iran would only bomb Israel so that's okay. Every country in the middle east knows that a nuclear Iran is a nuclear religious war, Sunni against Shia, as much as against Israel or the West.

 

[Meister]

Iran having nukes and backing terrorism at the same time? You don't see an issue with this scenario?

 

[deltex1]

If Iran had nuclear weapons then regime change in that country, a dream for many U.S. politicians and defense contractors, would be next to impossible for the U.S. to facilitate.

I would think that Iran WITH nukes would be a windfall for defense contractors...think of all the alternative weapons systems we would need.

How has that worked out with North Korea having nukes? No, there's much more profit in invading, overthrowing a government, and occupying the country for years.

North Korea is a joke.