A sobering question regarding US bombing Iran nuke program

[Moonglow]

I think we just did

Indeed, which makes us a bully nation that you war pigs love.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

What happens if Iran retaliates against a U.S. base or ship?

Trump will order another bigger attack

What happens if Iran then kills more US servicemen?
Trump will demand an invasion

Where does it end?

Hopefully with Islam chased back into their caves.

 

[22lcidw]

And unfortunately, you flip-floppers are playing like Bush and his weapons of mass destruction in Iraq for the invasion....

We got the afternoon soap opera treatment with the Ukraine situation. You remember that don't you? The endless smearing of white boys you hate and need to be exterminated by genocide; you somehow have an affinity for the Ukrainians. All of those elites, politicians, entertainers that went there when the war started, does not add up.

 

[Mac-7]

Indeed, which makes us a bully nation that you war pigs love.

Ok, if you say so

 

[Moonglow]

Ok, if you say so

The war in Ukraine is still being supported by the US...I guess you peaceniks were shown how to feel by yer fearless leader.

 

[j-mac]

There was no threat, just an injured ego from forty-five years ago.

You're an idiot....Thank God people like you are no longer in power.

 

[Moonglow]

We got the afternoon soap opera treatment with the Ukraine situation. You remember that don't you? The endless smearing of white boys you hate and need to be exterminated by genocide; you somehow have an affinity for the Ukrainians. All of those elites, politicians, entertainers that went there when the war started, does not add up.

And Trump acting like he could end the war while supporting Ukraine, most insane. It looks like you boys are now going to have to cheer for Ukraine as well.

 

[Moonglow]

You're an idiot....Thank God people like you are no longer in power.

I have never been in power, you certainly are way off in yer evaluation.

 

[kyzr]

Not buying nukes will definitely put Iran in danger too.

Not true. Trump already said a peaceful Iran would prosper, an aggressive Iran will be punished.

Not selling them nukes will put us in danger too. The question what is the lesser evil. Russian decision-makers already gave the answer.

I've heard that Russian decision makers are not ready to pull that trigger.
I've also heard that Russia is considering selling enriched uranium not nuclear weapons.
Selling nuclear weapons would guarantee WW3.

You need more than 1 100 kt bomb to totally destroy such a city. And even if you have a building destroyed it not necessarily means that all its inhabitants are dead. Very roughly, total destruction of 12 largest Iranian cities will demand more than 120 100kt warheads and if Iran has tactical and strategic alert (and they are partly sheltered, partly evacuated) - it won't kill more than 5 mln Iranians (out of 92 mln of them). If they are backed by Russia and China (or at least have their neutrality) - they will continue to fight.

Stop grasping at straws. Iran does NOT want a nuclear war with the US.

Seriously? As the USA are responsible for the Ukrainian attacks by US missiles? And what will you do? Declare more sanctions? Start a nuclear war against Russia?

If a Russian nuke hit the US the US would hit Russia, simple fact.
The US giving Ukraine conventional weapons is nothing comparable to nuclear weapons.
A better comparison would be if Russia gives Iran nukes, the US could give Ukraine nukes.

Yep. And, may be, Pakistan would sell nukes to Iran.

No. Pakistan would not be that stupid.

Dollars are dust. My guess is that 20% of all Iranian oil and gas might be a fair price. But it's just a guess.

This situation has a lot of moving parts. Lets hope cooler heads prevail.

 

[kyzr]

Sounds like that came straight from the Ayatollah....

 

[Mac-7]

The war in Ukraine is still being supported by the US...I guess you peaceniks were shown how to feel by yer fearless leader.

I dont want to abandon Ukraine and cant imagine where you got that idea

 

[j-mac]

I have never been in power, you certainly are way off in yer evaluation.

Playing dumb comes natural to you.

 

[Ringo]

I was paying between 30 and 40 cents in '73 and maybe 90 cents to $1 in '79. LOL, good old days.

The price of 87 gasoline in Atlanta in 1996 was 85 cents a gallon and even lower. The lowest price I saw that year was 80 cents.

 

[Zavulon]

Not true. Trump already said a peaceful Iran would prosper, an aggressive Iran will be punished.

Trump (as well as any other US politician) is a liar, and should not be trusted. And the practical life show us, that those who've cancelled their nuclear programs (Libya, Syria, Iraq, South Africa) are suffering, and those who didn't and achieved "illegal" nuclear status - Israel, North Korea, India and Pakistan are rather safe and getting rich.

I've heard that Russian decision makers are not ready to pull that trigger.

You've heard wrong.

I've also heard that Russia is considering selling enriched uranium not nuclear weapons.

It all depends on price.

Selling nuclear weapons would guarantee WW3.

Of course no. The USA sell nuclear weapons to the UK, and WWIII didn't happend.

Stop grasping at straws. Iran does NOT want a nuclear war with the US.

And the USA doesn't want a nuclear war with Iran. It is all about the price you ready to pay for achieving your goals. For the Iranians "acceptable damage" is much higher, because they are fighting for their survival, and America is suppose to fight for their meal (not even meal, actually, just for show). For Iran independence and safety worth destruction of twelve main cities, and for America defeat of Iran doesn't worth even one destroyed city.

If a Russian nuke hit the US the US would hit Russia, simple fact.

And then Russian nukes hit most of American nukes and Russia win the war.

The US giving Ukraine conventional weapons is nothing comparable to nuclear weapons.

Weapon is weapon. If selling weapons means facilitation, not participation, it correct both for both nuclear and conventional weapons.

A better comparison would be if Russia gives Iran nukes, the US could give Ukraine nukes.

Yep. You would give them nukes, and this is exactly why Russia did start SMO. You gave nukes to Israel and Britain. China, likely, helped Pakistan and North Korea to make nukes.

No. Pakistan would not be that stupid.

Who told you this? If America is stupid enough to destroy NPT - why Pakistan should be "smarter"?

This situation has a lot of moving parts. Lets hope cooler heads prevail.

I see no reason to play wishful thinking. One can't neither argue, nor coexist with a mad dog.

 

[Concerned American]

I see no reason to play wishful thinking. One can't neither argue, nor coexist with a mad dog.

You've apparently never heard of Mutually Assured Destruction, saber rattler.

 

[kyzr]

Trump (as well as any other US politician) is a liar, and should not be trusted. And the practical life show us, that those who've cancelled their nuclear programs (Libya, Syria, Iraq, South Africa) are suffering, and those who didn't and achieved "illegal" nuclear status - Israel, North Korea, India and Pakistan are rather safe and getting rich.

Syria never had a weapons program, South Africa dismantled their 6 nuclear weapons, Iraq and Libya cancelled theirs as you say. None of those countries are "suffering" because they cancelled their nuclear weapons programs. Syria & Libya have political instability, Iraq & SA seem to be prospering. NK is a special puss case. India and Pakistan almost had a nuclear war. They are prospering because of cheap labor, in spite of maintaining their expensive nukes. Iran wasted $2-trillion on their nuclear program while their people suffer.

You've heard wrong.

We'll see. Selling bombs to Iran would be very dangerous.

Of course no. The USA sells nuclear weapons to the UK, and WW3 didn't happen.

The UK isn't a terrorist state, and Russia knows Iran is.

And the USA doesn't want a nuclear war with Iran. It is all about the price you ready to pay for achieving your goals. For the Iranians "acceptable damage" is much higher, because they are fighting for their survival, and America is suppose to fight for their meal (not even meal, actually, just for show). For Iran independence and safety worth destruction of twelve main cities, and for America defeat of Iran doesn't worth even one destroyed city.

War gaming nuclear war with Iran, they hate Israel and the US. Israel has a few hundred nukes, the US has 3,077. Iran has no ICBMs yet. Looks from here that Iran would love to nuke Israel. Otherwise they are wasting a lot of money. If Israel (or the US) detects a nuke anywhere in Iran would they launch? Seems stupid, some general needs to step up and change the regime.

And then Russian nukes hit most of American nukes and Russia win the war.

We'll see.

Weapon is weapon. If selling weapons means facilitation, not participation, it correct both for both nuclear and conventional weapons.

Selling a nuclear weapon is different than selling conventional weapons.

Yep. You would give them nukes, and this is exactly why Russia did start SMO. You gave nukes to Israel and Britain. China, likely, helped Pakistan and North Korea to make nukes.

Food for thought. WW3 is not worth the risk.

Who told you this? If America is stupid enough to destroy NPT - why Pakistan should be "smarter"?

Pakistan just nominated Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize. They understand how destabilizing nukes are in unstable regimes.

I see no reason to play wishful thinking. One can't neither argue, nor coexist with a mad dog.

So who is the "mad dog"?
The country yelling "Death to Israel", "Death to America"?
The country invading their neighbor?

 

[Zavulon]

You've apparently never heard of Mutually Assured Destruction, saber rattler.

I've heard. It's quite obsolete conception, after all.

 

[Concerned American]

I've heard. It's quite obsolete conception, after all.

Spoken like a true zealot who can't even silence the yapper next door.

 

[kyzr]

Spoken like a true zealot who can't even silence the yapper next door.

Wait until he tries his nuclear extortion ploy on youo.
Russia wants AK & CA or their fancy new Oreshnik hyper-sonic missile will destroy the US.

 

[Zavulon]

Syria never had a weapons program,

They started it, but Israel destroyed their reactor and they decided not to continue. Wrong decision.

South Africa dismantled their 6 nuclear weapons, Iraq and Libya cancelled theirs as you say. None of those countries are "suffering" because they cancelled their nuclear weapons programs.

They are suffering exactly because of it. If you don't have a big stick - your own people or foreign invaders will come and destroy your state.

Syria & Libya have political instability, Iraq & SA seem to be prospering.

Wow. What a nice choose of words...

NK is a special puss case. India and Pakistan almost had a nuclear war. They are prospering because of cheap labor, in spite of maintaining their expensive nukes.

No. Nukes are the cheapest way to protect the country. Thats why they can allow to have relatively small armies and cheap labour.

Iran wasted $2-trillion on their nuclear program while their people suffer.

Iraq cancelled its program and millions of Iraqis are dead because of it.

We'll see. Selling bombs to Iran would be very dangerous.

Not selling them bombs might be even more dangerous.

The UK isn't a terrorist state, and Russia knows Iran is.

The UK is a terrorist state, and Iran isn't. As far as I know, no one of Iran sponsored NGO's was recognised by Russia as a terroristic organisation.

War gaming nuclear war with Iran, they hate Israel and the US. Israel has a few hundred nukes, the US has 3,077. Iran has no ICBMs yet.

They'll have soon. Anyway, auxiliary cruisers (disguised as civilian ships) with medium range missiles might work as well.

Looks from here that Iran would love to nuke Israel. Otherwise they are wasting a lot of money. If Israel (or the US) detects a nuke anywhere in Iran would they launch?

It depends mostly on their certainty about their capabilities to eliminate all Iranian nukes with their first strike (or to degrade them to the level of "acceptable damage"). Deterrence type one: "If you attack our nukes - we'll attack your cities, and you'll suffer unacceptable damage".

Seems stupid, some general needs to step up and change the regime.

For what reason? It won't make any use.

We'll see.

A nuclear weapon is different than selling conventional weapons.

Not now. You guys, just cancelled NPT. So, in practical terms it is pretty the same.

Food for thought. WW3 is not worth the risk.

WW3 seems to be inevitable.

Pakistan just nominated Trump for the Peace Prize. They understand how destabilizing nukes are in unstable regimes.

And they know how stabilizing could be nukes in the prevention of the foreign aggression.

So who is the "mad dog"? The country yelling "Death to Israel", "Death to America"? The country invading their neighbor?

As if Americans don't yelling about establishing democracy worldwide or spreading environmentalism (and even making movies about it), or as if Europeans don't yelling about "decolonisation of Russia", or as if Russians don't sing songs about raping American girls in radioactive ruins of Chicago. It's all populism. People like to feel themselves safe, and the simplest way to make yourself safer is to kill your enemies. Therefore, the simplest way to achieve some popularity is to declare that you are going to kill the enemies. But the reasonable and responsible members of the international community don't attack other countries only because the voices in their heads told them to do so. There are certain rules. You violate rules - you antagonize other members.