A sobering question regarding US bombing Iran nuke program

[Moonglow]

Playing dumb comes natural to you.

Being full of shit comes naturally to yous.

 

[kyzr]

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

Wrong country. Try again:
Iran wasted $2-trillion on their nuclear program while their people suffer

Not selling them bombs to Iran might be even more dangerous.

That makes no sense. Not selling bombs doesn't put Russia on the hook for how Iran uses them.

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.

Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis are all terrorists, sponsored by Iran. No Brits are terrorists.

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

Same as hijacking a commercial plane, or a luxury yacht, or any ship, or Fedex, or UPS, or....

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".

How many nukes would Putin sell? Iran is low on cash. That would take a few million drones to trade up.
Iran better think hard, a nuclear escalation isn't worth the risk.

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

A new secular regime that ends the crazy terrorism and ushers in prosperity sounds like a good idea from here.

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

As I said, if Russia sells nuclear weapons, and Iran uses them against a NATO country, Russia risks a devastating attack. OR, under the terms of the Budapest Memorandum, that Russia signed when Ukraine gave up their nukes, NATO could give Ukraine their nukes back. You would not like that. Bad idea selling nukes to Iran.

WW3 seems to be inevitable.

Only because the aggressors, like Russia and Iran and China keep pushing for it.

Pakistan knows how stabilizing could be nukes in the prevention of the foreign aggression.

Pakistan knows how close they were to a devastating nuclear war with India.

As if Americans don't yell about establishing democracy worldwide or spreading environmentalism (and even making movies about it), or as if Europeans don't yell 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.

You have a very militaristic outlook or world view. Instead of "enemies" to be killed, think about "economic competitors" and mutual prosperity. Trump negotiating new trade deals is a lot harder than he thought. Everyone wants a good deal for their country. A post-WW3 world or a prosperous peaceful world. This is the time to choose.

 

[Concerned American]

As I said, if Russia sells nuclear weapons,

There's a reason why countries don't sell nukes. They might be used against the seller--that is especially true in the case of the Islamofascist Iranian regime.

 

[Zavulon]

Wrong country. Try again:
Iran wasted $2-trillion on their nuclear program while their people suffer

People always suffer. Thats our nature. Losses matter. And Iraq suffered more than 8 mln losses (with refugees) and Iran suffered lesser than one million losses (with more than twice larger population). Sanctions are much lesser deadly than direct military invasions and "democratisation" of the country.

That makes no sense. Not selling bombs doesn't put Russia on the hook for how Iran uses them.

Not selling bombs may cause regime changing in Iran, and it will demand at least limited military operations (which likely will escalate to a regional nuclear war) from Russia (liberation of Gulan and Southern Azerbaijan, support of Kurds, elimination of pro-American regime etc). If we can prevent it by selling bombs - it might be a lesser evil.

Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis are all terrorists, sponsored by Iran.

No. Russia don't recognise them as terrorists.

No Brits are terrorists.

Kievan regime is terroristic, and you sponsor them.

Same as hijacking a commercial plane, or a luxury yacht, or any ship, or Fedex, or UPS, or....

How many nukes would Putin sell?

As much as necessary to fight and win a Limited Nuclear War. Some 500 nukes.

Iran is low on cash. That would take a few million drones to trade up.

They have natural resources. Russia may take share of their resources.

Iran better think hard, a nuclear escalation isn't worth the risk.

They think hard. But the lack of a nuclear escalation and continue of playing "missile ping-pong" with Israel and the USA hardly will give them opportunity to win.

A new secular regime that ends the crazy terrorism and ushers in prosperity sounds like a good idea from here.

Terrorism is just a way to make the foreign policy. As for me, I agree, "nuclear blackmail" sounds much better that radical religious terrorism. Anyway, the new regime will need it's own leverage to make the foreign policy and deter Israel and the USA.

As I said, if Russia sells nuclear weapons, and Iran uses them against a NATO country, Russia risks a devastating attack.

No, we don't. You can't do it without suffering unacceptable damage.

OR, under the terms of the Budapest Memorandum, that Russia signed when Ukraine gave up their nukes, NATO could give Ukraine their nukes back.

It's not their nukes, and never were. The problem is, that Russia will eliminate those nukes before they delivered in Ukraine, say, in Poland, and, just in case, will eliminate British nuclear weapons.

You would not like that. Bad idea selling nukes to Iran.

It seems to me (and not only to me) as the lesser evil. But Iranian decision-makers might have another point of view.

You have a very militaristic outlook or world view. Instead of "enemies" to be killed, think about "economic competitors" and mutual prosperity. Trump negotiating new trade deals is a lot harder than he thought. Everyone wants a good deal for their country. A post-WW3 world or a prosperous peaceful world. This is the time to choose.

We are going to have both. Post-WW3 world will be prosperous and peaceful world without NATO and, likely, without the USA. You see, only elimination of NATO and the USA might make the world safer and richer.

 

[Concerned American]

Kievan regime is terroristic, and you sponsor them.

Fake news.

 

[Ringo]

The Iranian counterstrike was just theatrics, as were the strikes on Iran's nuclear sites.
Looks like someone at the top will make good money on the ups and downs of the market. For such things somebody should be executed, but when billions are stolen, no one will be punished. Capitalism.

 

[Ringo]

Now that Trump has defeated Iran in the express ticktock war, the whole world is hoping he will stop preventing Iran from dealing with Israel.

 

[Lisa558]

Now that Trump has defeated Iran in the express ticktock war, the whole world is hoping he will stop preventing Iran from dealing with Israel.

OMG. Another leftist ^^^ siding with Islamic terrorists who want to obliterate Israel and her 9 million Jews.

 

[HikerGuy83]

It's quite simple. Irainians are not a horde of zombies lead by a mighty necromancer.

The statement means nothing and has no application to my post.

They are human beings and, human beings can disagree with each other and actual policy of the state almost always is the fruit of compromise.

Doubtful the ruling class compromises, but I'll keep reading.

I'm not an expert in Irainian inner policy, but it seems that "We don't need the bomb" was prevailing. And the final vector of Iranian policy was rather
"We don't need the bomb, we develop our nuclear program for civilian purposes only (but the way that if it is necessary we could weaponise it).

All the while we chant "death to Isreal" and "death to America", and support terrorism....but we really don't mean it.

But we do mean it when we say it's not to make a bomb....even though we could make a bomb.

Got it.

Now, when the USA one more time demonstrated that there is no international law for them and Iranian "soft power" network practically failed, Iran (as far as I understand) faces the choice - repeat the fate of Iraq, Lybia and Syria or came in totally uncharted for them waters of the nuclear deterrence and, if necessary, of a limited nuclear war.

That would be suicide for them. We would only need a few nukes to seriously depopulate the country. And the conventional bombing that would follow would be even worse. And I seriously doubt that the surrounding countries are going to, in any way, come to their aid. If Iran will use a bomb on the U.S., we suspect they'll use one on us too.

Go Trump.

I don't know what decision they will make. From mine point of view, the getting nuclear weapons is the only way to earn the real independence and provide peace.

Because we would not destroy the weapon where it sits.

Not buying that.

 

[braalian]

What is right to prevent retaliation?

If they don’t have nuclear weapons, how much of a retaliation can they really mount?

 

[kyzr]

Not selling bombs may cause regime changing in Iran, and it will demand at least limited military operations (which likely will escalate to a regional nuclear war) from Russia (liberation of Gulan and Southern Azerbaijan, support of Kurds, elimination of pro-American regime etc). If we can prevent it by selling bombs - it might be a lesser evil.

If not selling bombs results in regime change in Iran, that the the best outcome. Not understanding how that triggers a Russian military operation? Russia is bogged down in Ukraine.

As much as necessary to fight and win a Limited Nuclear War. Some 500 nukes.
They have natural resources. Russia may take share of their resources.

I seriously doubt Russia would sell 500 nukes to Iran. That would be a very stupid deal for Iran.

Terrorism is just a way to make the foreign policy. As for me, I agree, "nuclear blackmail" sounds much better than radical religious terrorism. Anyway, the new regime will need it's own leverage to make the foreign policy and deter Israel and the USA.

Iran has oil revenue. They don't need 'leverage".

No, we don't. You can't do it without suffering unacceptable damage.

A Russian nuke hitting a NATO country starts a nuclear exchange.

It's not their nukes, and never were. The problem is, that Russia will eliminate those nukes before they delivered in Ukraine, say, in Poland, and, just in case, will eliminate British nuclear weapons.

Russia signed the Budapest Memorandum, then violated it by invading Ukraine. Ukraine gave up their nukes for security guarantees. Its still playing out.

We are going to have both. Post-WW3 world will be prosperous and peaceful world without NATO and, likely, without the USA. You see, only elimination of NATO and the USA might make the world safer and richer.

Possibly true, the world would be populated by AI and robots.

 

[gipper]

There's a reason why countries don't sell nukes. They might be used against the seller--that is especially true in the case of the Islamofascist Iranian regime.

You’d think by now those who believe state controlled media would catch on to the propaganda, but they never do.

 

[Concerned American]

I seriously doubt Russia would sell 500 nukes to Iran. That would be a very stupid deal for Iran.

I believe that Russia would be in violation of a number of international non-proliferation treaties if they were to sell nukes. IIRC, something like 165-170 of the world's 186 countries have signed on to it. It's only paper, but I don't think they would do that.

 

[gipper]

I believe that Russia would be in violation of a number of international non-proliferation treaties if they were to sell nukes. IIRC, something like 165-170 of the world's 186 countries have signed on to it. It's only paper, but I don't think they would do that.

So, NOW rules apply?

 

[Zavulon]

If not selling bombs results in regime change in Iran, that the the best outcome. Not understanding how that triggers a Russian military operation? Russia is bogged down in Ukraine.

Russia is not begged down in Ukraine at all. It is an important battlefield, but definitely not the only one (not even the most important). We have a lot of deals with Iran, and regime change definitely will destroy our mutually profitable businesses. Say nothing about NATO occupation of historically Russian lands of Gulan, and attacks against our Azeri brothers (you know - Northern Iran is, in fact, Southern Azerbaijan). Preventing regime changing, civil war and/or NATO presence on the Southern Coast of Caspian sea is very, very important. Much more important than saving what has left of NPT (actually, nothing has left).

I seriously doubt Russia would sell 500 nukes to Iran. That would be a very stupid deal for Iran.

Or it would be very stupid to refuse this deal.

Iran has oil revenue. They don't need 'leverage".

Of course they need. More treasures you have, better guns you need to protect it from robbers (like Americans and Europeans).

A Russian nuke hitting a NATO country starts a nuclear exchange.

May be. May be not. We can take the risk, for we can escalate.

Russia signed the Budapest Memorandum, then violated it by invading Ukraine.

Plain lie. First of all, Memorandum is not a treaty. Second - NATO started expansion eastward, and Ukraine started discrimination and genocide of the Russians.

Ukraine gave up their nukes for security guarantees. Its still playing out.

No. Ukraine never had "their" nukes. As well as Wyoming doesn't have "their nukes".

Possibly true, the world would be populated by AI and robots.

And Russians, of course.

 

[kyzr]

Russia is not begged down in Ukraine at all. It is an important battlefield, but definitely not the only one (not even the most important). We have a lot of deals with Iran, and regime change definitely will destroy our mutually profitable businesses. Say nothing about NATO occupation of historically Russian lands of Gulan, and attacks against our Azeri brothers (you know - Northern Iran is, in fact, Southern Azerbaijan). Preventing regime changing, civil war and/or NATO presence on the Southern Coast of Caspian sea is very, very important. Much more important than saving what has left of NPT (actually, nothing has left).

Putin called Trump and asked if he needed help with Iran. Trump said "no, but I do need help with Russia."
Trump said 7,000 died last week in Ukraine. It looks like Trump is lifting sanctions on Iran hoping they focus on rebuilding for prosperity and not on nuclear weapons. So it looks like regime change is not a priority.

Of course Iran needs leverage. More treasures you have, better guns you need to protect it from robbers (like Americans and Europeans).

We'll see how it plays out. Hopefully Iran is smarter than Russia. Why have wars when prosperity is better?

Plain lie. First of all, Budapest Memorandum is not a treaty. Second - NATO started expansion eastward, and Ukraine started discrimination and genocide of the Russians.

...and Russia wants to expand its "sphere of influence" by military force. The real reason for the war.

No. Ukraine never had "their" nukes. As well as Wyoming doesn't have "their nukes".

Ukraine is an independent country. Ukraine is a member of the United Nations, having joined on October 24, 1945, as the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic and later as an independent state after 1991.

And Russians, of course.

After WW3 no one knows what will survive. Robots and AI and bugs are a safe bet. Thats why Putin needs to take the win in Ukraine (DPR, LPR, and Crimea) and celebrate the win.

 

[Zavulon]

Putin called Trump and asked if he needed help with Iran. Trump said "no, but I do need help with Russia."
Trump said 7,000 died last week in Ukraine. It looks like Trump is lifting sanctions on Iran hoping they focus on rebuilding for prosperity and not on nuclear weapons. So it looks like regime change is not a priority.

I wouldn't take Trump's words seriously at all. Just another clown.

We'll see how it plays out. Hopefully Iran is smarter than Russia. Why have wars when prosperity is better?

Because if you have wealth but don't have weapons - armed foreigners will come, kill you and take your wealth.

...and Russia wants to expand its "sphere of influence" by military force. The real reason for the war.

No. It was the USA who've been expanding its sphere of influence by military force. Russians just defend themselves.

Ukraine is an independent country.

No. It is occupied by NATO.

Ukraine is a member of the United Nations, having joined on October 24, 1945, as the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic and later as an independent state after 1991.

So what? It doesn't mean that they had "their" nukes.

After WW3 no one knows what will survive. Robots and AI and bugs are a safe bet. Thats why Putin needs to take the win in Ukraine (DPR, LPR, and Crimea) and celebrate the win.

No. It is not about territory and never have been. We'll celebrate the victory after establishing the new system of the equal rights and equal safety.

 

[Zavulon]

I believe that Russia would be in violation of a number of international non-proliferation treaties if they were to sell nukes. IIRC, something like 165-170 of the world's 186 countries have signed on to it. It's only paper, but I don't think they would do that.

Forget NPT. America just effectively cancelled it, by military attack on civilian nuclear infrastructure. If Iran want nukes - Russia will sell.

 

[Zavulon]

I believe that Russia would be in violation of a number of international non-proliferation treaties if they were to sell nukes. IIRC, something like 165-170 of the world's 186 countries have signed on to it. It's only paper, but I don't think they woul

The statement means nothing and has no application to my post.

It just emphasize your racism. Iranians are human beings.

Doubtful the ruling class compromises, but I'll keep reading.

As if men of "ruling classes" doesn't have different points of view on the situation.

All the while we chant "death to Isreal" and "death to America", and support terrorism....but we really don't mean it.

Men, the Russians sing the songs about raping American girls in the ruins of Chicago, but it doesn't mean, that Russian government actually think about dropping some paratroopers on Chicago as the first step in the war. Many people cry "Death to America". It is quite normal, just emotions. Actual defence posture is a bit different thing.

As far as I understand there are two main groups: "no nukes" (pro-terrorist) - "we don't need nukes, having terrorists and other proxies is good enough" approach, and "pro nukes" (no terrorists) - "we do need bombs, because terrorists is not enough to protect us, and more getting us in trouble". And, until now, as far as I know, "no nukes" group was prevailing. We'll see if it is still prevailing.

Lo

That would be suicide for them. We would only need a few nukes to seriously depopulate the country.

Of course no. You'll need much more than few to actually depopulate Iran.

And the conventional bombing that would follow would be even worse. And I seriously doubt that the surrounding countries are going to, in any way, come to their aid

Russia will come.

If Iran will use a bomb on the U.S., we suspect they'll use one on us too.

He won't use the bomb on us, if we made it and still have some control of it.

 

[HikerGuy83]

It just emphasize your racism. Iranians are human beings.

No, it just means your post means nothing in terms of what you quoted.

Try again.

As if men of "ruling classes" doesn't have different points of view on the situation.

Did you miss what I was saying ?

Of course no. You'll need much more than few to actually depopulate Iran.

No, I won't. But, to be fair, when I say depopulate, I am not talking about 1/2 of the country. If I did want that, a conventional bombing campaign would do a great deal too.

Men, the Russians sing the songs about raping American girls in the ruins of Chicago, but it doesn't mean, that Russian government actually think about dropping some paratroopers on Chicago as the first step in the war. Many people cry "Death to America". It is quite normal, just emotions. Actual defence posture is a bit different thing.

As far as I understand there are two main groups: "no nukes" (pro-terrorist) - "we don't need nukes, having terrorists and other proxies is good enough" approach, and "pro nukes" (no terrorists) - "we do need bombs, because terrorists is not enough to protect us, and more getting us in trouble". And, until now, as far as I know, "no nukes" group was prevailing. We'll see if it is still prevailing.

And I care why ?

Because the pro-nukes are insane. And if they want a bomb, they'll do what they can to get one. If you are saying the don't need group will now help them......it makes no difference to us.

Russia will come.

Only in your dreams. They are depleting themselves over Ukraine. Even the EU is standing up to them.

He won't use the bomb on us,

Keep telling yourself that.