Attack on Iran would backfire

gabosaurus

Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2007
Messages
95
Reaction score
5
Points
6
Location
San Francisco
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2026524,00.html

Any military action against Iran's atomic programme is likely to backfire and accelerate Tehran's development of a nuclear bomb, a report today by a British former nuclear weapons scientist warns.

In his report, Frank Barnaby argues that air strikes, reportedly being contemplated as an option by the White House, would strengthen the hand of Iranian hardliners, unite the Iranian population behind a bomb, and would almost certainly trigger an underground crash programme to build a small number of warheads as quickly as possible.

"As soon as you start bombing you unite the population behind the government," Dr Barnaby told The Guardian. "Right now in Iran, there are different opinions about all this, but after an attack you would have a united people and a united scientific community."

In a foreword Hans Blix, the chief UN weapons inspector at the time of the Iraq war, argues that an assault in Iran could turn out to be every bit as disastrous.

"In the case of Iraq, the armed action launched aimed to eliminate weapons of mass destruction - that did not exist. It led to tragedy and regional turmoil. In the case of Iran armed action would be aimed at intentions - that may or may not exist. However, the same result - tragedy and regional turmoil - would inevitably follow," Dr Blix wrote.
 

CSM

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2004
Messages
6,907
Reaction score
708
Points
48
Location
Northeast US
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2026524,00.html

Any military action against Iran's atomic programme is likely to backfire and accelerate Tehran's development of a nuclear bomb, a report today by a British former nuclear weapons scientist warns.

In his report, Frank Barnaby argues that air strikes, reportedly being contemplated as an option by the White House, would strengthen the hand of Iranian hardliners, unite the Iranian population behind a bomb, and would almost certainly trigger an underground crash programme to build a small number of warheads as quickly as possible.

"As soon as you start bombing you unite the population behind the government," Dr Barnaby told The Guardian. "Right now in Iran, there are different opinions about all this, but after an attack you would have a united people and a united scientific community."

In a foreword Hans Blix, the chief UN weapons inspector at the time of the Iraq war, argues that an assault in Iran could turn out to be every bit as disastrous.

"In the case of Iraq, the armed action launched aimed to eliminate weapons of mass destruction - that did not exist. It led to tragedy and regional turmoil. In the case of Iran armed action would be aimed at intentions - that may or may not exist. However, the same result - tragedy and regional turmoil - would inevitably follow," Dr Blix wrote.
I don't know. I think we've learned from Iraq. Instead of sending in a bunch of ground troops, we would probably just bomb the place back into the stone age. Pretty hard to develop nuclear weapons in a glass parking lot.

I'll save us both some time: no, I don't give a damn about collateral damage or the "poor Iranian people". I also don't give a flying poop about world opinion and international law. I don't even really care what YOU think!
 

90K

Rookie
Joined
Oct 23, 2006
Messages
1,204
Reaction score
65
Points
0
Location
in the back of GW in foggy bottom
General Patton would be proud!:lol:
This whole deal is bigger than any of us really know and it doesn't matter what we think someone will make the determination on the outcome and if bombing them into the stone age is the answer stand by to stand by.
 

Gurdari

Egaliterra
Joined
Feb 2, 2007
Messages
1,019
Reaction score
40
Points
36
Location
the West
I don't know. I think we've learned from Iraq. Instead of sending in a bunch of ground troops, we would probably just bomb the place back into the stone age. Pretty hard to develop nuclear weapons in a glass parking lot.

I'll save us both some time: no, I don't give a damn about collateral damage or the "poor Iranian people". I also don't give a flying poop about world opinion and international law. I don't even really care what YOU think!
Don't you want LESS terrorism in the world? Or at least less terrorism against YOUR people? I understand hitting is easier than thinking and talking (look at a two year old) but you're an adult, aren't you? Don't you have to use 'your words' on a daily basis to interact with others? Or do you just start swinging when you don't get your way?
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: 90K

90K

Rookie
Joined
Oct 23, 2006
Messages
1,204
Reaction score
65
Points
0
Location
in the back of GW in foggy bottom
Well I'd be troubled by the fact that a country the size of Iran just got nuked into a glowing glass sheet. But really the Iranians should consider the facts of having nuke weapons. To have those you have to act with responsibility of the outcome of a disaster if a weapon was used against another nation. Looking back to Japan I believe we had no other options and it was the only way they would stop fighting, and they the Japanese had invaded China, Korea, Philippines and other Asian nations so it was like they weren't completely innocent with regards to the world at war.
I personally don’t think the Iranians could or would hold much regard to human life and I feel almost certain they would use such technology as pay back to other nations and us the fear to control regional areas.
I haven’t heard my country threaten to nuke any nation and I’m the only one that will out right say make’em glow.
 

glockmail

VIP Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Messages
7,700
Reaction score
436
Points
83
Location
The beautiful Yadkin Valley
Don't you want LESS terrorism in the world? Or at least less terrorism against YOUR people? I understand hitting is easier than thinking and talking (look at a two year old) but you're an adult, aren't you? Don't you have to use 'your words' on a daily basis to interact with others? Or do you just start swinging when you don't get your way?
So what's your plan? Wait until they nuke Israel?
 
OP
gabosaurus

gabosaurus

Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2007
Messages
95
Reaction score
5
Points
6
Location
San Francisco
Whether or not Iran attacks Israel should be none of our concern. The United States should not interfere in a fued between two terrorist nations.
 

Gurdari

Egaliterra
Joined
Feb 2, 2007
Messages
1,019
Reaction score
40
Points
36
Location
the West
But really the Iranians should consider the facts of having nuke weapons. To have those you have to act with responsibility of the outcome of a disaster if a weapon was used against another nation.
The facts? The fact is they have a right to nuclear power. The fact is there is no evidence they have nuke weapons, or are going to attack anyone.
And exactly whom is supposed to act responsibly? Should Iran act like Israel and just keep everything totally secret? SHould they act like Pakistan and India and ignore the NPT? Should they act like the US and completely disregard the NPT, and threaten the possibility of NUCLEAR STRIKES against another nation (illegal)?

I personally don’t think the Iranians could or would hold much regard to human life and I feel almost certain they would use such technology as pay back to other nations and us the fear to control regional areas.
I haven’t heard my country threaten to nuke any nation and I’m the only one that will out right say make’em glow.
Why do you feel Iranians (all of them I guess) have little regard for human life? They care about their own lives enough to overthrow a corrupt government (imposed by Britain and US) and they care enough that there are many human rights activists, protestors, etc in that nation (in danger of being assaulted by the gov for sure). So like most nations, you have people with totally differing views in one bordered region. Some of whom have way too much power, and many - most - who have very little. Hopefully, they can institute the change they want without any outside 'help'.
 

Gurdari

Egaliterra
Joined
Feb 2, 2007
Messages
1,019
Reaction score
40
Points
36
Location
the West
So what's your plan? Wait until they nuke Israel?
My plan is not to attack another nation. No first strike, no pre-emptive assault. That way, Iran won't have to 'wait until we nuke Iran'. Iran won't feel they have to pre-emptively destroy anyone, or use what weapons they DO have before destruction reigns down... really, why back someone against a wall - there can be only one response...
that was my rant.

My REAL plan, once the 'decider' nations who own the UN obey the NPT, and their friends obey the NPT. THEN, and only then will it be time to enforce the NPT.
 

CSM

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2004
Messages
6,907
Reaction score
708
Points
48
Location
Northeast US
Whether or not Iran attacks Israel should be none of our concern. The United States should not interfere in a fued between two terrorist nations.
Ah...so you advocate that no two nations should sign treaties...I like that! While we are at it we should disband NATO and the UN...after all why should they interfere in a feud between two nations either!

I am beginning to really like the way Gabosaurus thinks!
 

nukeman

Active Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2005
Messages
313
Reaction score
56
Points
28
Whether or not Iran attacks Israel should be none of our concern. The United States should not interfere in a fued between two terrorist nations.
You consider Isreal a terrorist nation???

That my friend is extremly telling on your part.

Isreal is the only thing keeping these lunatics in check right now. Their combined fear of little country is the only thing keeping the arab world from tearing each other apart.

Isreal also happens to be the only stable democratic government in the area.

I am not saying I agree with everything Isreal does but than again I dont live every day with the fear of someone blowing up the bus i happen to be on...
 

nukeman

Active Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2005
Messages
313
Reaction score
56
Points
28
Ah...so you advocate that no two nations should sign treaties...I like that! While we are at it we should disband NATO and the UN...after all why should they interfere in a feud between two nations either!

I am beginning to really like the way Gabosaurus thinks!
Exactly! Arn't we haveing a feud between the US and Iran? By his thinking he has no right to even post anything on this board. because by his own admission being from Canada

ITS NONE OF HIS BUSINESS
 

CSM

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2004
Messages
6,907
Reaction score
708
Points
48
Location
Northeast US
Exactly! Arn't we haveing a feud between the US and Iran? By his thinking he has no right to even post anything on this board. because by his own admission being from Canada

ITS NONE OF HIS BUSINESS
Actually I think Gabosaurus is from California...which might as well be another country....
 

glockmail

VIP Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Messages
7,700
Reaction score
436
Points
83
Location
The beautiful Yadkin Valley
My plan is not to attack another nation. No first strike, no pre-emptive assault. That way, Iran won't have to 'wait until we nuke Iran'. Iran won't feel they have to pre-emptively destroy anyone, or use what weapons they DO have before destruction reigns down... really, why back someone against a wall - there can be only one response...
that was my rant.

My REAL plan, once the 'decider' nations who own the UN obey the NPT, and their friends obey the NPT. THEN, and only then will it be time to enforce the NPT.
So your response is to wait until they attack our allies, is it not?
 

Bullypulpit

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2004
Messages
5,849
Reaction score
382
Points
48
Location
Columbus, OH
Given the current state of readiness of the US military, attested to by the Pentagon, no long term effort in that direction is likely to do anything but get more of our troops killed in another misguided episode of foreign adventurism by the Bush administration.

Unlike Iraq, Iran has a highly motivated military which must be taken seriously where the defense of Iran is concerned. According to a recent article in the <a href=http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/03/05/africa/ME-GEN-Iran-Obsolete-Military.php><i>International Herald-Tribune</i></a>, however, that military poses little military threat to its neighbors in the region due to its largely obsolete equipment. So any talk of Iran nuking Israel is little more than empty, jingoistic rhetoric. And while there is a chance that the US military could take down Iran's military and force a regime change, as in Iraq, the aftermath would make the current occupation of Iraq look like a walk in the park.

There is another route, it's called <b><i>DIPLOMACY</i></b>. You know, where two aggrieved parties sit down and discuss their differences, thus avoiding the senseless slaughter that always accompanies warfare. It worked with the former Soviet Union, and they posed a far greater threat to America and the world than Iran. A diplomatic option was brought up by Iran on one well documented occasion in 2003 and spurned by the Bush administration.

As for the current Bush administration claims that Iran is on the verge of building and lobbing nukes at our allies in the region, one key thing is lacking...Proof. The IAEA inspected Iranian nuclear sites from 2003 until February of 2006, and found no evidence of the enrichment of weapons grade uranium. Iranian intentions with regards to that issue are still being assessed.

But this Administration has never let things like facts or lack of evidence stand in its way, and that is the greatest threat in its saber-rattling with Iran. With the Chimpy and Co ratcheting up the military presence in the region, ginning up a regional conflict between Sunnis and Shi'ites, and generally ignoring ANYTHING that ANYONE has to say that might contradict the policies of his administration, Chimpy and Co could simply stumble, unintentionally, into a war with Iran. This would prove, yet again, that fools rush in where angels fear to tread.
 

glockmail

VIP Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Messages
7,700
Reaction score
436
Points
83
Location
The beautiful Yadkin Valley
....
There is another route, it's called <b><i>DIPLOMACY</i></b>. You know, where two aggrieved parties sit down and discuss their differences, thus avoiding the senseless slaughter that always accompanies warfare. It worked with the former Soviet Union, and they posed a far greater threat to America and the world than Iran. .....
Nice to see that you finally admit that REAGAN won the cold war against the commies.

What you neglect in your pitiful analogy, however, is that the commies DIDN'T HAVE AN INCENTIVE TO DIE LIKE THESE ISLAMIC SHIT-FER-BRAINS.

Reagan beat up on the commies by accelerating the arms race and bankrupting them. We are already ten thousand times stronger than Iran and they DON'T FUCKING CARE.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: 90K

sitarro

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2003
Messages
5,186
Reaction score
1,028
Points
153
Location
USA
Given the current state of readiness of the US military, attested to by the Pentagon, no long term effort in that direction is likely to do anything but get more of our troops killed in another misguided episode of foreign adventurism by the Bush administration.

Unlike Iraq, Iran has a highly motivated military which must be taken seriously where the defense of Iran is concerned. According to a recent article in the <a href=http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/03/05/africa/ME-GEN-Iran-Obsolete-Military.php><i>International Herald-Tribune</i></a>, however, that military poses little military threat to its neighbors in the region due to its largely obsolete equipment. So any talk of Iran nuking Israel is little more than empty, jingoistic rhetoric. And while there is a chance that the US military could take down Iran's military and force a regime change, as in Iraq, the aftermath would make the current occupation of Iraq look like a walk in the park.

There is another route, it's called <b><i>DIPLOMACY</i></b>. You know, where two aggrieved parties sit down and discuss their differences, thus avoiding the senseless slaughter that always accompanies warfare. It worked with the former Soviet Union, and they posed a far greater threat to America and the world than Iran. A diplomatic option was brought up by Iran on one well documented occasion in 2003 and spurned by the Bush administration.

As for the current Bush administration claims that Iran is on the verge of building and lobbing nukes at our allies in the region, one key thing is lacking...Proof. The IAEA inspected Iranian nuclear sites from 2003 until February of 2006, and found no evidence of the enrichment of weapons grade uranium. Iranian intentions with regards to that issue are still being assessed.

But this Administration has never let things like facts or lack of evidence stand in its way, and that is the greatest threat in its saber-rattling with Iran. With the Chimpy and Co ratcheting up the military presence in the region, ginning up a regional conflict between Sunnis and Shi'ites, and generally ignoring ANYTHING that ANYONE has to say that might contradict the policies of his administration, Chimpy and Co could simply stumble, unintentionally, into a war with Iran. This would prove, yet again, that fools rush in where angels fear to tread.
So you believe a bunch of uncivilized idiots with dirty dish rags wrapped around their heads aren't lying but the government of your country is, you are such a dumbass.
 

CSM

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2004
Messages
6,907
Reaction score
708
Points
48
Location
Northeast US
Given the current state of readiness of the US military, attested to by the Pentagon, no long term effort in that direction is likely to do anything but get more of our troops killed in another misguided episode of foreign adventurism by the Bush administration.

Actually, the Navy and Air Force are available and in great shape.

Unlike Iraq, Iran has a highly motivated military which must be taken seriously where the defense of Iran is concerned. According to a recent article in the <a href=http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/03/05/africa/ME-GEN-Iran-Obsolete-Military.php><i>International Herald-Tribune</i></a>, however, that military poses little military threat to its neighbors in the region due to its largely obsolete equipment. Good, they'll be easy to take out but I have to ask: How can they be taken seriously if they are no threat? So any talk of Iran nuking Israel is little more than empty, jingoistic rhetoric. Except that nukes and troops are two different things. If they have nukes it doesn't matter what shape their conventional forces are in... And while there is a chance that the US military could take down Iran's military and force a regime change, as in Iraq, the aftermath would make the current occupation of Iraq look like a walk in the park. Only if we left ground troops there. As I said, we've learned from Iraq. Go in, take out the nasty regime...leave. If a new nasty regime takes over, do it again.


There is another route, it's called <b><i>DIPLOMACY</i></b>. You know, where two aggrieved parties sit down and discuss their differences, thus avoiding the senseless slaughter that always accompanies warfare. It worked with the former Soviet Union, and they posed a far greater threat to America and the world than Iran. Yeah that Reagan was a hell of a diplomat! A diplomatic option was brought up by Iran on one well documented occasion in 2003 and spurned by the Bush administration.

I remember Iran's form of diplomacy...."take hostages, then blackmail"

As for the current Bush administration claims that Iran is on the verge of building and lobbing nukes at our allies in the region, one key thing is lacking...Proof. The IAEA inspected Iranian nuclear sites from 2003 until February of 2006, and found no evidence of the enrichment of weapons grade uranium. Iranian intentions with regards to that issue are still being assessed. We'll know just as soon as the mushroom cloud pops up....just like North Korea!
But this Administration has never let things like facts or lack of evidence stand in its way, and that is the greatest threat in its saber-rattling with Iran. Of course, Iran hasn't been rattling anything. I suppose too you agree that Israel and its people should be made to disappear. With the Chimpy and Co ratcheting up the military presence in the region, ginning up a regional conflict between Sunnis and Shi'ites, Nothing to gin up, they just go at each other naturally or are you blaming Bush for a centuries old conflict? and generally ignoring ANYTHING that ANYONE has to say that might contradict the policies of his administration, Chimpy and Co could simply stumble, unintentionally, into a war with Iran. This would prove, yet again, that fools rush in where angels fear to tread.
Bully, Bully, Bully....tsk tsk tsk.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top