Is Iran’s claim about having a nuclear weapon just false bravado?

[Meister]

Don't you justify death of hundreds of thousands because of overdose or because of firearms shootings?

God gave each of us free will. Overdose is almost always a personal choice.
Firearm deaths? Suicide, a personal choice. Always going to have murders,
if not a gun, then a knife. But....Also protect one's self and home using a gun.

 

[toobfreak]

Yeah, just a few months after they slaughtered 40,000 "Iranian lives".

At the very least. Valid estimates run from 45,000 up to a possible 90,000.

 

[toobfreak]

If you nuke Iranian cities without nuking Iranian nuclear forces, there will be two consequences:

Then I guess we better nuke both of them at once.

Survived part of Iranian nuclear forces attack the USA, and millions of Americans are dying for no reason.

Can't wait. You can kiss goodbye to 92 million Iranians then.

with Brazil, Japan and Germany getting nukes in a less than a year, and nuclear Mexico and Canada in few more years.

So what? No one no less than the USA has been threatening any of these countries. Many of those economies are barely getting by as it is, if they want to take on a nuclear persona now and all that comes with that in all of their inexperience, more power to them; a lot of these people do not like Russia neither.

If you think that nuclear Iran might be a problem, think about possible problems with nuclear Canada, Mexico, Cuba and Brazil.

Ha, of the four of them,. Brazil is barely an economy struggling as part of BRICS. Cuba, are you serious?

More missiles, more buttons, more fingers on the buttons, and you'll have the next nuclear war before 2036.

Great, just remember, we are not the bad guys here nor the instigators. Funny that you never warned Iran of the danger of its provocative actions, but now stand here shamelessly trying to guilt the USA into not defending itself against these clearly provocative actions?

But it's quite possible that Russia and China won't wait until 2036 and will nuke you when your nuclear arsenals are exhausted.

Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen. Or, put another way, if that is your belief, GO FOR IT. You have no idea what awaits.

 

[kyzr]

Definitely yes. Especially given the examples of Iraq, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan and other "democratised" countries.

Those aren't examples of "democracies", they are or were brutal dictatorships.

Not necessarily they will die, especially if Iran use it wisely - for deterrence or for the counter-force strike.

If they use it they will be exterminated.

And the democrats saw it as an acceptable price, didn't they?

Yes, there is no human price democrats won't pay to keep the illicit drug trade.

And police have guns and kill people, usually criminals. It's perfectly normal. So when Iranian police and other law-enforcement agencies kill criminals (and treason is a crime everywhere) it's pretty normal.

Peaceful protesting is not treason nor criminal activity. Neither is killing them, that is called state sponsored terrorism.

I mean, situation when cops kill criminals is much more "normal" than situation with criminals killing criminals.

In the US gangs shoot each other for "territory".

Anyway, I take it as your confirmation that you consider the current price of 2nd Amendment "acceptable". Don't you?

There is no price for the 2nd Amendment by law abiding citizens.

 

[EdwinAMartin]

Is Iran’s claim about having a nuclear weapon just false bravado?​

Reported intel from Pakistan states that Iran DOES have a weapon and DOES intend to use it if the conflict continues.​

Is Iran’s claim about having a nuclear weapon just false bravado?

Reported intel from Pakistan states that Iran DOES have a weapon and DOES intend to use it if the conflict continues.

www.americanthinker.com

5 Jun 2926 ~~ By James Zumwalt

f a former CIA agent’s report is accurate, Iran may find itself making a decision the U.S. was faced with making in 1945. The agent, Larry Johnson, revealed that Pakistan’s Foreign Minister personally delivered a disturbing, secret message to Secretary of State Mark Rubio claiming that Iran does possess a nuclear weapon. He also reports Tehran intends to demonstrate soon this capability to the world community. The immediate question obviously is just how Iran intends to demonstrate it?
In 1945, during World War II, the U.S. had to decide how to demonstrate to Japan it possessed an atomic weapon, developed under the Manhattan Project. Due to the weapon’s never-before-seen destructive power, President Harry Truman weighed all options on how best to do this, as Japan was a country historically known for its unwavering warrior mentality that defied surrender.
One of those options was to invite Japanese officials to witness the weapon’s testing, allowing them to see its destructive capability firsthand. While such an option would avoid killing thousands of Japanese civilians, Truman opted not to do so for one reason. As the weapon was yet to be tested, a test failure would prove to be an embarrassment that only encouraged Japan to continue fighting.
The U.S. only had three atomic weapons, with one to be used for testing, leaving only two for use against Japan. And, it was believed it might take as many as twelve such bombings before Japan capitulated.
Truman decided the risk of a test failure was too high. Thus, after its successful testing in New Mexico, the remaining two were destined to target the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This decision proved to be the right one as Japan ultimately submitted to an unconditional surrender—on August 15, 1945—only six days after the second bomb was dropped on Nagasaki.
If Pakistan’s claim is true, in addition to how Iran intends to “demonstrate” its weapon, is the question of just how many such devices Iran might have? Pakistan’s report is contrary to what U.S. intelligence has long indicated—repeatedly telling us Iran was only on the verge of a breakthrough concerning the technology. But, if it is so armed, there is no room for error in predicting what its leadership now might do.
While Iran lacks an intercontinental missile capability and thus is unable to target the U.S. mainland, other options remain available to effect such a demonstration. This includes targeting Israel, or a U.S. base closer to home. It could even include attacking a fellow Muslim country as Iran has already shown by striking out at Kuwait—claiming it was in retaliation for an earlier U.S. attack.
In light of this development, the last thing the U.S. should be doing is restricting President Donald Trump’s range of options against Iran. Yet that is exactly what the House voted to do in limiting his war powers authority in Iran. At a time when Trump is negotiating with the mullahs to end the conflict, the House gives them reason to hold off making any such agreement in hopes of improving their negotiating position.


Commentary:
In light of this development, the last thing the U.S. should be doing is restricting President Donald Trump’s range of options against Iran.
Yet that is exactly what the House voted to do in limiting his war powers authority in Iran. At a time when Trump is negotiating with the mullahs to end the conflict, the House gives them reason to hold off making any such agreement in hopes of improving their negotiating position.
I don’t think this information is true because five minutes after they acquired a nuke, that information would be on its way to Tel Aviv.
If true, then Israel must act because Iran will not even think about using it.
If Iran actually has a nuclear weapon, I think they would have used it by now. Target Israel.
They also think they will be seeing a return fire with a nuclear weapon, on Qom and possibly Tehran.
The return fire could come from the US or Israel. Iran knows this, and Iran doesn’t care. Eventually, when you are threatened enough times, you have to start believing them, but the burden will be on them.
Funny neither Iran nor Israel have mentioned it until now. Sounds like their last hand is a bluff. Time to call it and make them fold.
Time for our military to show the leaders of Iran our true might.
This is all the more reason to eradicate these lunatics, before they have 20 of ‘em or an ICBM.

Doesn't matter either way; they've made the threats for years, so take them at their word and finish them off quickly. Do the same for everybody else who makes threats to use nukes on Americans and/or our allies. Let the FAGAts snivel and whine all they want.

 

[EdwinAMartin]

So what? No one no less than the USA has been threatening any of these countries. Many of those economies are barely getting by as it is, if they want to take on a nuclear persona now and all that comes with that in all of their inexperience, more power to them; a lot of these people do not like Russia neither.

They want to use them for extortion rackets. They don't need them for 'defense', just for making threats.

 

[Zavulon]

God gave each of us free will. Overdose is almost always a personal choice.
Firearm deaths? Suicide, a personal choice. Always going to have murders,
if not a gun, then a knife. But....Also protect one's self and home using a gun.

In Iran's system there is much lesser amount of deaths from both overdose and fire-arms incidents. It has it's advantages, at least from the Iranian point of view.
Anyway, you do justify hundreds of thousands deaths of American citizens, because, as far I understand, you believe it worth it. Right?