What Is An "Imminent" Threat?

[Independent thinker]

I literally answered the question in the OP title.

No you didn’t. Give a real life example of an imminent threat.

 

[Independent thinker]

You tell me, the term doesn't exist in international law, its a made up term, no agreed meaning, the kind of thing Hitler said to justify attacking Russia or Poland or exterminating Jews all these were an imminent threat to the German people according to Hitler.

If you can’t answer it then we will. Iran was an imminent threat. If you don’t agree with that then you have to give us an example of what an imminent threat is.

 

[jc456]

We should have never gotten involved.
We should have never gotten involved with Iran 70 years ago. Which started all this bullshit.

So you agree we created the monster

 

[Independent thinker]

Basically, while the USA keep good Deterrence Type I (AKA "providing stability") capability - "You can't attack our nuclear forces in a way, that gives you chance to decrease our nuclear capabilities to the level at which we won't be able cause unacceptable damage to you. And if you nuke us first - we are going to retaliate", Iran won't attack the USA (may be exept vital threat situy). And nobody in the world (exept Russia) has capability to effectively destroy US nuclear forces by the first.

So, answer on your question is simple. Iran might become a realistic threat only if it acquires an arsenal better and larger than Russian one.

There is a big difference. Russia understands MAD while Iran does not. They believe Allah is on their side.

 

[jc456]

There is a big difference. Russia understands MAD while Iran does not. They believe Allah is on their side.

Russia has an actual economic policy not Iran

 

[toobfreak]

Many of our lefty friends keep on saying that the Iran war is wrong because Iran wasn't an "imminent" threat.

Screw these people. These are the same people who argue that Iran wasn't an immanent threat despite developing nukes, amassing weapons galore, sponsoring global terror and threatening us with death for 47 years, while arguing that a group of protesters at the capitol just upset over a highly suspect and irregular election were. The same people who classified Americans just wanting to preserve traditional values and law ARE an imminent threat. The same people who declared anyone just demanding the same right as women to control over their bodies not to inject some untested and dangerous (and ineffective) vaccine as an imminent threat.

The same people who classified Charlie Kirk an imminent threat for preaching gospel, love, sharing, communication and peace.

 

[jc456]

Screw these people. These are the same people who argue that Iran wasn't an immanent threat despite developing nukes, amassing weapons galore, sponsoring global terror and threatening us with death for 47 years, while arguing that a group of protesters at the capitol just upset over a highly suspect and irregular election were. The same people who classified Americans just wanting to preserve traditional values and law ARE an imminent threat. The same people who declared anyone just demanding the same right as women to control over their bodies not to inject some untested and dangerous (and ineffective) vaccine as an imminent threat.

The same people who classified Charlie Kirk an imminent threat for preaching gospel, love, sharing, communication and peace.

This video is long, but it explains democrats

 

[ChristisKing]

the Iranians have the material to build 11 bombs, and you say it wasn't imminent threat. You are stupid.

The real question to answer the OP question though is how long have they had the material for?

 

[Zincwarrior]

No you didn’t. Give a real life example of an imminent threat.

Chunk is eating. Tippy in the other room stops eating and sneaks over to his bowl while I am making coffee. She is an imminent threat to his eating.

 

[TNHarley]

Stupid. ANSWER THE ******* QUESTION!

He didnt ask me a question, you dumb boomer.

 

[TNHarley]

No you didn’t. Give a real life example of an imminent threat.

I clearly defined an imminent threat.

 

[candycorn]

Many of our lefty friends keep on saying that the Iran war is wrong because Iran wasn't an "imminent" threat. Several of them have said that they would be perfectly fine if Iran enriched Uranium to weapons grade, had nuclear bombs, and even possessed ballistic missiles which could reach all of the way here to the US.

Any quotes to back up your claim?

 

[toobfreak]

"What exactly is an imminent threat?"

That is easy. An imminent threat is one which is both real and deemed likely to occur in the near future. The implication here is a threat which will occur very soon if one does not act to avoid it. This carries with it a few assumptions:

1. A threat is both real and perceived. How is a threat real? If it is highly credible or likely coming from a source both very likely to carry it out or has threatened you before and carried it out so is likely to carry it out again. How is a threat perceived? To where the party feels threatened by something and lives in fear of it being carried out.
2. Unless and until the threat is actually carried out, it cannot be said in absolute terms to be real yet, but if one waits until actually attacked, then it might be too late. A perceived threat is harder to argue with because the threat may or may not be real, but the effect of the threat is the same.

Either way, Iran checks all of the boxes. They have both attacked us before, made overt threats for many years, were amassing a great military, had missiles with twice the range they were admitting to, and had a very active and aggressive enrichment program which can only be used for making nuclear weapons.

Iran has demonstrated that they now had within their reach perhaps a third of the globe, made a point of revealing that to impress us, and at 60% enrichment, could in a very short time have it up to optimum weapons grade to make perhaps a dozen nukes.

Add to that a surly, irascible disposition of bullying and demands makes the argument that they were not an imminent threat enough /yet/ to justify military action is unsupportable, especially in light of the fact that they refuse to acquiesce even under the threat of pending heavy military action, but instead, only become more demanding and irascible.

Just remember, Iran could have stopped this action at any time by simply responding in good faith to requests to stop killing protesters by the tens of thousands or to simply allow shipping traffic to pass freely by their shores in international water, but THEY REFUSED.

When an enemy demands everything yet yields nothing, they can be said to be intractable.

 

[Independent thinker]

Any quotes to back up your claim?

Oh please. Give me a break.

 

[Zavulon]

There is a big difference. Russia understands MAD while Iran does not.

Russia doesn't believe in MAD. Russia believe in "unacceptable damage". But what is "unacceptable" in one situation might become "pretty acceptable" in another.

They believe Allah is on their side.

Religious guys still believe that mass-murder (as with usage of WMD) is a sin. Secular guys think that nuclear weapons are the only thing that can deter the USA.

 

[Independent thinker]

Russia doesn't believe in MAD. Russia believe in "unacceptable damage". But what is "unacceptable" in one situation might become "pretty acceptable" in another.


Religious guys still believe that mass-murder (as with usage of WMD) is a sin. Secular guys think that nuclear weapons are the only thing that can deter the USA.

I agree with your first part, which is what I said. Russia understands MAD and Iran doesn't. The second part just proves you're nuts.

 

[Failzero]

I agree with your first part, which is what I said. Russia understands MAD and Iran doesn't. The second part just proves you're nuts.

Do the Jooos in Israel understand MAD ?

 

[Independent thinker]

Do the Jooos in Israel understand MAD ?

They live with the threat of destuction day in and day out and have, in fact, been destroyed already. I have been to the Holocaust museum in DC. It doesn't have Palestinians or Iranians in it, only Jews.

 

[Zavulon]

I agree with your first part, which is what I said. Russia understands MAD and Iran doesn't. The second part just proves you're nuts.

Iranians are not stupid. They can study nuclear deterrence, too.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Iranians are not stupid. They can study nuclear deterrence, too.

The Mullahs are insane and believe they can make their 13th Iman arrive with enough destruction and cause the return of Allah.