Iranian Fast Boats Swarm U.S. Warships In Persian Gulf

[nurizeko]

No, it's more plausible that Iran will use these weapons against Israel. Ahmadinejad IS a dictator.

The beautiful irony is that even as a president who makes extremely questionable statements, he isn't even the head honcho. The state, for what few democratic elements it has, is ruled by the grand ayatollah. I.E. the supreme leader head honcho who calls the shots and has all final say. Did I forget to mention the ayatollah is like an Imam and the grand puppeteer of a whole Islamic "revolution" thats been going on since it overthrew the last regime?. Loool. Oh and I'm sure hosting a holocaust denial conference and making a statement wanting to wipe Israel off the map really makes Ahmadinejad someone I want to trust with nukes, or anyone in the Iranian regime TBH.

Sorry, I am not even remotely near enough as ready as Kadayi to trust Iran with nukes.

If Iran is shining beacon of democracy then I'm a bloody Muslim fundamentalist.

No need to take my word, I think you'll find it's accepted fact amongst everyone without a chip on their shoulder.

Unlike your chip that compels you to kiss up to every regime opposed to the US and the west based on some inconceivable grudge against for mentioned nation?.


Maybe its just me, but your position isn't coming across as a well rounded rationalized conclusion, it comes across as being incredibly naive and careless and irrationally appeasing.

Iran isn't some innocent democratic free state being viciously attacked by some big invader wanting to eat babies and take land. The issue is that its the obligation of the free world to stop extremely questionable regimes from getting nuclear weaponry via strikes.

Its like you've someone managed to mix up Iraq, and any strikes on Iran, as remotely the same situation, and you've managed to gt stuck in a infinite loop of stupidity.


It really puzzles me personally, because I had assumed that opposition to Iraq, like my own reasoning, was based on logic and you know, the blatant fact it was entirely needless. yet many of these same people seem to bring the same attitude to any potential strikes against Iran's nuclear capabilities, as if denying a questionable states nuclear capabilities is somehow within the same league.

The only conclusion I can come to is like most ideological and political extremisms, your not coming to your position out of logic but by ideological idiocy. For whatever reason you support an ideology that is anti-US or merely pro-Iranian, but regardless, its not a position held out of desire to protect lives.

That is my one and ONLY position. Lives. Nukes take lives. In a very disgusting fashion. Highly destructive. A questionable regime that has proven its distaste not only for the west but a nearby state in its entirety.
Its all about risks and lives. I am happy to see Iranian nuclear facilities burned to the bedrock, and the workers who may be there, unfortunately, rather then take gamble on letting Iran go nuclear without any checks, knowing Iran has an anti-western agenda and most certainly has designs on the continued existence of Israel.

Not to mention it has regional ambitions, and I think it even sponsored an attempt for a Islamic coup in Bahrain once.

Yeah, beacon of goodness and trust I'm sure...

Seriously I don't think Iran are a threat to anyone.

I return to my hypothesis of your naivety. :imu:

 

[Kadayi]

Answer the original post, and provide factual evidence to support your assertions. I have little use for hollow speculation. I mean repeatedly labelling me naive and speculating about what or how I think isn't a particularly strong argument tbh, when you've nothing to support your stance.

 

[No Limit]

No, it's more plausible that Iran will use these weapons against Israel. Ahmadinejad IS a dictator. Opposition is not tolerated, dissent is crushed, "Unislamic" gatherings lead to arrests and torture... the Iranian reform movement could tell it much better than me, so I'll stop here. Women have a right to vote you say? I'll take your word for that, but it doesn't really matter when you're hanging from a crane after being accused of "adultery", does it? Wait, you're talking about women, so I should point out that the victims of this are both teenagers and women. Don't rationalize institutionalized insanity. By the way, it doesn't really take that much effort to see past the charade and see that Dinnerjacket is a puppet of Khomeini.

You did read that article about all the jews living in Iran, right?

 

[CptStern]

you can tell they're jews because jews are forced to wear armbands identifying them as jews in evil iran according to canadian spindoctors

:O


http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3252830,00.html


oh wait ...

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3252934,00.html

 

[No Limit]

I see fox news is now brodcasting in Canada.

 

[CptStern]

heh Fox just changed their name to the National Post so as to fool the CRTC (media regulator)

 

[nurizeko]

Answer the original post, and provide factual evidence to support your assertions. I have little use for hollow speculation. I mean repeatedly labelling me naive and speculating about what or how I think isn't a particularly strong argument tbh, when you've nothing to support your stance.

*sigh*


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_surrounding_Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_and_Government_of_Iran

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Islamic_Republic_of_Iran

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_Iran

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Leader_of_Iran

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Khamenei

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.-Iran_relations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Israel_relations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_laws_of_Islamic_Republic_of_Iran


Now bear with me, I am about to drop allot of quotes.

Spoiler

Iran officially became an Islamic Republic on April 1, 1979 when Iranians overwhelmingly approved a national referendum to make it so.[48] In December 1979 the country approved a theocratic constitution, whereby Khomeini became Supreme Leader of the country.

Iran's relationship with the United States deteriorated rapidly during the revolution. On November 4, 1979, a group of Iranian students seized U.S. embassy personnel, labeling the embassy a "den of spies".

While the student ringleaders had not asked for permission from Khomeini to seize the embassy, Khomeini nonetheless supported the embassy takeover after hearing of its success.[54] While most of the female and African American hostages were released within the first months,[55] the remaining fifty-two hostages were held for 444 days. This is often considered a violation of the long-standing principle of international law that diplomats are immune from arrest (diplomatic immunity).

After the Supreme Leader, the Constitution defines the President of Iran as the highest state authority. The President is elected by universal suffrage for a term of four years. Presidential candidates must be approved by the Council of Guardians prior to running in order to ensure their allegiance to the ideals of the Islamic revolution. The President is responsible for the implementation of the Constitution and for the exercise of executive powers, except for matters directly related to the Supreme Leader, who has the final say in all matters.

Iran maintains diplomatic relations with almost every member of the United Nations, except for Israel, which Iran does not recognize

The United Nations Security Council imposed international sanctions on Iran in December 2006 for not suspending its uranium enrichment programme having been instructed to do so after being assessed as failing to meet Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty safeguard obligations.

The politics and government of Iran takes place in the framework of a republic with Islamist ideology.

By mid-1982, a succession of power struggles eliminated first the center of the political spectrum and then the leftists[citation needed], leaving only the clergy and their supporters in power.

although there are well founded claims that Iran still remains a sponsor of terrorism, this has yet to be proven definitively

The Guardian Council is composed of 12 jurists, including six clerics appointed by the Supreme Leader, and six jurists elected by the Majlis from among the Muslim jurists nominated by the Head of the Judicial System. The Council interprets the constitution and may reject bills from parliament deemed incompatible with the constitution or Sharia (Islamic law). These are referred back to parliament for revision. In a controversial exercise of its authority, the Council has drawn upon a narrow interpretation of Iran's constitution to veto parliamentary candidates.

Hooshang Amirahmadi,(President of the American Iranian Council), was a candidate in the Ninth Presidential Election in Iran, but the conservative and religious Guardian Council disqualified him for his American citizenship and democratic platform.

Iranian opposition groups have been severely repressed by the regime, an example being the Freedom party of Iran that is now "forbidden". Repression of opposition groups is becoming more harsh as of mid 2007.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/94/Schema_gvt_iran_en.png
Please note the unelected institutions on the right.

The reformists say this system creates a closed circle of power.[4] Iranian reformists, such as Mohammad-Ali Abtahi have considered this to be the core legal obstacle for the reform movement in Iran.

The constitution begins by stating that the "anti-despotic movement for constitutional government [1906-1911], and anti-colonialist movement for the nationalization of petroleum" in 1950s failed because of lack of religious coloring thereunder. Moreover, the "central axis" of the theocracy shall be Quran and hadith.

Preamble further states: "The Assembly of Experts for Constitution...fram[ed] the Constitution...[after input] by the government...with the hope that this century will witness the establishment of a universal holy government and the downfall of all others."

Article 110 [Leadership Duties and Powers]

The constitution accords many powers to the Supreme Leader.

Some say that the Supreme Leader's powers extend beyond those enumerated in the Constitution because he can use "Islamic issues for justification."

Islamic laws & fatwas

Article 167 [Rule of Law for Judiciary] stipulates that judges must make use of "Islamic sources and...fatwas" in matters where the Iranian law books are silent.

Because we all know "because god told me" is a great way to do things...

No amendment that conflicts with the "Islamic character of the political system...and...the school [Twelver Ja'fari]" is permissible under any circumstances.

The pressie o Iran now...

He has said Iran's nuclear program is for peaceful purposes and has refused to end enrichment despite United Nations Security Council resolutions.

He has been widely quoted as calling for the dissolution of the state of Israel and its government which he does not regard as legitimate or representative of the population.

Funny, I'm pretty sure th elected government of Israel has other ideas.

One of his most criticized statements was one in which, according to some translations, he called for Israel to be "wiped off the map," but interpretations of this statement vary widely.

He has also been condemned for describing the Holocaust as a myth

During his mayorship, he reversed many of the changes put into effect by previous moderate and reformist mayors, putting religious emphasis on the activities of the cultural centers founded by previous mayors, going on the record with the separation of elevators for men and women in the municipality offices

Ahmadinejad was the only presidential candidate who spoke out against future relations with the United States.

After his election he proclaimed, "Thanks to the blood of the martyrs, a new Islamic revolution has arisen and the Islamic revolution of 1384 [the current Iranian year] will, if God wills, cut off the roots of injustice in the world." He said, that "the wave of the Islamic revolution" would soon "reach the entire world."

Ahmadinejad had objected to punishment of women appearing in stadiums without proper hijab. His remarks angered some supporters.[56] Soon after his remarks, several of the highest-ranking clerics and marjas including, Ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi and Grand Ayatollahs Nouri Hamedani, Safi Golpaygani, Makarem Shirazi, Fazel Lankarani and Tabrizi announced their objection to his decision, urgently calling for cancellation of the order. In Qom, many clerics demonstrated against the president's letter.[57] Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei reversed the decision

Heh, even when he's being flip floppy, "trying to do the right thing" he just gets shot down, go democratic free Iran! *rolls eyes*

According to these reports, Ahmadinejad's government believed that the attendance of women in stadiums was against Sharia and therefore had to be banned, contrary to the earlier letter.

Oh, NM, he didn't actually care about womans rights.

In June 2007, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was criticized by some Iranian parliament members over his remark about Christianity and Judaism. According to Aftab News Agency, President Ahmadinejad stated: "In the world, there are deviations from the right path: Christianity and Judaism. Dollars have been devoted to the propagation of these deviations. There are also false claims that these [religions] will save mankind. But Islam is the only religion that save mankind." Some members of Iranian parliament criticized these remarks as being fuels to religious war.

In the week prior, more than 2,000 students protested at Tehran University on the country's annual student day,[100] with speakers saying there had been a crackdown on dissent at universities since Ahmadinejad was elected.

away from president Amesomething-or-another

Ayatollah Khomeini became Iran's new leader and soon began issuing vicious rhetoric against the United States, describing the country as the "Great Satan".

Immediately after the taking of the embassy, the entire staff of Prime Minister Mehdi Bazargan's interim government resigned in protest. During the few months that Bazargan's government had been in power, he had increasingly become distressed at the constant interference of Islamist and Communist militias in his liberal, secular and pro-free market government. In reality, Bazargan's government had very little power.

1983: Hezbollah bombings

The U.S. contends that the organization of Hezbollah has been involved in several anti-American terrorist attacks, including the April 1983 United States Embassy bombing which killed 17 Americans, the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing which killed 241 U.S. peace keepers in Lebanon, and the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing.

A U.S. District court judge ruled in 2003 that the April 1983 United States Embassy bombing was by what had been at the time been a new organization called Hezbollah supported by the state of Iran. [15]

In May 2003, in a case brought by the families of the 241 servicemen who were killed, U.S. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth declared that the Islamic Republic of Iran was responsible for the 1983 attack. Lamberth concluded that Hezbollah was formed under the auspices of the Iranian government, was completely reliant on Iran in 1983, and assisted Iranian Ministry of Information and Security agents in carrying out the operation. [16]

A U.S. federal court has found that the Khobar Towers bombing was authorized by Ali Khomeini, then ayatollah of Iran [17]

Following the 9/11 Attack some Iranians spontaneously gathered in the Maidan-e-Mohseni shopping area in northern Tehran in a candlelit vigil for the victims of the attack. Unfortunately these vigils were violently broken up by Ansar-e-Hezbollah hardliners.

Ansar-e-Hezbollah[1] (Arabic: أنصار حزب الله, Persian: انصار حزب*الله) (Ansar is Arabic and means patrons or helpers) is a militant ultraconservative Islamist group in Iran. Along with the Basij, they are said to "represent a key element of the Islamic Republic's hold on power, its use of violent repression" of dissident gatherings.[2] It's ideology revolves around devotion to Grand Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and his belief in Valiyat al-faqih and elimination of foreign non-Islamic influences. Mojtaba Bigdeli is a spokesman for the Iranian Hezbollah.

It was Ayatollah Khomeini who first declared Israel as an "enemy of Islam" during the second Pahlavi period in his campaign against Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who supported Israel.

After the second phase of the 1979 Iranian Revolution which witnessed the establishment of the Islamic Republic, Iran withdrew its recognition of the state of Israel and cut off all official relations.

And thats about where I get bored of quoting.

*phew* so in conclusion, the Iranian regime isn't trustworthy. You will notice I quoted allot of choice picks, just as you no doubt would back. Its enough though to prove grounds to mistrust Iranian intentions. You've avoided the blatantly obvious with nothing. Your opinion Iran isn't a threat to anyone is highly questionable, and a nuclear enabled Iran is most certainly a threat. You claim it isn't, tough shit, sorry, Iran will have to improve much much more in many ways before I or as it seems many others in the world take a gamble on it.

Stop ignoring reality, and provide factual evidence to support your assertions. I have little use for hollow speculation. I mean repeatedly labeling me ill-informed and speculating about what or how I think isn't a particularly strong argument tbh, when you've nothing to support your stance.

You think Iran can be trusted with nukes?, and I'm telling you now, it all revolves around trust, then prove it.

Oh right...you cant... :O


No, Iran isn't the worst of the worst, and no, the US and the west aren't pure clean, we have our fair share of objectionable and shameful behaviour. The US has a nice quotable history of not using nukes, aside from the first two ever (again, I don't even condone those times).

Can you say the same for Iran?. I'm sure the people and state of Israel will really feel safe knowing Islamic fundamentalists have nukes.


So yeah, I'm sorry, but if Iran tries to get nukes, its gonna get its facilities bombed. I am not gonna lose any sleep over it. :thumbs:

Nukes takes lives and thats my only concern, I don't car about political alignments and political pissing contests, just lives, and the horrible fashion nukes take them in. It has been established that theres questionable Iranian responsibility to handle nukes. Hence, as it stands, if they did try and get nukes, I support strikes.


I'de love for the US and Iran to get along, hey great, both are clearly into the whole "I dunno what started this feud but damned if I stop" type of phase of non-relations. But thats not the point, the US has behaved badly, Iran has behaved badly.

It still cant be trusted.

My reasoning is solid, and my motivations valid. Whats your position again?.

 

[CptStern]

who is iran going to nuke? this is really a shortsighted pov ..they would be ****ing themselves, not to mention being instantly obliterated by israel who haveover 200 nukes compared to Iran's zero.

 

[Solaris]

Islamists welcome death. I don't want to trust them with the power to bring about shit loads of death.

 

[CptStern]

the peons are the ones that kill themselves ..you think the higher ups would do it themselves? they're not that stupid ..not too mention that jerusalem is a sacred city

 

[Escaep]

You guys do know why the U.S. used nukes to end WW2 (with Japan) right?

 

[Kadayi]

My reasoning is solid, and my motivations valid. Whats your position again?.

You quote mining a load of random wiki pages isn't evidence or reasoning (hate to burst your bubble there). You haven't provided any rationale as to why Iran would nuke Israel in the first place, especially as has been pointed out (again) that Jerusalem is a sacred City and it would be blasphemy of the highest order for any Muslim destroy it. Nuclear bombs aren't tidy weapons, the damage is extensive and the fallout wholly unpredictable. letting off a bomb in Israel could irradiate half the Middle East, and potentially render Palestine uninhabitable for a thousand years. Given that the the antipathy between the Arab nations and Israel lies in the Israeli governments continued illegal occupation of Palestinian land, it's beyond non-nonsensical that any Islamic Sympathizer to their cause would carry out such an act. There is nothing to be gained from it for anyone. It's not enough to imply that someone is capable of something, you have to provide a thorough rationale as to why they would do something, and what's to be gained in doing so.

 

[Nemesis6]

Why would Iran use nuclear weapons against Israel? I think you'll find that when it comes to reason, you can't always count on zealots to keep the most basic reasoning straight. Hypothetical scenario: Iran does nuke Israel. What would their excuse be? Most likely none. They don't need one. The same holds true when they kill teenagers for adultery: They believed they were right in doing it, and they don't need to give any reason, that's how theocracies work; they're inherently closed for debate within the confines of who and what the governments control. But I can give one example of what they would gain; More "regional influence" just like they did when they started developing nuclear weapons. You don't see suicide bombers apologizing for killing innocent people, granted, some do, but it's not damage control, they do it because it lends them more credibility and other kinds of sympathy for their cause, it's basically turning a horrible act into a win-win situation - You see, I just slaughtered ten people, but I really didn't mean to kill the nine. But the one guy I was targetting WAS killed. It's all about rationalizing, and I really don't see Iran needing a reason to rationalize this course of action. They'd literally be the most popular country in the world, sadly, probably more so among the Europeans than than the Arabs, because it's the Arabs themselves who are gonna have to pay the price for not having Israel around, because as the Arab saying goes - First comes Saturday, then comes Sunday. Think about that one and it makes sense. Problem is... and yes, problem, because after Sunday has passed, they move on to differing political ideologies. Now lastly, what about the Palestinians? They surely care about the Palestinians, right? Well, look at how some elemants of the Middle East view death... Some mention death from combat or whatever as being "martyred". Better than "murdered" I guess. But seriously, don't try lumping the Iranian regime in with sane morality and basic logic because they've proven time and time again that they aren't exactly, well, sane.

The bottomline could be, when you ask a question like what Iran would gain from starting a war, look into the question for yourself first instead of just throwing it at someone.

 

[No Limit]

You are kidding right? You can't possibly believe that if Iran set off a nuke in Israel we wouldn't wipe them off the map with our nukes within minutes.

 

[Escaep]

You are kidding right? You can't possibly believe that if Iran set off a nuke in Israel we wouldn't wipe them off the map with our nukes within minutes.

The threat of nuclear war scares me.

 

[Kadayi]

I have looked into it, and I'm not seeing a whole lot of motivation there for Iran instigating nuclear war against anyone, let alone Israel. The notion that Iran would potentially irradiate Israel, Palestine, Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea in a bid to extend their 'regional influence' is beyond moronic, as is the notion that by killing the oppressed Palestinians they'd be doing them a favour "Cos dem muslims is into killing dem selves LOL!!". So I guess I will ask the question, and I expect more than just stock excuses like "Dey is irrational innit LOL!!!" :dozey:

 

[No Limit]

The threat of nuclear war scares me.

It scares everyone, including Iran.

 

[Raptor_Jesus]

You are kidding right? You can't possibly believe that if Iran set off a nuke in Israel we wouldn't wipe them off the map with our nukes within minutes.

like someone else said extremist welcome death even though only a small group are that fanatical in Iran that group has the power. ;(

 

[Kadayi]

like someone else said extremist welcome death even though only a small group are that fanatical in Iran that group has the power. ;(

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/18791.html

If the Iranians are the hardcore extremists as you purport, how come there has not been one Iranian Suicide Bomber in Iraq since the invasion? Surely they'd be lining up to sacrifice themselves by any means necessary? You're saying one thing, but the statistical data is saying another. There is a clear lack of correlation going on here.:dozey:

 

[_Z_Ryuken]

We have nothing to fear from the Iranians.

 

[W4d5Y]

We have nothing to fear from the Iranians.

That's just about everything I wanted to hear!
I think it's pretty irrelevant to figure out wether Iran has access to nuclear bombs, or tactical nuclear devices, because by now it'd still take ages for them to get them and the NIE concluded with "medium" confidence that Iran halted its weapons programme in 2003 (what bush is doing right now is trying to scare the americans not with what the intelligence community gathers, but with what they do not know. So he could claim "we do not know wether he'll start it again).

And still, Ahmadinejad threated, yet never openly stated, as opposed to popular beliefs and publications, that he wished to destroy israel.

And finally, WHY DO WE CARE. HE KNOWS EXACTELY THE US HAS BASES IN TURKEY, IRAQ, THE GULF OF PERSIA, THE EMIRATES AND THAT THEY'D FIST HIS COUNTRY WITH BOMBS AND NUKES AND STEAL HIS OIL BEFORE THE BLINK OF AN EYE!

//edit: If ahmadinejad turns out to be as stupid as he can get at times and to be suicidal all the same, that would probably pose a scenario where he'd bring up the effort, the patience and the tax money to build a nuclear bomb and to -somehow- detonate it in Israel.

 

[nurizeko]

You quote mining a load of random wiki pages isn't evidence or reasoning (hate to burst your bubble there). You haven't provided any rationale as to why Iran would nuke Israel in the first place, especially as has been pointed out (again) that Jerusalem is a sacred City and it would be blasphemy of the highest order for any Muslim destroy it. Nuclear bombs aren't tidy weapons, the damage is extensive and the fallout wholly unpredictable. letting off a bomb in Israel could irradiate half the Middle East, and potentially render Palestine uninhabitable for a thousand years. Given that the the antipathy between the Arab nations and Israel lies in the Israeli governments continued illegal occupation of Palestinian land, it's beyond non-nonsensical that any Islamic Sympathizer to their cause would carry out such an act. There is nothing to be gained from it for anyone. It's not enough to imply that someone is capable of something, you have to provide a thorough rationale as to why they would do something, and what's to be gained in doing so.

I have stated my reasoning, you chose to ignore.


1) Human nature. No matter how much you theorycraft, you cant account for human nature.

2) Iran has been proven to be lead by fundamentalists.

3) Iranian leaders have said controversial statements that lead one to question their motives and what they are capable of.

4) There is enough uncertainty about being able to trust Iran to warrant flat out refusal to allow them to have WMD, in this case, of the nuclear variety.




Yet again, your position is "just trust Iran". Thats all. Drop the holy city copy pasta here, unable to comprihend the concept of irrational zealotry there, and that sums your opinion up.

If every religious nut held your feelings, the various denominations at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre wouldn't be fighting over who owns what which only aggravates the un-maintained structure of the place.


By their definition, religious fundamentalists forgo logic and rationality for their beliefs.



Tel Aviv, a major Israeli city, is 65km/40 miles from Jarusalem.

Spoiler

1 Megaton Surface Blast: Pressure Damage
The fission bomb detonated over Hiroshima had an explosive blast equivalent to 12,500 tons of TNT. A 1 megaton hydrogen bomb, hypothetically detonated on the earth?s surface, has about 80 times the blast power of that 1945 explosion.

Radius of destructive circle: 1.7 miles
12 pounds per square inch

At the center lies a crater 200 feet deep and 1000 feet in diameter. The rim of this crater is 1,000 feet wide and is composed of highly radioactive soil and debris. Nothing recognizable remains within about 3,200 feet (0.6 miles) from the center, except, perhaps, the remains of some buildings? foundations. At 1.7 miles, only some of the strongest buildings ? those made of reinforced, poured concrete ? are still standing. Ninety-eight percent of the population in this area are dead.

Radius: 2.7 miles
5 psi

Virtually everything is destroyed between the 12 and 5 psi rings. The walls of typical multi-story buildings, including apartment buildings, have been completely blown out. The bare, structural skeletons of more and more buildings rise above the debris as you approach the 5 psi ring. Single-family residences within this this area have been completely blown away ? only their foundations remain. Fifty percent of the population between the 12 and 5 psi rings are dead. Forty percent are injured.

Radius: 4.7 miles
2 psi

Any single-family residences that have not been completely destroyed are heavily damaged. The windows of office buildings have been blown away, as have some of their walls. The contents of these buildings? upper floors, including the people who were working there, are scattered on the street. A substantial amount of debris clutters the entire area. Five percent of the population between the 5 and 2 psi rings are dead. Forty-five percent are injured.

Radius: 7.4 miles
1 psi

Residences are moderately damaged. Commercial buildings have sustained minimal damage. Twenty-five percent of the population between the 2 and 1 psi rings have been injured, mainly by flying glass and debris. Many others have been injured from thermal radiation ? the heat generated by the blast. The remaining seventy-five percent are unhurt.
1 Megaton Surface Blast: Fallout
One of the effects of nuclear weapons detonated on or near the earth?s surface is the resulting radioactive fallout. Immediately after the detonation, a great deal of earth and debris, made radioactive by the blast, is carried high into the atmosphere, forming a mushroom cloud. The material drifts downwind and gradually falls back to earth, contaminating thousands of square miles. This page describes the fallout pattern over a seven-day period.

Assumptions
Wind speed: 15 mph
Wind direction: due east
Time frame: 7 days

3,000 Rem*
Distance: 30 miles
Much more than a lethal dose of radiation. Death can occur within hours of exposure. About 10 years will need to pass before levels of radioactivity in this area drop low enough to be considered safe, by U.S. peacetime standards.

900 Rem
Distance: 90 miles
A lethal dose of radiation. Death occurs from two to fourteen days.

300 Rem
Distance: 160 miles
Causes extensive internal damage, including harm to nerve cells and the cells that line the digestive tract, and results in a loss of white blood cells. Temporary hair loss is another result.

90 Rem
Distance: 250 miles
Causes a temporary decrease in white blood cells, although there are no immediate harmful effects. Two to three years will need to pass before radioactivity levels in this area drop low enough to be considered safe, by U.S. peacetime standards.

*Rem: Stands for ?roentgen equivalent man.? This is a measurement used to quantify the amount of radiation that will produce certain biological effects.


25 Megaton Air Blast: Pressure Damage
Radius of destructive circle: 6.5 miles
12 pounds per square inch

The remains of some buildings? foundations are visible. Some of the strongest buildings ? those made of reinforced, poured concrete ? are still standing. Ninety-eight percent of the population within this area are dead.

Radius: 10.7 miles
5 psi

Virtually everything is destroyed between the 12 and 5 psi rings. The walls of typical multi-story buildings, including apartment buildings, are completely blown out. As you move from the center toward the 5 psi ring there are more structural skeletons of buildings standing. Single-family residences within this this area have been completely blown away ? only their foundations remain. Fifty percent of the population between the 12 and 5 psi rings are dead. Forty percent are injured.

Radius: 20 miles
2 psi

Any single-family residences that are not completely destroyed are heavily damaged. The windows of office buildings have been blown away, as have some of their walls. The contents of these buildings? upper floors, including the people who were working there, are scattered on the street. A substantial amount of debris clutters the entire area. Five percent of the population between the 5 and 2 psi rings are dead. Forty-five percent are injured.

Radius: 30.4 miles
1 psi

Residences are moderately damaged. Commercial buildings have sustained minimal damage. Twenty-five percent of the population between the 2 and 1 psi rings are injured, mainly by flying glass and debris. Many others have been injured from thermal radiation ? the heat generated by the blast. The remaining seventy-five percent are unhurt.

NOTE: This information has been drawn mainly from ?The Effects of Nuclear War? (Washington: Office of Technology Assessment, Congress of the United States, 1979) and the PBS Special ?Race For The Superbomb?

The zones of destruction described on this page are broad generalizations and do not take into account factors such as weather and geography of the target.

As you can see, its entirely possible to detonate "the bomb" in Tel Aviv, again, a large Israeli city, its loss with its population would be arguably one o the biggest crimes against humanity, and perhaps an irretrievable loss to the state.

And all it takes is one unpredictable fundie to do it. Iran is a Islamic fundamentalist state. It is ostile to Israel and the US, its chief ally.

It is entirely within reason to consider Iranian made nukes a threat. All it takes is one Iranian, even if he isn't speaking for everyone else in the state, to let his religious zealotry to get the better of him.



I will give you the point that MAD may keep Iran, as a state with its own self interest in line, but Islamic fundamentalism does not adhere or care for the fortunes and needs of a nation state. It cares about its ideology of one god an all other faiths and secularists being heretical and needing to be purged.

Yes, Iran is a complex organism, no, its not out and out a monotone clone of the Taliban.

Yes i is a fundamentalist regime, regardless of moderate voices within, and yes, its too unpredictable to trust with nukes.


So we now go aaaaaall the way back o my original point. If Iran tries to get nukes, its facilities get bombed, end of.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

While I actually agree with Kadayi here, I do think it would be a bad idea for Iran to have nukes.

 

[Kadayi]

While I actually agree with Kadayi here, I do think it would be a bad idea for Iran to have nukes.

The thing is though Atomic, you have to look at the available evidence and accurately assess it. Consider the listing I posted of where the suicide bombers are principally coming from in Iraq. By far and away the majority are coming from Saudi Arabia. So far despite a lot of hyperbole, there hasn't been any record of Iranian suicide bombers in Iraq at all. In fact I can't even find any listing of Iranians carrying out suicide bombings anywhere in the world in recent years (surprised even me tbh). I can find a few websites claiming there are legions of Iranians trained as Suicide bombers, poised and ready to lay their lives down for Allah, but the sheer lack of any activity by these religious groups with American Troops so tantalizingly within their reach seems to bring into question whether they exist outside of some right wing news sheets propaganda pages in all honesty.

The white elephant in the room is why the US isn't prepared to openly address the issue as to why one of its biggest 'Allies' in the Middle East, is the one whose very Citizens seem most prepared to attack them (15 of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi) But instead focuses it's attention on a demonizing a country that hasn't been sabre rattling in any way.

Should Iran have Nuclear weapons? Would I personally be uneasy about it? No more uneasy about it than those countries that already have nuclear weapons still having them. Given that the UK has already spawned a number of suicide bombers and has the bomb in numbers I'm wondering why Nurizeko isn't instead asking for the British government to throw up perimeter fences around Birmingham, Bradford & Leeds and turn them all into concentration camps TBH. After all it only takes needs one 'fundie' to get his filthy fundamentalist mitts on a low level nuke and Tel Aviv (and only Tel Aviv) is history tomorrow apparently. :dozey:

 

[W4d5Y]

In fact there is a sabre rattling country in this world, and it is by far more dangerous and lunatic than any terrorist nation you might reckon. They actually invaded two countries in six years and have a disposal of numerous nuclear arms and intercontinental missiles and they seem fit to go to nuclear lengths (lol) in order to impose their rules onto others.

 

[Nemesis6]

In fact there is a sabre rattling country in this world, and it is by far more dangerous and lunatic than any terrorist nation you might reckon. They actually invaded two countries in six years and have a disposal of numerous nuclear arms and intercontinental missiles and they seem fit to go to nuclear lengths (lol) in order to impose their rules onto others.

Well, basic logic tells me that the USA can be trusted more with nukes than Iran can, but they have a whole lot of them, and that is of course scary. Now, Iran having even one is a thousand times worse than the USA having God knows how many, because the Cold War is over. Now, by your logic that it's just saber rattling, America has no real enemies, and is less likely to ever use such devices in contrast to Iran who wants to destroy Israel, along with every Arab nation. It's basically just two nations, one is armed to the teeth and has -- Once again, according to your argument -- no real enemies, and another one who does have enemies and has stated that they want them annihilated(America and Israel). The logical assumption is to be wary of the one who has a reason to use nukes; one that might actually need them. By the way, remember that there are tactical nukes, too. It's much more likely that this is what Iran will actually get done, and tactical nukes has relatively minor splash damage compared to the "real" deal.

 

[Kadayi]

You just claimed that Iran wants to destroy not just Israel but every Arab nation out there? That they are such hardcore religious fundamentalists and are so fanatical that they intend to destroy the very nations that house their most sacred religious sites and all their worshippers? That's seems to be what your claiming, but you've provided no form of agenda, or rationale as to why they'd do such a thing? I guess it's a another case of "Dem Muslims just loves killing dem selves innit LOL!!!'"? In all seriousness who exactly do you think your convincing with this absurdness? :dozey:

 

[Nemesis6]

What I said and what I meant might have turned out different, just to be clear: If Iran becomes a super power and does destroy Israel, etc, they're probably batshit insane enough enough to go after other "enemies", too. That doesn't mean entire countries, it means people. That's what I meant by the whole "first comes Saturday, then comes Sunday." - Jews first, Christians second, and it might go on from there. By the way, it was a theory. I have no way of knowing how Iran will use its new power, however long it'll last, after destroying Israel. When I say that the Arabs are gonna suffer, what I'm getting at is that with their main enemy gone, they're gonna do what they've been doing at a lot higher intensity; supporting Shia militias, etc, and needless to say, that's gonna take its toll on the surrounding Arab Sunni states.

 

[Kadayi]

If Iran becomes a super power and does destroy Israel

Well given you've not been able to provide any rationale or explanation beyond "Dem Muslims likes killing LOL101!!!" as to why Iran would remotely want to destroy Israel I think it's safe to say we can stop you there with your conspiracy theory. Please resist the urge to patronise us all with another rendition of the tired "But their leader, he hates dem Jews LOL101!!!" because we've read enough correspondence on the matter to know that his opposition, like the rest of the Arab nations (let's not forget them) is towards the political situation in Israel, not the Israeli people themselves, or Jews in the religious sense. The biggest population of Jews inside the middle east outside of Israel lives in Iran and is politically recognized and protected by the state, as are the 7 million other Iranians who aren't Muslim and reside in the country. They had 3000 years in which to put them all to the knife without any interference, what gives that they haven't succumbed so far? :dozey:

What's next on the Nemesis turn table? "But, but, but.... Dey is fundamentalists, LOL101!!!" yeah with their hard line on allowing Women to vote, drive, have an education and hold down a job, they sure are putting the Taliban and Saudis to shame when it comes to living the path of the the big F word :dozey:

 

[MiccyNarc]

<snip>

Did you even read the articles?

The Persian gulf is 100 miles across , the straight of hormuz is even smaller. How the hell is the US fleet going to "get far enough away"?

Regardless, all the iranians have to do is sink some oil freighters in the straight of hormuz and they've done all the damage to world economies that they need to.

 

[_Z_Ryuken]

Not to mention the environmental damage.

 

[Asknoone]

:dozey:

 

[No Limit]

I say we stop feeding the troll which in this discussion is nemesis. He hasn't explained how Iran can possibly destroy Israel yet he keeps repeating this idiotic claim.

 

[Kadayi]

:dozey:

:naughty:

 

[kathaksung]

Help, mice attack cats

United Cats Kindom sent three cats across Pacific street to the Islam Mice Home and patrolled at the door of that house. Islam Mice House send 5 mice to detect who is at the door. Three big cats said 5 mice threatened them and sent out a signal of S.O.S. The King of United Cats Kindom accuse the mice country pose a big threat to the world.

How the president of United Cats Kindom had assure its tame sheep to believe that Islam mice Iraq was a threat to the cats kingdom and started a war, how he acts now for another war.

 

[Gormanmod]

Iran has Aids and their trying to swarm our blood cells called Warships.

 

[Escaep]

Did you even read the articles?

The Persian gulf is 100 miles across , the straight of hormuz is even smaller. How the hell is the US fleet going to "get far enough away"?

Regardless, all the iranians have to do is sink some oil freighters in the straight of hormuz and they've done all the damage to world economies that they need to.

They have engines that power their ships that make them move! Technology! I also believe that our ships can strike from 4,000 miles away.

Regarding the oil. That would be the stupidest move ever because the entire world would stop all importing and exporting of goods to Iran which will destroy their economy and people in no time flat.

 

[No Limit]

Regarding the oil. That would be the stupidest move ever because the entire world would stop all importing and exporting of goods to Iran which will destroy their economy and people in no time flat.

Right. So you agree, they wouldn't do such a thing because they know it would destroy them. So if you have that logic in place how can you possibly argue that they would set off a nuke?

 

[MiccyNarc]

They have engines that power their ships that make them move! Technology! I also believe that our ships can strike from 4,000 miles away.

Regarding the oil. That would be the stupidest move ever because the entire world would stop all importing and exporting of goods to Iran which will destroy their economy and people in no time flat.

Are you retarded? Where are our ships now? In the persian gulf

Sure, an aircraft carrier is going to outrun a cruise missile into the open ocean. Grow a ****ing brain. I know you have some sort of masturbatory fetish for american forces, but believe me, we aren't as powerful as you'd like to believe.

And if Iran was invaded by the states they'd be ****ed anyway. If they were going down, they would shut down the strait, and that would be it for the US and world economy. It's called revenge, and using any and all resources at your disposal. Corner an animal and it will lash out.

What the **** do you think an aerial assault would do to Iran's economy?

 

[Escaep]

Right. So you agree, they wouldn't do such a thing because they know it would destroy them. So if you have that logic in place how can you possibly argue that they would set off a nuke?

I dont think i ever argued they would set off a nuke. Correct me if i am wrong please.

Sure, an aircraft carrier is going to outrun a cruise missile into the open ocean. Grow a ****ing brain. I know you have some sort of masturbatory fetish for american forces, but believe me, we aren't as powerful as you'd like to believe.

Where did i ever say we would outrun a cruise missile?

They have engines that power their ships that make them move!

I never claimed we have super warp speed carriers.

I know you have some sort of masturbatory fetish for american forces, but believe me, we aren't as powerful as you'd like to believe.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/patriotism

pa?tri?ot?ism
?noun
devoted love, support, and defense of one's country; national loyalty.

pa?tri?ot?ism
Love of and devotion to one's country.

Nationalism-
The belief that ones own country is superior to all others.

*O*T*C* Escape