Attack on Iran may 'open Pandora's box'

[icyrus]

:

Of course they aren't. Just an extremist state who uses terrorists to attack foreign countries to spread their ideology.

Harmless like the nazis and commies

Guess other states see them as harmless as well. Why else are they also threatening to go nuclear.

Oh joy the Cold war is back. Living under the threat of armageddon was such fun. Pity 3rd world countries that will the become battle grounds

So its your contention that if the were capable of building a nuclear weapon they would use it against America?

 

[Nom Chompsky]

Hey Alan, since they call you the KKK, how about the Glowing Liberal Brigade? (GLB for short. It even has the initials of that American president )

And for those who think Japan would've surrendered...

"I fought in the war, in the Navy and Japan continued the war as if sailing a ship with no rudder. If the war lasted longer perhaps I wouldn't be alive and maybe even Japan could have disappeared."

http://www.japantoday.com/jp/popvox/109/all (NOTE: All the other interviewees were not in the war at the time, so their comments mean zilch!)

And this was not a rash decision: the US did give the Japanese a chance to surrender

On July 26, Truman and other allied leaders issued The Potsdam Declaration outlining terms of surrender for Japan. The atomic bomb was not mentioned in the declaration. On July 28, Japanese papers reported that the declaration had been rejected by the Japanese government. That afternoon, Prime Minister Kantaro Suzuki declared at a press conference that the Potsdam Declaration was no more than a rehash (yakinaoshi) of the Cairo Declaration and that the government intended to ignore it

And they still didn't surrender after the 1st bomb:

After the Hiroshima bombing, President Truman announced, "If they do not not accept our terms, they may expect a rain of ruin from the air the likes of which has never been seen on this earth." On August 8, 1945, leaflets were dropped and warnings were given to Japan by Radio Saipan. The Japanese government still did not react to the Potsdam Declaration.
- - -
The senior leadership of the Japanese Army began preparations to impose martial law on the nation, with the support of Minister of War Korechika Anami, in order to stop anyone attempting to make peace.

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

And Chiskop, why you are living in some dream world? Countries have nuclear weapons and they aren't going to get rid of them anytime soon.

Lastly, I love the atheists in this thread who like to blame religion for the Iraq war. How ignorant...! (Then again if we were to believe some atheists here, we would be living in a dream world where most of the wars wouldn't have been fought!)

 

[GougedEye]

What's with people and "ah they dropped a nuke". Can they not appreciat the circumstances around at the time. Can they not accept that was the best option.

You are actually for once at least partially right. It is difficult for people nowdays to

The truth however, is that the nuclear bomb was not nearly as much of a factor in the Japanese surrender as people tend to think. At the time, the US Airforce had complete unopposed control of the Japanese air. They were levelling the Japanese cities anyway. For example, the firebombing of Tokyo on 23 Feb killed more people than the bomb at Hiroshima did (80,000 - 100,000). The only reason that so many people died at Hiroshima was that it had been a "safe city" that had not recieved attention from the USAF before and was therefore full of refugees from all the other cities that had already been flattened. The three raids on Tokyo in Feb - Mar '45 utterly destroyed 80 square kilometers of city. total US losses were 22 aircraft. By August '45, they were losing 0 aircraft in these raids. Bottom line is that the US simply didn't need the A-Bomb to wreak far more damage than was done at Hiroshima and had been doing so since January '45.

The whole moral argument arround the use of the bomb is irrelevant. It is utterly irrelevant to the dead weather they were killed by 1 B29 with 1 bomb, or 334 B29s, dropping thousands of bombs. Now you can make an argument about wether the allies should have continued strategic bombing as long as they did (particularly in Germany), but the type of bombs they used is unimportant.

There was a lot of stuff going on around the time of the surrender and a lot of things contributed to the actually surrender. Japan had without a doubt lost the war at least a year earlier. Unlike in Germany, their leadership wasn't waiting for a miracle to turn the tide. But a strong faction within the military controled government (lets call them the Bittereinders) just did not want to surrender and in fact wanted a US invasion of the home islands during which the Japanese people could go out fighting. So yep, they perfered the total destruction of the Japanese people, to surrender. (Are they militant enough for you alan85). Hirohito was a very week emmperor and he bas utterly dominated by these guys. This faction was never persuaded to surrender. Hirohito however finally had the balls to make the hard decisions in order to save his people.

So yes, the A-Bomb was a factor, but so were many other considerations like Japan had no chance of staving off defeat, the enourmous and mounting death toll, the fact that while the Americans were bombing refugees in Hiroshima, the Russians had declared war on Japan and utterly overrun the entire Japanese army in Manchuria in a little less than two weeks, and then occupied the Kurile Islands. Also the American's offer of immunity to Hirohito and promise not to overly aggressively persue war crimes prosecutions was a consideraton.

Personally I'd like the U.N to be the world's policeman. Unfortunately it's rotten to the core with pacifism, appeasement and despots. The worst atributes for a policeman

I actually agree with you on the nature of the UN. Needs to be restarted from scratch IMHO. Perhaps if the UN had some balls it would have stood up to the US on Iraq? Even you cannot be thinking that this mess is was the best solution to the problem? (actually you probably can).

 

[Alan]

So its your contention that if the were capable of building a nuclear weapon they would use it against America?

Nope. If they bulit nuclear weepons one could well be leaked to a terrorist group to be used against America or any country(probably Israel). Nuke without a return address scenario .

Also now immune from invasion Iran will be free to spread their idealogy even more violently across the world.

Lastly it would set off an arms race in the Middle east. Countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt will go nuclear. All these countries ( most very dodgy) in the most volatile region in the world all pointing warheads at each other is asking for major trouble.

The new "cold war" will put the old one to shame IMO

 

[Alan]

Hey Alan, since they call you the KKK, how about the Glowing Liberal Brigade? (GLB for short. It even has the initials of that American president )

It's no secret Condi Rice is our high priestess. Thos white sheets really do bring out her beautiful eyes

You are actually for once at least partially right. It is difficult for people nowdays to

The truth however, is that the nuclear bomb was not nearly as much of a factor in the Japanese surrender as people tend to think. At the time, the US Airforce had complete unopposed control of the Japanese air. They were levelling the Japanese cities anyway. For example, the firebombing of Tokyo on 23 Feb killed more people than the bomb at Hiroshima did (80,000 - 100,000). The only reason that so many people died at Hiroshima was that it had been a "safe city" that had not recieved attention from the USAF before and was therefore full of refugees from all the other cities that had already been flattened. The three raids on Tokyo in Feb - Mar '45 utterly destroyed 80 square kilometers of city. total US losses were 22 aircraft. By August '45, they were losing 0 aircraft in these raids. Bottom line is that the US simply didn't need the A-Bomb to wreak far more damage than was done at Hiroshima and had been doing so since January '45.

The whole moral argument arround the use of the bomb is irrelevant. It is utterly irrelevant to the dead weather they were killed by 1 B29 with 1 bomb, or 334 B29s, dropping thousands of bombs. Now you can make an argument about wether the allies should have continued strategic bombing as long as they did (particularly in Germany), but the type of bombs they used is unimportant.

There was a lot of stuff going on around the time of the surrender and a lot of things contributed to the actually surrender. Japan had without a doubt lost the war at least a year earlier. Unlike in Germany, their leadership wasn't waiting for a miracle to turn the tide. But a strong faction within the military controled government (lets call them the Bittereinders) just did not want to surrender and in fact wanted a US invasion of the home islands during which the Japanese people could go out fighting. So yep, they perfered the total destruction of the Japanese people, to surrender. (Are they militant enough for you alan85). Hirohito was a very week emmperor and he bas utterly dominated by these guys. This faction was never persuaded to surrender. Hirohito however finally had the balls to make the hard decisions in order to save his people.

So yes, the A-Bomb was a factor, but so were many other considerations like Japan had no chance of staving off defeat, the enourmous and mounting death toll, the fact that while the Americans were bombing refugees in Hiroshima, the Russians had declared war on Japan and utterly overrun the entire Japanese army in Manchuria in a little less than two weeks, and then occupied the Kurile Islands. Also the American's offer of immunity to Hirohito and promise not to overly aggressively persue war crimes prosecutions was a consideraton.

Interesting.....

I actually agree with you on the nature of the UN. Needs to be restarted from scratch IMHO. Perhaps if the UN had some balls it would have stood up to the US on Iraq? Even you cannot be thinking that this mess is was the best solution to the problem? (actually you probably can).

Actually if the U.N had balls they would have gone in there themselves. After all he had broken U.N resolutions for over a decade.

 

[GougedEye]

it's all about the money people. the only countries that poses a threat to the US is north korea, china and russia. Iran is just another country filled with natural resources that George Bush just cannot resist.

everything is allways all about the money. But I have to admit that I'm not keen on Iran getting it's hands on Nuclear Weapons. But then I have a deeply ingrained suspicion of religion and a religious state should simply not have that kind of firepower. And I can fully understand how this would make Israel a tad uneasy. On the other hand, I can't think of any wars they have started recently (or ever). I am much more concerned about Pakistan already having Nuclear Weapons as well as a military dictatorship. But then they are a US ally so I guess that means that they re on the good guys side? I would just feel so much better if the Us didn't have a tendency to choose military dictators etc as their allies so often.

I am however very sure that we won't be seeing a war with Iran anytime soon. The US is under enourmous domestic pressure to end their participation in Iraq, not escalate it a 100 fold. The president still needs congressional approval to wage war (mostly). The current US force in Iraq is not enough to take on the Iranian army. (Well they would win, but lots of them would die and they hate it when that happens). So they would need a build up etc etc. The laternaive is airstrikes, but that raises the risk of massively increased interference from Iran in Iraq, which they also don't want. So basically the US and Iran are standing toe to toe glaring at each other and both hoping to find an excuse to back down with honour, while Europe/ Russia run around in the backround trying to find an actual solution.

 

[icyrus]

Nope. If they bulit nuclear weepons one could well be leaked to a terrorist group to be used against America or any country(probably Israel). Nuke without a return address scenario .

No return address? Consider for a second that if terrorists detonate a nuclear device - and Iran had a nuclear program - who would immediately get the blame and suffer the consequences?

Also now immune from invasion Iran will be free to spread their idealogy even more violently across the world.

Hardly. They don't (wouldn't) have the space or the resource to stop and preemptive strike on the nuclear capabilities.

Lastly it would set off an arms race in the Middle east. Countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt will go nuclear. All these countries ( most very dodgy) in the most volatile region in the world all pointing warheads at each other is asking for major trouble.

Some would say the world we be better off if the middle east reduced itself to a smoldering heap.

 

[Alan]

everything is allways all about the money. But I have to admit that I'm not keen on Iran getting it's hands on Nuclear Weapons. But then I have a deeply ingrained suspicion of religion and a religious state should simply not have that kind of firepower. And I can fully understand how this would make Israel a tad uneasy. On the other hand, I can't think of any wars they have started recently (or ever). I am much more concerned about Pakistan already having Nuclear Weapons as well as a military dictatorship. But then they are a US ally so I guess that means that they re on the good guys side? I would just feel so much better if the Us didn't have a tendency to choose military dictators etc as their allies so often.

Did they have much of a choice with Pakistan?

I am however very sure that we won't be seeing a war with Iran anytime soon. The US is under enourmous domestic pressure to end their participation in Iraq, not escalate it a 100 fold. The president still needs congressional approval to wage war (mostly). The current US force in Iraq is not enough to take on the Iranian army. (Well they would win, but lots of them would die and they hate it when that happens). So they would need a build up etc etc. The laternaive is airstrikes, but that raises the risk of massively increased interference from Iran in Iraq, which they also don't want. So basically the US and Iran are standing toe to toe glaring at each other and both hoping to find an excuse to back down with honour, while Europe/ Russia run around in the backround trying to find an actual solution.

Iran is not going to get nukes. Israel will not allow it. In fact even countries like Suadi Arabia would support action against Iran. Far from being unilateral U.S or Israeli action any use of force against Iran will have wide spread support. Just not very public support.

Do you honestly think that a nuke armed Iran wouldn't increase meddling in Iraq anyway?

 

[GougedEye]

Actually if the U.N had balls they would have gone in there themselves. After all he had broken U.N resolutions for over a decade.

Israel has beein breaking UN resolutions for far, far longer with no tangible effect.....

The fact is that the UN didn't need to go in. Saddam had no WMD programme worth mentioning, everyone knew it, but he kept hinting that he had and taunting the US. Mainly because he wanted to be seen by the muslim world as someone who would stand up against the US. Now if you know your history, you will know that he was allowed to stay in power after the 1st Gulf War precisly because he was the stabalising force in the region. The US knew that if we took him out, the country which is an uneasy grouping of factions who hate each other, would decend into chaos and that Iran would step into the vacuum created. With a Us army sitting in the middle, hated by everyone and playing peacekeeper. This would put oil supplies in danger as well as being a boost for muslim fundamentalism in the region. Saddam was the lesser of the possible evils and he knew it. Unfortunately he over estimated the intelligence of Mr Bush.

 

[mercurial]

if other countries are not allowed to have nuclear weapons, then the USA shouldn't either.

 

[rwenzori]

Thanks for the interesting posts GougedEye!

 

[Alan]

No return address? Consider for a second that if terrorists detonate a nuclear device - and Iran had a nuclear program - who would immediately get the blame and suffer the consequences?

Really? A nuke goes off in a U.S city. Who would be the suspects? The bomb could have come from any one of these countries Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Russia, North Korea. Then you got to prove that government is involved.

After all that you turn there country into glass and they do the same to yours.

Does that sound probable to you?

Hardly. They don't (wouldn't) have the space or the resource to stop and preemptive strike on the nuclear capabilities.

The last time the U.S tried to take out scuds they failed miserably. You undersetimate the resources and abilities of the Iranians at your peril.

They are pushing their luck now can you imagine when they have nukes.

Some would say the world we be better off if the middle east reduced itself to a smoldering heap.

True. Problem is containing it to the middle east.

Still I value the people in the middle east and would prefer not to have them erased from the earth.

 

[GougedEye]

Did they have much of a choice with Pakistan?

Probably not. But it does seem to happen too often for my liking.

Iran is not going to get nukes. Israel will not allow it. In fact even countries like Suadi Arabia would support action against Iran. Far from being unilateral U.S or Israeli action any use of force against Iran will have wide spread support. Just not very public support.

As a last resort yes. But the thing with letting slip the dogs of war is that you lose control of the situation. (Like in Iraq). People would far, far rather have a diplomatic solution to this. Iran knows this. It's all a game with very high stakes. The only reason that Iran (North Korea) are embarking on nuclear programmes is to get to the negotiating table. They don't really want nukes. What the hell could they actually do with them? So what do they realy want? It's fair enough. There is no fundamental reason why they shouldn't have them or have no right to them. But as an international community, we don't really want anyone to have them. So we need to get people to agree not to buold them. If they are prepared not to build them, I am not above giving them something in return.

Do you honestly think that a nuke armed Iran wouldn't increase meddling in Iraq anyway?

Ah so you do understand why we shouldn't have invaded Iraq? But we can't uninvade now can we? No use crying over spilt milk. But the answer is no, probably not. But like you said. They aren't going to get them. If Israel wasn't there, then maybe they would, but as things are? Not going to happen.

 

[GougedEye]

if other countries are not allowed to have nuclear weapons, then the USA shouldn't either.

Agreed. Or at least you could hope that they would limit the number they have. They have thousands and thousands and are building more. All they need is a couple. After that it just looks like they are trying to compensate for something.

To date, South Africa is the only country to ever aquire nuclear weapons and then voluntarily give them up. Something I am very proud of.

 

[rwenzori]

To date, South Africa is the only country to ever aquire nuclear weapons and then voluntarily give them up. Something I am very proud of.

I have to admit to have felt some pride at this, but justifiably? The way I see it, it was a decision made on the basis of the terror FW/Nats felt at an independent black African power ( ie: the ANC govt ) having the bomb.


BTW why do you say "we shouldn't have invaded Iraq"? Are you a yank?

 

[NoADSLyet]

http://uk.geocities.com/sadf_history2/oproeptsa.jpg

LOL!!!

OMW Allan Now you will have to join the SA outcasts and become one of these http://mybroadband.co.za/photos/showphoto.php?photo=1671

 

[Alan]

Probably not. But it does seem to happen too often for my liking.

Unfortunately on a world scale democracy is still in it's infancy. Lot of dodgy regimes to deal with.

As a last resort yes. But the thing with letting slip the dogs of war is that you lose control of the situation. (Like in Iraq). People would far, far rather have a diplomatic solution to this. Iran knows this. It's all a game with very high stakes. The only reason that Iran (North Korea) are embarking on nuclear programmes is to get to the negotiating table. They don't really want nukes. What the hell could they actually do with them? So what do they realy want? It's fair enough. There is no fundamental reason why they shouldn't have them or have no right to them. But as an international community, we don't really want anyone to have them. So we need to get people to agree not to buold them. If they are prepared not to build them, I am not above giving them something in return.

IMO Iran is after nukes for power. They want to spread their extremist ideology. To do this they need to guarantee their "base". In other words level the playing field with competitors

The problem with giving them something in return for not have nukes is it turns into plain old blackmail.

The only counties that have a right to nukes are stable democracies.

Ah so you do understand why we shouldn't have invaded Iraq? But we can't uninvade now can we? No use crying over spilt milk. But the answer is no, probably not. But like you said. They aren't going to get them. If Israel wasn't there, then maybe they would, but as things are? Not going to happen.

Some have made the argument that Iraq shouod not have been invaded but rather Iran. IMO that argument has a lot of merit.

Agreed. Or at least you could hope that they would limit the number they have. They have thousands and thousands and are building more. All they need is a couple. After that it just looks like they are trying to compensate for something.

To date, South Africa is the only country to ever aquire nuclear weapons and then voluntarily give them up. Something I am very proud of.

Here's a question.

How many non democratic countries started civilian nuke programs without a weapons program?

 

[Charlie.]

The idea that anyone would attack the USA with nuclear weapons is laughable. The attack would not succeed. Exactly how do you think they'd get the thing past the US' defences?

The idea that a terrorist group would attack anyone and not lay claim to the attack (nuke without return address) is also laughable. The whole point to terrorism is doing something evil and telling everyone that you'll do it again if they don't give you what you want.

It is also highly unlikely that the US will launch a nuclear strike - they'd anger some pretty powerful people, such as the Koreans, Russia and China, and would not stand to gain anything.

"Disarmament" will never happen. The only person who "disarms" in a war is the "losers". Yes, countries talk about it (and even sign treaties) but the "winners" always hold the opinion that it's a good idea but doesn't apply to them. Additionally, "building a better gun" has been a very important activity in America - one of the cornerstones of their economy.

 

[NoADSLyet]

The idea that anyone would attack the USA with nuclear weapons is laughable. The attack would not succeed. Exactly how do you think they'd get the thing past the US' defences?.

Thats what everybody thought till 9/11. There will always be a way, then there is Israel, Afghanistan, Iraq and a few other places where USA soldiers is stationed. Do you for one moment thing these Islam extremists is going to stop detonating a dirty bomb or nuke? Consider the suicide bombing and think again!

 

[rwenzori]

OMW Allan Now you will have to join the SA outcasts and become one of these http://mybroadband.co.za/photos/showphoto.php?photo=1671

Is that a pic of Gen De La Rey? Or your self-portrait?