• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

PAPER: Military action against Iran 'likely'..

Catawba said:
I'm not worried in the least about Iran getting a nuclear weapon. Because they know that if they ever used one they would be a smudge spot in the middle east. They have never attacked us or Israel in the past for the same reason.
Click to expand...

Depends on your pov. Naturally Iran has never attacked the US, we're too far away from them to do so. Though I'm sure that them saying that we are the Great Satan just means that they are just full of love for us huh?

As far as Israel goes Iran directly funds Hamas. And Ahmadinejad has stated that he wants Israel wiped off the face of the map.

Yeah, Iran may not have attacked the US or Israel yet, but I have no doubt that they would.

Also you're talking about a religious government that believes in 12 virgins waiting for them in the afterlife if they do something great, like sacrifice themselves in a jihad. So sorry if the fact that we can make them a "smudge spot" doesn't satisfy me.

Catawba said:
If you want to provide incentive for Iran to cool it with the nukes, the US and the other original members of the Security Council should live up to their end of the treaty.
Click to expand...

I'm assuming that you are talking about the disarmament bit of the NPT. We probably would if it wasn't for all the other countries having them, including the ones that have not signed the NPT. And it would be stupid in the extreme to get rid of nukes when other countries have them.
 
EagleAye said:
What if they don't use their military? What if they supply a warhead to the Hezbollah, who sneak it into Manhattan and set it off?

Of course we'd blame Iran, but Iran might think if we were foolish enough to believe the line that they would never build nukes, then maybe we'd also believe the claim that they were innocent, that Hezbollah "stole" the warhead. I doubt anyone in the US would believe that for a minute, but consider that Iran actually thought people would be impressed by their piddly "18th Fleet!" If they would think that fools everyone, they might also believe that weak and transparent excuses might also fool everyone.

It's not Iran's military that worries me, it's their narcissism and their unmitigated gall that worries me. Both could easily lead them into astoundingly stupid actions.
Click to expand...

What if Isreal were to sneak a warhead into Iran and set it off? What if North Korea, or Pakistan, or any of the countries out there supply a weapon to terrorists who sneak it into manhattan and set it off?? With tens of thousand of nukes around the world, that is always going to be a possibility. That is why the NPT was created. The signatories like Iran and other non-nuclear states agreed not to develop nukes if the superpowers with nukes disposed of their arsenals. The idea was to create a world free of nuclear risk. Only the superpowers have not lived up to their end of the treaty, so there is no incentive for the non-nuclear states to comply either.

The do as I say, not as I do model, does not encourage compliance.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Depends on your pov. Naturally Iran has never attacked the US, we're too far away from them to do so. Though I'm sure that them saying that we are the Great Satan just means that they are just full of love for us huh?
Click to expand...

We were right next door to them in Iraq for almost a decade? Did Iran attack the US? No. Much of the world dislikes the US, are we going to start attacking every one that doesn't love us?

As far as Israel goes Iran directly funds Hamas.
Click to expand...

Just as we directly fund Israel. Only we provide much more funding to Israel than Iran does to Hamas.

And Ahmadinejad has stated that he wants Israel wiped off the face of the map.
Click to expand...

And the fat old man in Iraq said death to America. It didn't make him an actual threat to us.

Yeah, Iran may not have attacked the US or Israel yet, but I have no doubt that they would.
Click to expand...

They have not acted suicidal in the past so there is no indication they will act suicidal in the future.

Also you're talking about a religious government that believes in 12 virgins waiting for them in the afterlife if they do something great, like sacrifice themselves in a jihad. So sorry if the fact that we can make them a "smudge spot" doesn't satisfy me.
Click to expand...

I think you have the Iranians confused with the Saudis. It was Saudis that attacked us on 9/11, and Saudis were responsible for most of the suicide bombings in Iraq.


I'm assuming that you are talking about the disarmament bit of the NPT. We probably would if it wasn't for all the other countries having them, including the ones that have not signed the NPT. And it would be stupid in the extreme to get rid of nukes when other countries have them.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the disarmament "bit" as you call it. Why should Iran and others comply with the treaty if the US and the other major powers don't comply with it. Its just a worthless document unless we honor it.
 
Catawba said:
I'm not worried in the least about Iran getting a nuclear weapon. Because they know that if they ever used one they would be a smudge spot in the middle east. They have never attacked us or Israel in the past for the same reason.


If you want to provide incentive for Iran to cool it with the nukes, the US and the other original members of the Security Council should live up to their end of the treaty.
Click to expand...

So you openly admit it is our nuclear weapons, military, and clout in region that prevents an iranian attack, but in the next sentence say we should disarm our weapons. Earlier you were saying we should remove are bases etc. You don't see a contradiction in that argument or were you conveniently ignoring my point? Admit the "Iran only wants them for self defense" argument is BS that you conveniently have come up with and have not thought critically about it enough to apply it to the situation at hand.
 
Last edited:
drz-400 said:
So you openly admit it is our nuclear weapons, military, and clout in region that prevents an iranian attack, but in the next sentence say we should disarm our weapons. Earlier you were saying we should remove are bases etc. You don't see a contradiction in that argument or were you conveniently ignoring my point? Admit the "Iran only wants them for self defense" argument is BS that you conveniently have come up with and have not thought critically about it enough to apply it to the situation at hand.
Click to expand...

Not at all. We didn't need nuclear weapons to kill 600,00 people in Vietnam, we didn't need nuclear weapons to bomb Iraq back a century in 1991. We could cut our military spending in half and still Iran would only have a tiny fraction of what we have in the way military power.

As David Stockman pointed out yesterday, Iran is not the Axis of Evil, they are the Axis of Midevil. That's how far behind us they are. You apparently have little knowledge of our military capabilities.
 
drz-400 said:
...
Click to expand...

The bottom line in regards to Iran is that they are a soverign nation, and we have no right, legally or morally, to dictate to other sovereign nations what defense weapons they are and are not allowed to possess.

We should globally promote nuclear disarmament, but that doesn't begin nor does it end with Iran. It begins with the United States and Russia, two nations owning the VAST majority of nuclear weapons (and the only one to actually have used them is the US).

We should concern ourselves with the missing nuclear weapons of the Cold War. Going to war with Iran while we ally ourselves with India, Pakistan, China, Russia, and Turkey is both ludicrous and extremely hypocritical.

We need to get out of the Middle East and remind ourselves of the deadly consequences trying to dictate the domestic policy of other countries.
 
How do you propose that we do the disarmament while making sure that we do not put ourselves at risk of some other country using them or developing them during or after the disarmament?
 
Kal'Stang said:
How do you propose that we do the disarmament while making sure that we do not put ourselves at risk of some other country using them or developing them during or after the disarmament?
Click to expand...

In a perfect world, no country would own a single nuclear weapon. In reality, I would argue for a large reduction in nuclear weapons while maintaining a small arsenal for "just in case" purposes. We don't need 10,000 to win a war.
 
Mensch said:
In a perfect world, no country would own a single nuclear weapon. In reality, I would argue for a large reduction in nuclear weapons while maintaining a small arsenal for "just in case" purposes. We don't need 10,000 to win a war.
Click to expand...

This doesn't answer my question.
 
AdamT said:
Finally, Iran is going to get the nuclear bomb.
Click to expand...

Tell that to the business end of an Israeli F-16.

But wait.....wasn't it the liberals who say Iran has nothing but peaceful intentions for the nuclear program?
 
Catawba said:
The signatories like Iran and other non-nuclear states agreed not to develop nukes if the superpowers with nukes disposed of their arsenals. The idea was to create a world free of nuclear risk. Only the superpowers have not lived up to their end of the treaty, so there is no incentive for the non-nuclear states to comply either.

The do as I say, not as I do model, does not encourage compliance.
Click to expand...

Article VI of the NPT states that the nuclear states would "negotiate in good faith" to reduce and ultimately eliminate their nuclear arsenals. It does no provide a time limit nor a required date. Nevertheless, in 1970 the US possessed roughly 26,000 warheads and currently possesses roughly 9,000 (only 5,000 active). That's a 66% reduction in the American arsenal, just as the NPT requires.

U.S. President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev signed a new START treaty on April 8, 2010 to reduce the number of active nuclear weapons from 2,200 to 1,550.[32][33] That same week Obama also revised U.S. policy on the use of nuclear weapons in a Nuclear Posture Review required of all presidents, declaring for the first time that the U.S. would not use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear, NPT-compliant states. The policy also renounces development of any new nuclear weapons.
Click to expand...

This demonstrates that US disarmament is continuing. Again, the US is living up to it's bargain as defined by the NPT. We are in compliance. Not only that, the US has declared NOT to use nukes against "non-nuclear, NPT-compliant states." Iran cannot claim they need nuclear weapons to protect against US nuclear weapons when the US has clearly stated we don't intend to use them against non-nuclear countries.

Now all we ask is that Iran do the same. Why does Iran choose the path to war?
 
Kal'Stang said:
How do you propose that we do the disarmament while making sure that we do not put ourselves at risk of some other country using them or developing them during or after the disarmament?
Click to expand...

Please read the NPT.
 
Kal'Stang said:
This doesn't answer my question.
Click to expand...

I'll rephrase my response to directly answer the question. I would reduce the number of nuclear weapons but keep a small number in case of attack or war.

If that still doesn't answer your question, maybe you could rephrase the question.
 
EagleAye said:
Article VI of the NPT states that the nuclear states would "negotiate in good faith" to reduce and ultimately eliminate their nuclear arsenals. It does no provide a time limit nor a required date. Nevertheless, in 1970 the US possessed roughly 26,000 warheads and currently possesses roughly 9,000 (only 5,000 active). That's a 66% reduction in the American arsenal, just as the NPT requires.

This demonstrates that US disarmament is continuing. Again, the US is living up to it's bargain as defined by the NPT. We are in compliance. Not only that, the US has declared NOT to use nukes against "non-nuclear, NPT-compliant states." Iran cannot claim they need nuclear weapons to protect against US nuclear weapons when the US has clearly stated we don't intend to use them against non-nuclear countries.

Now all we ask is that Iran do the same. Why does Iran choose the path to war?
Click to expand...

We still have 5,000 active nukes after 40 years. Many do not consider this living up to the intent of the treaty. Additionally, we had our nukes aimed at North Korea when they were a member of the NPT, and we currently have subs with nukes aimed at Iran, an NPT member, which is also a violation of the treaty.

We and the other superpowers have to be a better role models if we expect compliance.
 
Catawba said:
We still have 5,000 active nukes after 40 years. Many do not consider this living up to the intent of the treaty. Additionally, we had our nukes aimed at North Korea when they were a member of the NPT, and we currently have subs with nukes aimed at Iran, an NPT member, which is also a violation of the treaty.
Click to expand...

I find it remarkable that you know the position of nuclear-armed submarines. The location of our "Boomers" is classified beyond Top Secret. How did you come by this information? If you know about any subs, you may know about attack subs, and their payload isn't necessarily nuclear. Again, that is highly classified information. Got a link?
 
Catawba said:
My point, that Iran is of no military threat to the US, is made by the absence of and such declaration of threat by the US or by the UN. You have yet to present in evidence to the contrary.

As David Stockman pointed out on GPS today, Iran is not part of the Axis of Evil, they are part of the Axis of Midevil, because they are so backward technologically.
Click to expand...


Hahahahahahah, that's why the entire world is worried about their midevil nuclear program.
 
Catawba said:
We still have 5,000 active nukes after 40 years. Many do not consider this living up to the intent of the treaty. Additionally, we had our nukes aimed at North Korea when they were a member of the NPT, and we currently have subs with nukes aimed at Iran, an NPT member, which is also a violation of the treaty.

We and the other superpowers have to be a better role models if we expect compliance.
Click to expand...
How do you know where the military has its nukes pointed? Sources?
 
The real issue isn't Iran, its Iran's affect on the region as a whole. Iran could get nukes just to have them, but it would destablize the rest of the region (kinda like when Isreal occupied Leb) and the fact that Iran tetters on the edge of being a failed state.
 
American said:
Hahahahahahah, that's why the entire world is worried about their midevil nuclear program.
Click to expand...


The entire world is worried about Iran's military threat huh???? :lamo

What the entire world is worrying about is Israel or the US doing something stupid that would cause oil prices in the Middle East to spike, furthering the world's economic recession
 
American said:
How do you know where the military has its nukes pointed? Sources?
Click to expand...

"The U.S. also had nuclear warheads targeted at North Korea, a non-NWS, from 1959 until 1991. The previous United Kingdom Secretary of State for Defence, Geoff Hoon, has also explicitly invoked the possibility of the use of the country's nuclear weapons in response to a non-conventional attack by "rogue states".[8] In January 2006, President Jacques Chirac of France indicated that an incident of state-sponsored terrorism on France could trigger a small-scale nuclear retaliation aimed at destroying the "rogue state's" power centers."
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Israel deploys nuclear cruise missiles near Iran"
(Gulp) Israel deploys nuclear cruise missiles near Iran | Mondoweiss


 
xpiher said:
The real issue isn't Iran, its Iran's affect on the region as a whole. Iran could get nukes just to have them, but it would destablize the rest of the region (kinda like when Isreal occupied Leb) and the fact that Iran tetters on the edge of being a failed state.
Click to expand...

What would make the region more disestablished is an Israeli/US strike on Iran.

BRZEZINSKI: "So we don't need to go to war, and we have to make that very clear to our Israeli friends. We're not going to go to war. They're not going to go to war by flying over our airspace over Iraq. We're not going to support them. If they do it, they'll be on their own. The consequences would be theirs, because the price we'll all pay if they start a massive war, which the Iranians interpret as being done with our connivance, would be disastrous for us in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in terms of oil, stability in the Middle East more generally."

"I think it all depends on how determined, clear- headed and explicit the United States is. If we drift, if we fuss, the word's over, if we are ambiguous, it could end up very, very badly. If the United States is clear cut, if it makes it very clear to the Iranians that they're not going to be a part of the global community, if they persist in violating the NPT.

But, if at the same time we don't offer them only the choice of capitulation or strangulation, which would force them to lash out, and if we at the same time make it clear that if they continue with their investigations and research and perhaps weapons development, we will, in any case, guarantee the security of the Middle East, including that of Israel. The way we have done it for Japan and South Korea, very effectively over the years."



CNN.com - Transcripts
 
Didn't this already happen? I heard that gas spiked recently with prices raging from 4.40$/gal to even 5$ in some places. (in the US)
In Europe they raise the price every week like it's normal. :/

And since, those 5 millions of emails from Stratfor were leaked yesterday, they provided proof how Israel already destroyed Iran's nuclear program sometime ago. So what's all the hype still about? Some sort of strategic game?
 
Catawba said:
Click to expand...
That sounds a lot worse than it probably is. I believe all US SSN's carry nuclear tipped torpedoes making them technically "nuclear armed". Won't do much against land forces, though. It would be good for clearing the Straight if Iran were stupid enough to sink a ship there.

I seriously doubt there are any Ohio class submarines (SSBN) operating within 200 miles of a coastline anywhere unless they are coming from or returning to base. Ohio's leave home and then hide, that's their #1 mission. They don't need to play tag in the Gulf to hit a target in Iran, anyway. An Ohio could hit Baghdad from Australia if it had to.
 
Catawba said:
"The U.S. also had nuclear warheads targeted at North Korea, a non-NWS, from 1959 until 1991. The previous United Kingdom Secretary of State for Defence, Geoff Hoon, has also explicitly invoked the possibility of the use of the country's nuclear weapons in response to a non-conventional attack by "rogue states".[8] In January 2006, President Jacques Chirac of France indicated that an incident of state-sponsored terrorism on France could trigger a small-scale nuclear retaliation aimed at destroying the "rogue state's" power centers."
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

I see something about North Korea 20 years ago, that France would use nukes on anyone who uses nukes on them, and nothing about the US aiming nukes at Iran.
Catawba said:
"Israel deploys nuclear cruise missiles near Iran"
(Gulp) Israel deploys nuclear cruise missiles near Iran | Mondoweiss
Click to expand...

How does Philip Weiss know about the armament configuration of Israeli subs? Just because a sub can be nuclear-armed doesn't mean it is. What are Philip Weiss' credentials? Is he an insider into Israeli operational procedures?

Nice video of a periscope. No markings anywhere. Not nearly enough is seen for positive identification. That might have been an Iranian sub for all we know. It seems mighty convenient for the periscope to look directly at the boat, but stay there to pose for video.

On the other hand, I think we do have subs operating in the Persian Gulf. But when we call them "nuclear subs" we are referring to their power plant, not necessarily how they are armed. That's classified information that the press cannot know about.
 
Last edited:
MaggieD said:
No. You are deflecting. The reason the U.S. is beating war drums has to do with Iran's supposed nuclear program. It has nothing to do with whether or not Iran has been killing U.S. servicemen for years.
Click to expand...

It looks a lot to me like the Iranians, led by their Mad Mullahs, are the ones beating the war drums. The fact that Iran has been killing U.S. servicemen for years is just another aspect of that regime that those of you on the Far Left find so charming.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom