• 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!

Iran test-fires missiles amid nuclear tension

F107HyperSabr said:
Do not understand that we do not have the capability at this to "roll in killing every living thing". Yes that would get their attention but it is not feasible at this time.
Click to expand...

Well, actually we do. It would much easier to roll in killing every living thing than it would to conduct a namby-pamby, "let's don't piss anyone off", war. We have troops in theater. Think of all the fuel we save by already have the ability to present to two fronts to the Iranians.
 
Goshin said:
MAD (mutually assured destruction) counted on the rationality of both sides in the conflict...

G
Click to expand...

Man, Goshin, you sure have a way of making the exact same points I would make on lots of things.

I can still remember an argument I had in a political science class almost 40 years ago to exactly that effect.
 
No one who's rationally considered the nature of Iranian politics believes that there will be a lack of consideration of mutually assured destruction because the religious fundamentalism of the Iranian regime transforms them into fervently irrational martyrs who will seek to destroy all at all costs. Such religious elements as were mentioned influence the Iranian regime, just as evangelical Christians who believe that tumult in the Middle East is a sign of the approaching Rapture and Great Tribulation influenced the Bush regime without that administration actually provoking a nuclear conflict. To claim that Ahmadinejad and Co. are akin to crazed suicide bombers is frankly a buffoonish statement that fails to accurately consider the nature of that administration.
 
Agnapostate said:
No one who's rationally considered the nature of Iranian politics believes that there will be a lack of consideration of mutually assured destruction because the religious fundamentalism of the Iranian regime transforms them into fervently irrational martyrs who will seek to destroy all at all costs. Such religious elements as were mentioned influence the Iranian regime, just as evangelical Christians who believe that tumult in the Middle East is a sign of the approaching Rapture and Great Tribulation influenced the Bush regime without that administration actually provoking a nuclear conflict. To claim that Ahmadinejad and Co. are akin to crazed suicide bombers is frankly a buffoonish statement that fails to accurately consider the nature of that administration.
Click to expand...

Welll look at their allies. Hassan Nazrallah said on live telivison that he thanked god that his son had been martyed. These arent the kind of people ild like to trust with nukes.
 
FlanaganReport said:
Nothing really. Most likely Iran has done this for its domestic audience. Also, from a practical standpoint, I have seen rumors that these missiles were modified to make them more mobile and easier to use in short range engagements. So, if they are fearing some kind of strike, making their missiles more mobile gives them some advantage.
Click to expand...

first of all, it's "regime" not Iran, since the election, they don't represent Iran. second, they have no domestic audience. the regime is unstable enough that will get toppled in a year or two. and that's why I'm scared, 'cause I know that they will go for a suicide mission before falling, and I believe Israelis should be scared too.
 
Agnapostate said:
No one who's rationally considered the nature of Iranian politics believes that there will be a lack of consideration of mutually assured destruction because the religious fundamentalism of the Iranian regime transforms them into fervently irrational martyrs who will seek to destroy all at all costs. Such religious elements as were mentioned influence the Iranian regime, just as evangelical Christians who believe that tumult in the Middle East is a sign of the approaching Rapture and Great Tribulation influenced the Bush regime without that administration actually provoking a nuclear conflict. To claim that Ahmadinejad and Co. are akin to crazed suicide bombers is frankly a buffoonish statement that fails to accurately consider the nature of that administration.
Click to expand...

they wouldn't act irrationally in a normal situation (for example like a year ago), but now, just look at the amount of mistakes they've done in internal policy after the election. it was huge. that's because people are now in the scene and they're power is showing, and nothing can give them the opportunity to oppress people like a war.
 
Red_Dave said:
Welll look at their allies. Hassan Nazrallah said on live telivison that he thanked god that his son had been martyed. These arent the kind of people ild like to trust with nukes.
Click to expand...

And George W. Bush was elected with the support of a contingency that includes a faith healer who owns gold mines in African dictatorships and has called for the assassination of foreign heads of state. There were and are rather unbalanced people allied with both administrations, but that is not equivalent to either administration becoming a crazed fundamentalist regime unchecked by reason in its aggression against other nation-states.

youknowwho said:
they wouldn't act irrationally in a normal situation (for example like a year ago), but now, just look at the amount of mistakes they've done in internal policy after the election. it was huge. that's because people are now in the scene and they're power is showing, and nothing can give them the opportunity to oppress people like a war.
Click to expand...

No, the basis for his remark is that a regime of Twelvers are uniquely prone to irrationality because of fervent religious allegiances (which would have existed more than a year ago), and this will lead them to abandon all rational approaches to foreign policy as they turn themselves into kamikazes if they can in their destruction of Israel because they believe that it fulfills religious prophecy.
 
Agnapostate said:
No, the basis for his remark is that a regime of Twelvers are uniquely prone to irrationality because of fervent religious allegiances (which would have existed more than a year ago), and this will lead them to abandon all rational approaches to foreign policy as they turn themselves into kamikazes if they can in their destruction of Israel because they believe that it fulfills religious prophecy.
Click to expand...


well, that's not the case about ahmadinejad and the rest of them. they are as sane as every other politician when it comes to power and money, and they definitely won't do something stupid because of their faith, but they may do stupid mistakes like any other dictatorship through the history. since they are under pressure from inside and outside, it's not totally irrational to start an erosive war and wipe out inside opposition silently. at least, it's not so unexpected from them to execute such plan if the inside opposition becomes a serious threat to their existence, which is gonna happen soon.
 
I know there was a difference between your point and his, which I'd attempted to emphasize. I don't think your own claim is true either, but it's not as obviously wrong as his was and I don't know enough about it to really address it with the attention it merits. :)
 
Israel has a defensive missile system.
 
Let's see...we decide to withdraw a planned missile and listening station in Eastern Europe....and the Iranians immediately test their medium range ballistic missiles that can easily reach Eastern Europe.

Obama is a genius.
 
Redress said:
This is worrying news. Iran seems to be betting that no one will go to war with them to stop them from gaining nukes. The question is whether they are right in that, as we are not in a good situation to go to another war. I don't think just a bombing campaign would be effective.
Click to expand...
We have 140,000 experienced troops, including significant air and logistical support, right on Iran's front door.

We've -never- been in a better position to go to war with Iran.

That said, there's absolutely no support for the argument that any such war would necessitate a general invasion of Iran.
 
apdst said:
No one's going to a damn thing to stop Iran from going nuclear. The only thing that will provke action will be an attack, by Iran. Even then, maybe.
Click to expand...
This is likely true -- someone will certainly argue that "we cant retalliate with our nukes because they'll use the rest of theirs on us!"
 
Goobieman said:
This is likely true -- someone will certainly argue that "we cant retalliate with our nukes because they'll use the rest of theirs on us!"
Click to expand...

That would be a ridiculous argument. Firstly, if Iran does obtain nuclear weapons and decide to use them (which I still view as a long shot), it will be Israel who responds in a nuclear fashion, not the United States.

Additionally, those who would make the argument that they will "use the rest of theirs on us" would have to show they even had more warheads, and show there was a delivery system capable of reaching the United States. Given that Iran does not currently possess such a delivery system, all they could do from a nuclear standpoint is use a warhead on US troops stationed in the region. I have little doubt that should this occur, anyone would hesitate to respond with overwhelming nuclear superiority.

Perhaps someone would make that argument, but they would look like an idiot doing it in my view.
 
FlanaganReport said:
That would be a ridiculous argument. Firstly, if Iran does obtain nuclear weapons and decide to use them (which I still view as a long shot), it will be Israel who responds in a nuclear fashion, not the United States.
Click to expand...
Presuming that Iran uses its nukes on Israel. If she uses them elsewhere...
Never mind that the US may very well retalliate for an Iranian strike on Israel.

But, you're right -- the argument is ridiculous.
I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that someone will present it.
 
Charles Martel said:
Let's see...we decide to withdraw a planned missile and listening station in Eastern Europe....and the Iranians immediately test their medium range ballistic missiles that can easily reach Eastern Europe.

Obama is a genius.
Click to expand...
Poland is highly pissed, btw.
 
Goobieman said:
Presuming that Iran uses its nukes on Israel. If she uses them elsewhere...
Click to expand...

True, that could change the ballgame. I do not really see much incentive for them to do that however, but anything can happen.

Never mind that the US may very well retalliate for an Iranian strike on Israel.
Click to expand...

I do not think that we would, unless Israel was completely incapacitated. I think we would simply back an Israel retaliatory strike, which would come in short order no doubt.

But, you're right -- the argument is ridiculous.
I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that someone will present it.
Click to expand...

Ha, most likely. Personally I think the faith people put into deterrence and mutually assured destruction is misguided.
 
American said:
You think Iran has that many missiles?
Click to expand...

Well, the defense Israel has against an incoming missile from Iran would be the Arrow system and an early Patriot system (PAC-2). Both of these systems are designed for terminal intercepts, meaning they intercept in the last stage before the warhead hits. The manner that they intercept is to have the interceptor "blow up" near the target in the hopes that the explosion and fragments destroy the warhead or knock it off course. (The PAC-2 version Israel has works in the same way)

Additionally, the command and control system of Arrow is designed to respond to up to 14 simultaneous intercepts. That is not difficult to overwhelm. The PAC-2 would be similar based on the number of battery deployments.

On top of all of that, should the interceptor only knock an incoming warhead off course, (and assuming that would be a nuclear warhead) it would still cause massive damage. Further, even if Iran only possessed 1 warhead, it could launch say 30 missiles at once with one being the nuclear tipped missile. Given the short distance and time frame, Israel would effectively be guessing which missile had the nuclear warhead, and could prove incapable of intercepting all missiles, leading to a nuclear warhead getting through.
 
Last edited:
FlanaganReport said:
Additionally, the command and control system of Arrow is designed to respond to up to 14 simultaneous intercepts. That is not difficult to overwhelm.
Click to expand...
Have you considered that in the case of more than 14 missiles fired at Israel, two arrow missiles can be fired to intercept them?

Edit: I have misread and missed the "command and control" part.
My mistake.
 
Last edited:
Apocalypse said:
Have you considered that in the case of more than 14 missiles fired at Israel, two arrow missiles can be fired to intercept them?
Click to expand...

Well, do you mean that they would try to intercept more than one incoming missile with one interceptor? I think that is highly unlikely, and pretty moronic if Iran clustered its missiles in such a manner for an attack. I imagine an attack would be done at varying altitudes and burn rates to prevent such a scenario.

If you mean two Arrows for 1 incoming missile, that only further limits the capability to eliminate incoming missiles, which makes the system easier to overwhelm.

A common misconception (especially about our American missile defense) is that one interceptor equates to one kill. In the best of scenarios that is the case, but in the real world, a 100% success rate of one shot one kill is highly unlikely, which makes redundant capability all the more pressing.
 
FlanaganReport said:
That would be a ridiculous argument. Firstly, if Iran does obtain nuclear weapons and decide to use them (which I still view as a long shot), it will be Israel who responds in a nuclear fashion, not the United States.
Click to expand...

Really...so a nuclear weapon goes off near or in Isreal in ten years without a missile flight path to trace....Who is to be responded to? It would take months to deal with the human carnage and you'd have no immediate suspect. Al-Qaeda with a Pakistani bomb, some Khan network outlet, Syria via technology from North Korea or from Iran? Would you know? Would you just attack Iran immediately assuming it was them?

I have little doubt that should this occur, anyone would hesitate to respond with overwhelming nuclear superiority.
Click to expand...

And I'm not so sure. Once blame was assigned...and it would probably be months later.....would retaliation really be that overwhelming or immediate? Would Israel send a response, or would it be decided to go after just the leadership of the nation that was to blame?

Perhaps someone would make that argument, but they would look like an idiot doing it in my view.
Click to expand...

Good thing others can think outside your view.:)
 
Charles Martel said:
Really...so a nuclear weapon goes off near or in Isreal in ten years without a missile flight path to trace....Who is to be responded to? It would take months to deal with the human carnage and you'd have no immediate suspect. Al-Qaeda with a Pakistani bomb, some Khan network outlet, Syria via technology from North Korea or from Iran? Would you know? Would you just attack Iran immediately assuming it was them?
Click to expand...

Alright, let me clarify, I was operating under the assumption that Iran would have just straight up shot a nuclear tipped missile at Israel, and that is what my statement was based on.

As for your scenario, that is a tough one. When I was in school, we used to run scenarios like that, although they were typically about a bomb going on in the US.

Here is one:

The Pakistani government comes to you and says they have lost some nuclear warheads. What do you do? Then of course if follows a progression of a few days and eventually cities start to be destroyed, but still what do you do? Its a tough one.

And I'm not so sure. Once blame was assigned...and it would probably be months later.....would retaliation really be that overwhelming or immediate? Would Israel send a response, or would it be decided to go after just the leadership of the nation that was to blame?
Click to expand...

It would no doubt be months later. The DOE puts something like a six month time frame on a "preliminary" report. But again, I was operating under the assumption that it would be clear who fired the warhead. Obviously, your scenario is a bit different and would require a different response.


Good thing others can think outside your view.:)
Click to expand...

Perhaps, my view is mine view, nothing more. That said, I still continue to stick with the view that deterrence is at best unreliable.
 
I agree deterrence is unreliable, so some form of military action?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom