• 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!

Iranian Missile May Be Able to Hit U.S. by 2015

obvious Child said:
As for the rest of you, care to give me a single historical example where the Mullahs risked their own necks rather then sending someone else to die in their place?


*commence the sound of people running away*
Click to expand...

Am I surprised?

Not at all.

The Iranian Mullahs have a long history of sending someone else to die in their place. They never risk their own necks. And Iran has had large amounts of chemical and biological weapons. Easily enough to kill most of Israel's population.

The notion the Mullahs are suicidal ignores their entire time in power.

Cowards? Absolutely.
Evil? Probably.
Suicidal? No.
 
Sometimes I think we'll still be splitting hairs about who-hit-John after an Iranian nuke rips Manhatten a new ... orfice.
Click to expand...

Oh No!!!!! Not another mushroom cloud over Manhatten scare. We mush hurry and invade. We must spend another 5 trillion on weapons to invade another country with Weaponsssss of Masssssssss dissssstruction just like Iraq. Opps. Well this time we're sure thy are about to destroy us.

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKgPY1adc0A"]YouTube- Bush "Fool Me Once..."[/nomedia]
 
I don't think its a big deal.

I mean they launched a missile and it's taking 5 years for it to reach its target. I guess Iranian technology really isn't that far along.

:mrgreen:

No but seriously, we're in a cold war with Iran, and Iran is in a cold war with most of the world. A positive sign would be if President Imadinnerjacket is no longer president by 2015.
 
Degreez said:
They're buying nuclear technology from themselves?

If it's for themselves, why not give it for free?
Click to expand...

Yes, I dropped the ball on that.

The Iranians are buying whatever nuclear technology Russia will sell. This is an issue and Iran needs to be stopped. If they refuse to be stopped, their military and nuclear research bases need to be completely destroyed.
 
That is one really slow missile!!
 
obvious Child said:
Yeah, so nuts they ask for corporate style cost vs benefit analysis in deciding what projects to fund. :2wave:

As for the rest of you, care to give me a single historical example where the Mullahs risked their own necks rather then sending someone else to die in their place?

*commence the sound of people running away*
Click to expand...

And what would stop them from giving this missile technology to others willing to use it the same as they have with their current missile technology?
 
upsideguy said:
I help you out.... from a biblical perspective, man's dominion of the earth does not end well. It is inevitable..... but it doesn't have to end now.

That all said, the first step to control arms amongst the non-nuke countries is for the "responsible" nuclear countries to recognize the inevitable outcome of continuing to arm, and the pressures that puts on the non-nuclears to need to arm to survive. The first step of controlling the situation is a non-proliferation treaty and a step down..... this has been a consistent vision of every US President from Truman to Clinton except for the guy in the early part of this decade, and especially including that conservative icon (who would never get the nomination in 2012), Ronald Reagan.

There is absolutely no reason to have more than 1500 nukes. #1501 and #1502 buys you very little in terms of power brokering. OTH, standing down could buy you world cooperation, or at least closer cooperation amongst the superpowers. Russia no more wants loose nukes or Iran to have nukes than we do. They have a number for threats to their sovereignty, including muslim influence.

So we are doing something. What did you have in mind?
Click to expand...

Reagan said "trust but verify" while supporting building up weapons defense systems; such as, starwars, while Obama said trust, no need to verify, and to hell with missile defense.
 
Wiseone said:
There's still no actual source that says Russia is providing nuclear technology TODAY, or in the past for that matter.

In fact if we went by simple past precedent, then the US must still be providing Iran with weapons and technology right?
Click to expand...

No source that any ordinary civilian would dare make known they had for fear of their life, anyway.
 
WillRockwell said:
If Russia is selling Iran technology, why would it take so long for them to develop a missile? Sounds more like they are making it up as they go along.
And by the way, even if Iran had a missile and a nuclear weapon, why do you think they would fire it at the US? Do you have some secret information that the entire population of Iran has a death wish?
Click to expand...

Because Iran is nation governed by insance islam-o-nazi zealot assholes who are hellbent on creating nuclear weapons. I suspect they would do so to use them on Israel.

While Islam governs a nation, that nation is unworthy to have nuclear weapons. Period.

Iran MUST be disarmed immediately.
 
Vader said:
Because Iran is nation governed by insance islam-o-nazi zealot assholes who are hellbent on creating nuclear weapons. I suspect they would do so to use them on Israel.

While Islam governs a nation, that nation is unworthy to have nuclear weapons. Period.

Iran MUST be disarmed immediately.
Click to expand...

I don't think you really quite understand just how RETARDED this logic is...

First off, Iran doesn't even have the capacity to enrich uranium to a level that is useable for nuclear weapons. They are being quite forthcoming about these developments for nuclear reactors. But that's not even the point I was going to make...

This same retarded logic was used on Sadam... 'he has nukes so we have to invade because he's a crazy dictator with nukes'. (To paraphrase, don't make me hunt down the exact quotes, thanks)

So, OUR BEST SOLUTION to stopping a crazed dictator with nuclear weapons is to invade his country and give him all the reason to MAKE USE of those same weapons that you are trying to prevent from being used. The thing about a crazed dictator is that he will have a good hiding spot, SO, he'll have ample opportunity as his last expression of power launch those nuclear weapons, and you'll have made matters worse.

That's like trying to stop drunk driving by opening a drive-thru shooter bar.
 
Agent Ferris said:
And what would stop them from giving this missile technology to others willing to use it the same as they have with their current missile technology?
Click to expand...



Where exactly is some terrorist group going to put this?
 
BmanMcfly said:
I don't think you really quite understand just how RETARDED this logic is...

First off, Iran doesn't even have the capacity to enrich uranium to a level that is useable for nuclear weapons. They are being quite forthcoming about these developments for nuclear reactors. But that's not even the point I was going to make...

This same retarded logic was used on Sadam... 'he has nukes so we have to invade because he's a crazy dictator with nukes'. (To paraphrase, don't make me hunt down the exact quotes, thanks)

So, OUR BEST SOLUTION to stopping a crazed dictator with nuclear weapons is to invade his country and give him all the reason to MAKE USE of those same weapons that you are trying to prevent from being used. The thing about a crazed dictator is that he will have a good hiding spot, SO, he'll have ample opportunity as his last expression of power launch those nuclear weapons, and you'll have made matters worse.

That's like trying to stop drunk driving by opening a drive-thru shooter bar.
Click to expand...

I wonder what your reaction here would be if Iran gave a missle with the bomb to Venezuela. Sounds like that should be fine with the people who do not mind if Iran gets the bomb.

If that would trouble you, please explain why.
 
Deuce said:


Where exactly is some terrorist group going to put this?
Click to expand...

Right here:


israel_policital_map.jpg
 
washunut said:
I wonder what your reaction here would be if Iran gave a missle with the bomb to Venezuela. Sounds like that should be fine with the people who do not mind if Iran gets the bomb.
Click to expand...

Why would Iran give a missile to Venezuela?? How would that be a benefit to Iran?

If that would trouble you, please explain why.
Click to expand...

I couldn't see that happening...

I know everyone thinks that middle easterners are all crazy jihadists out to destroy america and it's allies... but let's think REAL here.

When was the last time you heard war rhetoric against north korea?? (Hint: it was after they showed the world that they had a nuclear arsenal) That's because the principle I'm talking about is REAL. Nuclear weapons are a bigger defensive weapon then an offensive weapon, that is unless you get a nuclear bomb into a suitcase and smuggle it into the target country.

That's because there's a lag time of several hours between the launch of a nuclear weapon and it's hitting the target. In that time, the retaliatory strike can be launched. What would be the point of winning a war if there's an 80% loss of your people and the annihilation of all the important infrastructure of your country??

So, yes... it's retarded to say : He has nukes so we must invade... especially if the person is REALLY as crazy as he's sold in the media (true for both Iraq and Iran), because if the person REALLY does have the weapons and you invade, then this 'crazed dictator' will unleash all the fury they can muster before being killed.
 
Let us all thank GWB for ignoring the rants from the anti-US left and press onward with the development and deployment of the NMD.
 
BmanMcfly said:
So, OUR BEST SOLUTION to stopping a crazed dictator with nuclear weapons is to invade his country...
Click to expand...
Who is talking about invading and occupying Iran?
 
BmanMcfly said:
Why would Iran give a missile to Venezuela?? How would that be a benefit to Iran?



I couldn't see that happening...

I know everyone thinks that middle easterners are all crazy jihadists out to destroy america and it's allies... but let's think REAL here.

When was the last time you heard war rhetoric against north korea?? (Hint: it was after they showed the world that they had a nuclear arsenal) That's because the principle I'm talking about is REAL. Nuclear weapons are a bigger defensive weapon then an offensive weapon, that is unless you get a nuclear bomb into a suitcase and smuggle it into the target country.

That's because there's a lag time of several hours between the launch of a nuclear weapon and it's hitting the target. In that time, the retaliatory strike can be launched. What would be the point of winning a war if there's an 80% loss of your people and the annihilation of all the important infrastructure of your country??

So, yes... it's retarded to say : He has nukes so we must invade... especially if the person is REALLY as crazy as he's sold in the media (true for both Iraq and Iran), because if the person REALLY does have the weapons and you invade, then this 'crazed dictator' will unleash all the fury they can muster before being killed.
Click to expand...

It was a hypothetical question, which no one cared to answer.
 
Goobieman said:
Who is talking about invading and occupying Iran?
Click to expand...

Oh nobody in particular... now, this was off a quick search for front page youtube vids from news sources and a quick search for "Iran war" with google news... if you really want I could poke around deeper, but let's not be delusional.

1 - Palin letting it slip that there is intention to go to war with Iran
[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4D9LofMCa8A"]YouTube- Palin Declares War on Iran[/nomedia]

2 - A compilation of news source rhetoric going on comparing Iraq to Iran
[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-eyuFBrWHs"]YouTube- FOX ATTACKS: Iran[/nomedia]

3 - http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2010/04/21/world/international-uk-iran-wargames-gulf.html

4 - Discussion of sanctions
The slippery slope to strikes on Iran - Flynt Leverett & Hillary Mann Leverett - POLITICO.com

5 - And again
Gates Says U.S. Lacks a Policy to Thwart Iran - NYTimes.com
 
BmanMcfly said:
Why would Iran give a missile to Venezuela?? How would that be a benefit to Iran?
Click to expand...

It would draw attention away from sanctions against them... and seriously piss off the U.S.


That's because there's a lag time of several hours between the launch of a nuclear weapon and it's hitting the target. In that time, the retaliatory strike can be launched. What would be the point of winning a war if there's an 80% loss of your people and the annihilation of all the important infrastructure of your country??

So, yes... it's retarded to say : He has nukes so we must invade... especially if the person is REALLY as crazy as he's sold in the media (true for both Iraq and Iran), because if the person REALLY does have the weapons and you invade, then this 'crazed dictator' will unleash all the fury they can muster before being killed.
Click to expand...

It wouldn't take several hours if the Iranians launched a missile off our coast from a cargo ship. There is evidence that Iran has been developing and testing ship launched missile capability.

A relatively small nuclear weapon exploded in the atmosphere over the U.S. would cripple the country. A nuclear weapon exploded over the United States would cripple our electrical system, computer systems, and transportation. Everything that operates with microchips, which is everything, would no longer work. Within a few weeks, there would be no food or water distribution.

If you want to have nightmares for a few weeks, read the EMP Commission Report.

This is why we can't allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon. A small weapon could be easily launched by the Iranians and would leave almost no fingerprints leading back to them. They could cripple us with little chance of reprisal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom