• 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

Past precedent, for one. Iran knows who butters its bread, and Russia's been doing it for a couple decades. Why do you think they have a ton of Russian aircraft?

Actually they have a ton of Russian aircraft from the Iran-Iraq War when many Iraqi pilots flew to Iran and surrendered. The Iranians stayed with the aircraft after they let go the Iraqi pilots.
 
It would draw attention away from sanctions against them... and seriously piss off the U.S.

Wouldn't sanctions alone be an act of war against Iran??

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.

I'd say that couldn't happen with the millitaries capacity to find and track ships off america's coasts... but with all the routes left open for the drug traffickers I'm not so sure that'd be true.

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.

Ya, an EMP would cripple the area of the country that is affected under such a circumstance... what would be the area of effect of an EMP?? I mean, are we talking about an area of the downtown of a city? the greater area of the city? The greater part of the state? Or a large portion of the country?

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.

Or, we could stop instigating fights with them... I'm just saying, Iran has been around for thousands of years, and have suffered many attempts at invasion without ever losing an inch of territory. They will be better armed and trained then the Iraqi army, and any ground forces would see such tremendous losses that the ONLY way that a war with Iran is won is by nuking them.

There are several analysts that are saying that ANY offensive against Iran would signal the start of world war 3.

Just a suggestion, try actually reading the scripts of Ahmenijad's speech's (especially the ones that have been most demonized in western media)... and tell me if you still think he's such a crazed dictatos. (Note: I AM NOT saying that ahminijad, or saddam for that matter, were anything of 'good guys'... simply NOT as evil as they are being presented)
 
Wouldn't sanctions alone be an act of war against Iran??



I'd say that couldn't happen with the millitaries capacity to find and track ships off america's coasts... but with all the routes left open for the drug traffickers I'm not so sure that'd be true.



Ya, an EMP would cripple the area of the country that is affected under such a circumstance... what would be the area of effect of an EMP?? I mean, are we talking about an area of the downtown of a city? the greater area of the city? The greater part of the state? Or a large portion of the country?



Or, we could stop instigating fights with them... I'm just saying, Iran has been around for thousands of years, and have suffered many attempts at invasion without ever losing an inch of territory. They will be better armed and trained then the Iraqi army, and any ground forces would see such tremendous losses that the ONLY way that a war with Iran is won is by nuking them.

There are several analysts that are saying that ANY offensive against Iran would signal the start of world war 3.

Just a suggestion, try actually reading the scripts of Ahmenijad's speech's (especially the ones that have been most demonized in western media)... and tell me if you still think he's such a crazed dictatos. (Note: I AM NOT saying that ahminijad, or saddam for that matter, were anything of 'good guys'... simply NOT as evil as they are being presented)

The size of the area affected would depend on the size of the weapon and the height of its detonation. I would have to read the report again but I believe a relatively small nuclear device detonated at least 60 km above the surface in the middle of the country would disable a good portion of the midwest. The EMP Report has maps with different scenarios in it.

I doubt the military would pay that much attention to a cargo ship that was properly flagged and logged. They could easily launch from 50 to 100 miles from our shore.
 
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.
You do know that "going to war with Iran" isn't all necessarily the same as "invading and occuyping Iran", right?
 
You do know that "going to war with Iran" isn't all necessarily the same as "invading and occuyping Iran", right?

yep, and i hope you appreciate that such a war is very likely to disrupt the world's economy due to the resulting uncertainty about the availability of oil
is keeping nuclear weapons out of iranian hands worth it?
 
yep, and i hope you appreciate that such a war is very likely to disrupt the world's economy due to the resulting uncertainty about the availability of oil
is keeping nuclear weapons out of iranian hands worth it?
Far less so than a nuclear exchange between Iran and Israel.

That something necessary may be hard and costly in no way makes it less necessary.
 
yep, and i hope you appreciate that such a war is very likely to disrupt the world's economy due to the resulting uncertainty about the availability of oil
is keeping nuclear weapons out of iranian hands worth it?

How would turning Iran into a 18th century country affect the availability of oil?

Or are you arguing that Iran would actually last more than 2 hrs. in an all out US air and Naval assault?
 
Far less so than a nuclear exchange between Iran and Israel.

That something necessary may be hard and costly in no way makes it less necessary.

you seem to believe such a nuclear exchange is probable
in my view that is very unlikely


what i do anticipate will soon be visited upon us (the world, not necessarily the USA) is the use of biological weapons by the terrorists
they can both obtain and disseminate those highly toxic agents of warfare much easier than anything nuclear
as a result, that would be my focus in planning for a deterrent

truly hope we are both wrong
 
You do know that "going to war with Iran" isn't all necessarily the same as "invading and occuyping Iran", right?

Yes, they are not necessarily the same... except short of using Iraq as a staging area, could you elaborate as to what a war with Iran would be engaged WITHOUT putting boots on the ground?

Far less so than a nuclear exchange between Iran and Israel.

Elaborate please.

That something necessary may be hard and costly in no way makes it less necessary.

Ok, let's just say that Iran has nukes... what would be the motivation for Iran to commit suicide by attempting to nuke israel??

How would turning Iran into a 18th century country affect the availability of oil?

Ummm... Iran is #3 oil producer in the world by volume...

Or are you arguing that Iran would actually last more than 2 hrs. in an all out US air and Naval assault?

Unless it's a 2hr nuclear assault.... yes. If you don't remember, the same type of chest pumping was done before going to war with Iraq... the people were supposed to greet the soldiers with open arms and praise... yet, we're still seeing casualties years later.
 
Yes, they are not necessarily the same... except short of using Iraq as a staging area, could you elaborate as to what a war with Iran would be engaged WITHOUT putting boots on the ground?
Air and missile strikes on relevant infrastructure. Some degree of land effort -will- be necessary, such as raids on places that air assets cannot reach as well as forward observers to guide munitions ad evaluate effect. Limited-scale ground actions might also be necessary, but certainly not a general invasion and occupation.

The intent is, after all, to remove their ability to develop nuclear weapons, not overthrow the government.

Elaborate please.
On how a general nuclear exchange between Iran and Israel would have a greater negative effect on the world economy than a conventional strike on Iran to remove the possibility of developing a nuclear weapon?
You need that explained?

Ok, let's just say that Iran has nukes... what would be the motivation for Iran to commit suicide by attempting to nuke israel??
Iran's position on Israel is well known - they want Israel destroyed.
Israel is a one- or two- nuke country, where just 1-2 weapons will destroy her. Up until the time that Iran could use a nuke, Iran could not damage Israel enough to destroy her, putting the cost/benefit ration on Israel's side; with the ability to destory Israel with 1-2 weapons, this ratio changes.

And so, if that ratio changes enough, the destruction of Israel may very well be 'worth it' to those that make those decisions.
 
Last edited:
Isreal is a one- or two- nuke country, where just 1-2 weapons will destroy her.

If you really believe that after all this time Isreal just has 1 or 2 nukes, I have some land in Iraq to sell you real cheap.
 
If you really believe that after all this time Isreal just has 1 or 2 nukes, I have some land in Iraq to sell you real cheap.
Pay more attention:

Israel is a one- or two- nuke country, where just 1-2 weapons will destroy her.
 
If you really believe that after all this time Isreal just has 1 or 2 nukes, I have some land in Iraq to sell you real cheap.
You're not trying to profit off the people of Iraq are you? ;)
 
You're not trying to profit off the people of Iraq are you? ;)

No Bush and the Cheney pretty much did that with the Republicans and conservatives cheering them on.
 
No Bush and the Cheney pretty much did that with the Republicans and conservatives cheering them on.
You don't have proof of that, come on.
 
No Bush and the Cheney pretty much did that with the Republicans and conservatives cheering them on.
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
Partisan bigotry at its finest.
 
You don't have proof of that, come on.

Bush and Cheney used fear to their advantage in the 2004 elections. You may not like it, but yes, they profited off the invasion. How many times did we see the "color" threat warnings before the elections?

I'm sure though that you believe Bush and Cheney were COMPLETELY innocent and they didn't do ANY MANIPULATION whatsoever.
 
The truth always is. Sorry you can't handle it, now go run away boy.
Silly me, thinking that you might be capable of adding something worthwhile to a conversation among adults.
 
Back
Top Bottom