Originally Posted by bhkad

You don't know this.

Originally Posted by obvious Child

More accurately, we don't know anything. As Socrates stated, "We believe much, yet know nothing."

However, we can deduce based upon the facts what is most likely verse what is merely possible.



lol. Was that meant to be a joke?

Explain to me how Iran would use an missile that would instantly incriminate them as the aggressors. Furthermore, explain to me why they would use it against Israel when they cannot deter the US from a secondary attack. Furthermore, if you can manage to do that (extremely unlikely), explain to me why they would choose to use a delivery system that has an insane amount of Gs and shocks that would likely reduce the reliability of a crude weapon to Zero.

Iran, if it is going to nuke Israel, would do so without a missile. As stated before, all one needs is a donkey pulling a cart.

It is not my fault you do not understand the basics mechanics. In the future attacking someone who does when your understanding is in the area of the zero, is a foolish method of proving they are wrong.

Originally Posted by bhkad

Here's what Robert Spencer says about the subject.

Originally Posted by bhkad

As I said it is folly to focus on any one method of delivery, be it donkey cart, suitcase nuke, airborne missile or some other method of attack. You can major in the basic mechanics of nuclear fission or even rocket science and yet not see the most important BIG picture unless you know what the Iranian Mullahs and Ahmadinejad want. And you must understand their belief system.

Originally Posted by obvious Child

Care to discuss the Grand Bargain the Mullahs sent to GWB?

And I have a hard time accepting your argument when McCain called Iran a greater threat then what the USSR posed.

SERIOUSLY.

Originally Posted by obvious Child

The problem is that it ignores Iran's history from the top down view. The leaders of Iran have always sent someone else to die for their agenda. Like all tyrants, they never risk themselves or their own power. Using a nuclear weapon would instantly place themselves and their power at risk. There is a reason North Korea won't use its nuclear weapon first. The goal of tyrants is to stay in power. Using a nuclear weapon that can easily be traced back is a surefire way to eliminate one's self.



Of course nuclear weapons can be delivered in all sorts of ways. That doesn't mean we blow our money on defending against the least likely method of attack. One of the easiest is a donkey with a cart.



Which they have had since the 70s. Silkworms and sunburns aren't new and would require a feat of engineering from Iran to miniaturize a nuke to fit on. Israel spent quite some time and quite a pretty penny to mount a nuke on a tomahawk, But if you're worried about nuclear weapons, worry about the Granit. But last I recall, Russia hasn't let any of those out of their hands. And then there is the issue of reliability on a missile experiencing huge amounts of vibrations. Crude weapons, such as the type Iran would build don't go well with a super sonic weapon. If they really wanted to attack us, they'd simply put a nuke into a cargo container lined with lead and put a suicide bomber in it to ensure it went off. Load it from a French or British port and a month later when it comes into port, boom. High reliability, easy delivery, cheap. Why bother with missiles?



Of course. Hence why the Strait of Hormuz is always a dicey crossing.



No one has, except maybe the Germans during the Soviet Salvos of Kursk. Still, not likely the way a nuke would come.



Why? Iran had similar non-nuclear capacities before. Nothing really has changed.

Originally Posted by Bodhisattva

I am extremely proud of not limiting myself by thinking independently and arriving at the best solution possible regardless of political, religious, cultural, etc. affiliations.

Originally Posted by bhkad

Start a new thread for that subject.

The Koran says that war is deceit. And to get official sanction by the United States as a legitimate regional power would be like the US Government making a deal with known criminals in order to get a non-aggression agreement.

The agreement would not prevent the criminals from acting through proxies to do as they wish and in the opening days, weeks and months, when the US was showing good faith the criminals could be taking advantage of our earnest attempt to abide by the agreement. And when it was clear to all that the criminals were taking advantage of our naivete we would pull out of the deal, naturally. But the damage would be done. AND months from now supporters of the Iran and bashers of America would always be able to say that Iran proposed a peace treaty but the US pulled out.

Yes. Start a new thread on this.