• 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!

UK military steps up plans for Iran attack amid fresh nuclear fears

"We must attack Iran to make the world safe." Yada, yada, yada <making chicken choking hand movement>.

Attacking Iran to make the world safe certainly doesn't make Iran safe. Isn't Iran part of the world?
 
He hasn't done anything and you're already attacking him? WTF.

And shouldn't you be worried about the possibility that there could be another drawn out war costing billions and putting the whole region into chaos? Can America not get involved if Israel decides to go forward with this plan? What are the benefits and fallouts for America? Can Americans bear the costs again? What do you think is best for America?

Discuss the issue, a very important one, instead of making everything into partisan crap before it even happens.

There is no reason to see anything partisan in my post unless you have been programmed to see every criticism of Obama as partisan or racist etc. Imo he would be the same unprincipled incompetent if he were a Republican.

As for the rest of your post, the article clearly states that the action is seen as an air and/or sea battle with no ground invasion. Our casualties would be few or none and the cost of this action would likely be no higher than the missile defense shields we would otherwise provide to protect our interests in the ME, Central Asia and Europe. Even in a worst case scenario in which we had to take out all of Iran's air and sea defenses and all of their ability to retaliate, we'd be talking about a period of weeks at most.

As for Israel doing it alone, this would present a greater danger to the US than if we did it. While Israel might be able to take out most of the nuclear facilities and neutralize Iran's air defense systems, air force and command and control centers, it likely couldn't take out Iran's ability to attack on the ground, and the only targets Iran would be able to reach would be either US interests or other US allies.

In determining whether a strike against Iran at this time is in US interests, since it is clear that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons, one has to ask if we would be better off dealing decisively with Iran in its present state or in dealing with a nuclear Iran. There is no question in my mind that we would be better off doing it now rather than dealing with a nuclear Iran or that it would cost us no more than protecting all our interests and allies from a nuclear Iran.
 
You were referring to the OP in the post I quoted. I was referring to the OP as well.

And I am always focused. You just didn't happen to like what I was focused on. :)

Incorrect.

Follow the chain.

From samsmart responding to OP:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...-amid-fresh-nuclear-fears.html#post1059926170

From me responding to samsmart:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...mid-fresh-nuclear-fears-2.html#post1059926245

From samsmart responding to me:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...mid-fresh-nuclear-fears-2.html#post1059926268

From me responding to samsmart:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...mid-fresh-nuclear-fears-2.html#post1059926293

You jumping in...responding to me:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...mid-fresh-nuclear-fears-2.html#post1059926330


Please try to keep up, eh?
 
Right.

If a Democrat does something, it's always for political glory.

If a Republican does the same thing, it's always for the greater good of our nation.

Please be more partisan. I would like to see if it's possible.

These may be your partisan fantasies you're talking about, but they are not mine. I dislike Obama because he has shown himself to be an unprincipled incompetent.
 

I'm keeping up just fine, but you seem to be a bit befuddled. Please note the bolded part of your post below, which I originally quoted, where you refer to the OP and the OP's sources. My rebuttal was directed at that part of your post. Ergo, my rebuttal was directed at the OP and your defense of him. Have a nice evening. :)


Ummm...

Partisan against Obama...you bet.

Partisan against Democrats...some.

Partisan against Republicans...some.


But I don't go around trying to raise partisanship where it's not warranted. Neither toomuchtime_ nor the linked article referenced Republicans or Democrats...only Obama.
 
Last edited:
The thing is. Iran probably realy is a threat to the human race. When we knock them back to the stone age, confiscate their wealth and use that to rebuild instead of our tax money.

I mean this is more when than if. Iran keeps smacking the dog on the nose, no one should be surprised when it bites.


That being said. I oppose the wars we are still in unnecessarily.
 
I'm keeping up just fine, but you seem to be a bit befuddled. Please note the bolded part of your post below, which I originally quoted, where you refer to the OP and the OP's sources. My rebuttal was directed at that part of your post. Ergo, my rebuttal was directed at the OP and your defense of him. Have a nice evening. :)

A reference to the OP or the OP's sources means nothing without considering what the conversation is about...unless you enjoy going off-topic.

My whole line with samsmart was about his contention of partisanship involving Republicans and Democrats. Your remarks about Obama had nothing to do with that conversational thread.

Perhaps you would have been better served if you had responded to the OP or to my agreement with him.
 
The thing is. Iran probably realy is a threat to the human race. When we knock them back to the stone age, confiscate their wealth and use that to rebuild instead of our tax money.

I mean this is more when than if. Iran keeps smacking the dog on the nose, no one should be surprised when it bites.


That being said. I oppose the wars we are still in unnecessarily.

That's just silly. If Obama conquered Iran, he would punish them by insisting they give up oil in favor of solar and wind power and only drive electric cars.
 
Where would the world be without Americans and our superiority complex? I mean - really! :D

The world would be a much sadder place. Can you imagine the shape we would be in if the Soviets and/or China would have emerged the world's only super power(s)? If Hitler had defeated England and The Soviet Union? The Japanese still controlled most of Asia?
 
Right.

If a Democrat does something, it's always for political glory.

If a Republican does the same thing, it's always for the greater good of our nation.

Please be more partisan. I would like to see if it's possible.

It's purdy safe to say that Obama is out for Obama and screw everyone else.
 
Iran is the only missing link at this point in the construction of the middle eastern oil pipeline, courtesy of NATO (but mainly the U.S.)

It will be attacked soon but likely at grave cost.

That's doubtful. The Iranians couldn't even defeat the Iraqi army.
 
The thing is. Iran probably realy is a threat to the human race. When we knock them back to the stone age, confiscate their wealth and use that to rebuild instead of our tax money.

I mean this is more when than if. Iran keeps smacking the dog on the nose, no one should be surprised when it bites.


That being said. I oppose the wars we are still in unnecessarily.

You've never looked at a map of the ME, either. Have you?
 
Can Iran hit the US with it's "nukes" (50 States proper)?

The answer is "no", Iran can't hit all 50 states, but it could easily devastate the mainland. It is an established fact that Iran has contemplated an EMP (electromagnetic pulse) attack on the U.S. and have practiced launching missiles from ships. All they would have to do is place a medium, or even a short range missile on a freighter and launch a missile to a height of around 125 miles over the center of the U.S. Everything that uses electricity, which is everything we use, would be useless. No electricity for lights or heat. Cars and trucks that weren't sheltered wouldn't work. No food would get delivered. No gas would get delivered for any vehicles that managed to survive the attack. And of course no computers, gps, or other electronic items would work any more. An EMP attack is the biggest threat to the U.S.

Let us say the freighter ship launches a nuclear-armed Shahab-3 missile off the coast of the U.S. and the missile explodes 300 miles over Chicago. The nuclear detonation in space creates an electromagnetic pulse (EMP).

Gamma rays from the explosion, through the Compton Effect, generate three classes of disruptive electromagnetic pulses, which permanently destroy consumer electronics, the electronics in some automobiles and, most importantly, the hundreds of large transformers that distribute power throughout the U.S. All of our lights, refrigerators, water-pumping stations, TVs and radios stop running. We have no communication and no ability to provide food and water to 300 million Americans.

This is what is referred to as an EMP attack, and such an attack would effectively throw America back technologically into the early 19th century. It would require the Iranians to be able to produce a warhead as sophisticated as we expect the Russians or the Chinese to possess. But that is certainly attainable. Common sense would suggest that, absent food and water, the number of people who could die of deprivation and as a result of social breakdown might run well into the millions.

Let us be clear. A successful EMP attack on the U.S. would have a dramatic effect on the country, to say the least. Even one that only affected part of the country would cripple the economy for years. Dropping nuclear weapons on or retaliating against whoever caused the attack would not help. And an EMP attack is not far-fetched.

Twice in the last eight years, in the Caspian Sea, the Iranians have tested their ability to launch ballistic missiles in a way to set off an EMP. The congressionally mandated EMP Commission, with some of America's finest scientists, has released its findings and issued two separate reports, the most recent in April, describing the devastating effects of such an attack on the U.S.
MissileThreat :: Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Weapons


Iran could cripple the U.S. if they obtain a nuclear weapon.
 
Last edited:
The answer is "no", Iran can't hit all 50 states, but it could easily devastate the mainland. It is an established fact that Iran has contemplated an EMP (electromagnetic pulse) attack on the U.S. and have practiced launching missiles from ships. All they would have to do is place a medium, or even a short range missile on a freighter and launch a missile to a height of around 125 miles over the center of the U.S. Everything that uses electricity, which is everything we use, would be useless. No electricity for lights or heat. Cars and trucks that weren't sheltered wouldn't work. No food would get delivered. No gas would get delivered for any vehicles that managed to survive the attack. And of course no computers, gps, or other electronic items would work any more. An EMP attack is the biggest threat to the U.S.


MissileThreat :: Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Weapons


Iran could cripple the U.S. if they obtain a nuclear weapon.

They would have to take a vessel close to America to launch something over the middle of America. I think a lot of this is just fear mongering and story telling.
 
They would have to take a vessel close to America to launch something over the middle of America. I think a lot of this is just fear mongering and story telling.

You are correct. But........a commercial freighter could easily get within easy range of the U.S. coastline. Even if they stayed outside the 200 mile U.S. limit, they have missiles that could easily launch over the continental U.S.

But you feel free to ignore the warnings by the Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United State to Congress.
 
Maps of the ME overextend our army?

Look at a map of the ME and you'll see that the only way to get to Iran is through and Iraq and/or Afghanistan. The crux of some posts, is that we could take on Iran, had we just not invaded Iraq and Afghanistan.
 
the last thing we should be spending money on is another war in the middle east.

if you want to strike a real blow against Iran, spend the money to develop a transportation fuel / strategy that allows us to supply our own energy.

oil is what funds these regimes.
 
You are correct. But........a commercial freighter could easily get within easy range of the U.S. coastline. Even if they stayed outside the 200 mile U.S. limit, they have missiles that could easily launch over the continental U.S.

But you feel free to ignore the warnings by the Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United State to Congress.

Yeah, and what if Godzilla attacked, we wouldn't be prepared. What if zombie outbreak occured! Why are you ignoring the warnings.

We can make up a near infinite number of scenarios, how likely is this? Does the capability currently exist? Is there any indication that they really want to try to implement this? What is the success probability if so? THOSE are the questions you need to answer. Not throwing out wild stories attempting to get me to piss myself over Iran.
 
the last thing we should be spending money on is another war in the middle east.

if you want to strike a real blow against Iran, spend the money to develop a transportation fuel / strategy that allows us to supply our own energy.

oil is what funds these regimes.

That;s right, we need to open up offshore drilling on all our coasts. Some of the largest reserves of natural gas in the world are just a few miles offshore.
 
Look at a map of the ME and you'll see that the only way to get to Iran is through and Iraq and/or Afghanistan. The crux of some posts, is that we could take on Iran, had we just not invaded Iraq and Afghanistan.

Well we're already in those places, so what's the big deal?
 
That;s right, we need to open up offshore drilling on all our coasts. Some of the largest reserves of natural gas in the world are just a few miles offshore.

So long as the regulatory commission is not being bribed by big oil and instead of inspecting the rigs and making sure rules are followed, doing cocaine off of hooker's asses.
 
We can make up a near infinite number of scenarios, how likely is this?

No doubt Iran can get their hands on a freighter.


Does the capability currently exist?

They have a missile that can reach Israel.

Is there any indication that they really want to try to implement this?

They've implemented everything else.

What is the success probability if so?

High
 
Back
Top Bottom