Will Israel strike Iran in the next 18 months?

T

thrustbucket

CAGiversary!
Feedback
7 (100%)
That's the hot topic in news right now. Will Israel allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons if they have intelligence showing Iran is working on nuclear weapons?
 
Intel showing they are within a month of producing a nuclear weapon, or if they have one being put into production (with significant proof). I respect Israeli intel far more then our own, and I don't think they would strike without knowing they are 100% correct.

(edit: in addition to what i wrote, another condition would have to be the rest of the world standing around doing nothing, thinking sanctions are going to work)
 
If Isreal nukes Iran with nukes.. will it somehow damage us? Like physically from radiation? Or does there have to be a ton of bombs going off?
 
[quote name='lilboo']If Isreal nukes Iran with nukes.. will it somehow damage us? Like physically from radiation? Or does there have to be a ton of bombs going off?[/QUOTE]
If there was enough nukes going off, if could cause nuclear winter. Nuclear Winter is only theoretical right now though.

I think Israel will attack Iran. The question is, will it turn into something bigger than just striking some facilities?
 
I think it's obvious that Iran want's nothing more than for Israel to strike them.

I am sure they already have stock footage of burnt bodies, dying children, and homeless old women in front of burning buildings ready to send out to the world at a moments notice.
 
If it got to the point that it was clear that Iran was weaponizing nuke materials, then there international opposition would lessen greatly.

The issue will be if they just strike a nuclear power plant when there's no evidence whatsoever of any nuclear weapons program--which has been the case the past 3 years or so.
 
The problem with that logic, though, is that they very well may have evidence they are making nukes. Just because they don't go public with it doesn't mean they don't have it. Going public with your 'source' and your 'evidence' will pretty much destroy that source.

But I guess what you are saying is that they must publicize such evidence to strike Iran. That's debatable. Knowing Israel though, and how much they have shown they care about international support before, I would be surprised if they did.
 
I'm saying it really takes international inspectors to come out and say they are weaponizing. Reports the past 3 years are that all development has been for energy, that they were pursuing weapons in the past and scrapped that. I tend to agree with Fareed Zakaria that Iran isn't stupid, and know there's a much bigger downside to weaponizing nukes than there is an upside. Unless that changes, international support will be weak for a pre-emptive strike.

Though I almost hope it happens and forces the rest of the world to quit backing Israel so much and let that region solve their own fucking problems and give more incentive to get off dependence on foreign oil--which when it comes down to it is the only reason anyone outside that region gives a shit about the political issues in the middle east. Humanatarian issues aside of course.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I'm saying it really takes international inspectors to come out and say they are weaponizing. Reports the past 3 years are that all development has been for energy, that they were pursuing weapons in the past and scrapped that. I tend to agree with Fareed Zakaria that Iran isn't stupid, and know there's a much bigger downside to weaponizing nukes than there is an upside. Unless that changes, international support will be weak for a pre-emptive strike.[/quote]
I think you are right about Iran not developing nuclear weapons. However, I don't think international support really matters to Israel.
Though I almost hope it happens and forces the rest of the world to quit backing Israel so much and let that region solve their own fucking problems and give more incentive to get off dependence on foreign oil--which when it comes down to it is the only reason anyone outside that region gives a shit about the political issues in the middle east. Humanatarian issues aside of course.
Click to expand...
I understand the need to stop our dependence on foreign oil, and agree it is something we should strive for, but how would we go about doing that right now? I would think it would take a major innovation in technology in order to find something that could replace oil. Hydrogen could work, if we could get the price of the cars down, and build breeder reactors across America to supply the power. Batteries seem to not have enough of a capacity yet, and don't last very long.
 
Nope. Just posturing from them being pissed about the nuclear fuel stuff.

I still don't see Iran being stupid enough to provoke an attack.
 
I wouldn't call it stupid, I'd call it sickly smart. If they can posture enough to get Israel to attack them, they will have succeeded in all their goals, and they will try to convince the world (and probably partially successfully) that Israel attacked them without reason and should be punished.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']So, anyone want to change their vote after this morning?[/QUOTE]

Nope. I'll continue to abstain.

The funny thing about nuclear war ... it is always talk.

Nobody really wants to kill more people in an afternoon that Stalin killed in 20 years.

I'm sure I'll be wrong one of these days. When it happens, I'll probably be too dead to care.
 
The Iranian government seems to love playing mind games. They'd sacrifice the lives of some of their own people just to say "gotcha" to the Israelis.
 
Well it's more than that. It goes deep into the roots of fundamentalist Islam. The people running the show in that government truly believe it is their holy duty to usher in the Madhi, which takes place AFTER a major battle. They have no quams about starting that battle because they truly believe that god will see them through it, no matter the odds.

Them are dangerous opponents to play mind games with.
 
That part is overblown. The Supreme Leader has made statements against nuclear weapons, saying they were against Islam etc.

The people with that extremist view are a small minority. Add in how young the country is, and how much they want change (see all the riots after the election) and I'd be suprised to ever see Iran use a nuke. As most they'd want one to have leverage and feel they were on more equal footing militarily with the western powers and Israel.
 
Iran doesn't need to use a nuke. That's the beauty of their plan. They only need to make Israel think they can and will, to get what they want.

It's a forgone conclusion that there will be conflict, who will strike first is up for debate. The only thing I can think of that might prevent it is an uprising of the people. You used the riots/protests as an example of the people's dissatisfaction, but it's also proof of their inability to get anything changed.
 
theres an opinion out there that the european missle shield was canned to get support from russia in matters concerning iran. i bet theres truth to it.
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']theres an opinion out there that the european missle shield was canned to get support from russia in matters concerning iran. i bet theres truth to it.[/QUOTE]

Except the Russian foreign minister, the day of the announcement that we were unwisely lowering our defenses, basically said this was not the case. Medvedev said when he was in NYC with Obama something to the effect of "why do we have to give anything because the Americans have come to their senses about missile defense?" If there is such a quid pro quo I will be much more impressed with this administration's foreign policy skills than I am now, that's for sure. So let's hope that's the case instead of what it looks like.
 
Missile defense is always crap. Hitting a rock with another rock just seems primitive even if it is at Mach 26. Give me military satellites with lots of solar panels and a laser.
 
In 18 months?

Won't happen. However, I wouldn't discount the idea of an "accident" happening at an Iranian nuclear facility in that time frame.

The idea of a quid pro quo trade of Russia halting nuclear technology aid to Iran in exchange for scrapping a US backed missile defense system would have been a great foreign policy victory - 25 years ago. Now it's too late, and somehow I doubt the Obama administration is to concerned with strongarming foreign dictatorships because we've been so belligerant for the last 8 years. It goes against their new "feel good" philosophy of making the world more safe and peaceful through talking about our problems.

Unfortunately for them, and us, the rest of the world never subscribes to passive "diplomacy", although they like to flip through it on the newsstand. They have the luxury of not having to ask for their people's permission to act on anything sinister. They dictate, and their people go about their business. Their only concerns were to get the US to stop playing hardball. Now they've succeeded, completely. Enrichment technology from Pakistan, missile tech from China and N. Korea, reactor technology and fuel from Russia over the last 30 years has made a nuclear armed Iran a foregone conclusion. All the talking and feel good policies of all you do-gooders will not stop that from happening.
 
bmulligan, you are pretty much right. We live in an America now that wants to be reactive, instead of proactive, when it comes to any military threats - so we have elected leaders that feel the same way.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']bmulligan, you are pretty much right. We live in an America now that wants to be reactive, instead of proactive, when it comes to any military threats - so we have elected leaders that feel the same way.[/QUOTE]

As long as you don't count lost rights and a possible dead zone, reactive is cheaper than proactive.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']bmulligan, you are pretty much right. We live in an America now that wants to be reactive, instead of proactive, when it comes to any military threats - so we have elected leaders that feel the same way.[/QUOTE]

Where does radioactive fit into all of this? :(
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']bmulligan, you are pretty much right. We live in an America now that wants to be reactive, instead of proactive, when it comes to any military threats - so we have elected leaders that feel the same way.[/QUOTE]

We should be proactive through diplomacy. Military action should always be a last resort. It can be preemptive, but only when it's 100% certain that it's needed to stop a major attack on the US or one of our allies.

So I have no really problems with how things are being handled thus far. I'd rather be hit with an attack in which I was killed than have our dumbass government launch baseless invade another country looking for WMDs that end up not existing.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']We should be proactive through diplomacy. Military action should always be a last resort. It can be preemptive, but only when it's 100% certain that it's needed to stop a major attack on the US or one of our allies.

So I have no really problems with how things are being handled thus far. I'd rather be hit with an attack in which I was killed than have our dumbass government launch baseless invade another country looking for WMDs that end up not existing.[/QUOTE]

It's a careful balance, for sure. That's why international politics and experience is such a huge issue in an election, and the one area that caused the most concern for many with Obama.

I agree with you, diplomacy first. I think everyone does, even those you'd consider hawks.

The problem is, now, we have the opposite extreme from Bush. Countries like Iran, Russia, and China all know that they can get away with much much much much more than they ever could a year ago. And they will. It's just a fact. It's up to the American people to decide if that's good or bad or better or worse.

I have very mixed feelings on it all, but it's become clear to me that Iran feels very bold right now and isn't afraid of America, and has no reason to be, unless they attack American soil.
 
I just don't see major war as imminent.

I just see the playing field leveling where we'll no longer have a world with just one or two super powers. I think that's a good thing. From past discussions I know you don't.
 
Well it's not like I'm worried about only having one or two super powers. I am fine with other countries 'coming up to speed' economically.

But if you measure "super powers" with nuclear warhead count, no I don't think it's good to spread that kind of wealth.
 
I agree to an extent.

But I think the more military equality around the globe the better. Less likely to have wars when there are more countries on more equal footing.

But nukes spreading isn't ideal, due to the sheer damage a single one can do if one crazy leader decides to launch it, or a country collapses and they fall into the hands of terrorists, unstable new leaders etc.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Missile defense is always crap. Hitting a rock with another rock just seems primitive even if it is at Mach 26. Give me military satellites with lots of solar panels and a laser.[/QUOTE]

I think they have been trying to research all different feasible methods, with some success (enough to deploy systems in Alaska and California, and we would have in Poland and the Czech Republic). Unfortunately, the current administration is completely anti-missile defense and has tried to drastically reduce funding, and now throws in the towel on our planned defenses for the East Coast from Iranian missiles (you know, the ones they test fired this week). Absolutely insane in my view. Other than terrorist attack, ICBMs fired from terrorists or a rogue state like North Korea or Iran is the most likely way the U.S. would be attacked. We're nuts not to even attempt to defend ourselves, and we'll regret Obama's idiotic decision within the next five to 10 years is my prediction.
 
I think the plan is to hit Iran before they even get a missile that can hit us. And no they don't have anything that can hit us. Europe, yes. Nothing that can hit us.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']We should be proactive through diplomacy. Military action should always be a last resort. It can be preemptive, but only when it's 100% certain that it's needed to stop a major attack on the US or one of our allies.[/quote]

I think we both know that there is no such thing as diplomacy without power. When you have given up your hand, you cannot play from a position of power and, therefore, diplomacy is irrelevant, or non-existent.

So I have no really problems with how things are being handled thus far. I'd rather be hit with an attack in which I was killed than have our dumbass government launch baseless invade another country looking for WMDs that end up not existing.
Click to expand...

I'll agree with you there. The "axis of evil" has done a tremendous job of attacking us and stretching our military resources with very little effort on their part. It could be called a stroke of genius to allow so many middle players to be used against us in this phase of the cold war. (Yes, the cold war never really ended. If you need proof, then just read the paper every morning or watch some television.)

We need to start playing their game and placing our Knaves more strategically instead of sacrificing them on the board. We had a Rook with the missile defense system, yet we're choosing to hide him in the corner and not play, leaving our King unprotected.
 
Why spend so much money on missile defense systems when you can send hundreds of nice formal letters on state letterhead asking people nicely to behave for a fraction of the cost?
 
The major issue is none of the missle defense systems are 100% effective. Who knows what the accuracy is. I've seen things from 50% ot 90% mentioned in different places.

Diplomacy and mutually assured destruction is the way to go. Thus far there has NEVER been a military skirmish of any kind between nuclear armed countries.

Again, we don't really want countries like Iran having nukes, as they're less stable than current nuke countries--other than Pakistan of course. But diplomacy, and military action as a last resort, is the way to go. Not a missile defense shield that may or may not work and costs billions to implement and maintain.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']
Diplomacy and mutually assured destruction is the way to go. Thus far there has NEVER been a military skirmish of any kind between nuclear armed countries.
[/QUOTE]

I do hope you are knocking on wood after that one.
 
[quote name='willardhaven']I do hope you are knocking on wood after that one.[/QUOTE]

Mentally yes. But it's not really needed.

The real worry is a rogue state or terrorist getting a nuke. They'd be much more likely to use it.

As bat shit crazy as some one like Ahmadinejad seems at times, state leaders aren't crazy enough to attack a nuclear armed nation as they no the response would be catastrophic. Even if they disable the other countries, the response from other nations would be overwhelming.

They just want a nuke to be a level playing field with Israel and the west as that makes them much less likely to be invaded etc. if they have that equalizer.

The real worry is whether they can keep their nukes safe--but on that front Pakistan is much more worrisome as that's much more unstable country than Iran.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top