Iran's Nuclear Program
- Thread starter earth_as_one
- Start date
A Mexican standoff is most precisely a confrontation between three opponents. The tactics for such a confrontation are substantially different than for a duel with only two opponents, where the first to shoot has the advantage. In a confrontation with three mutually hostile participants, the first to shoot is at a tactical disadvantage. If opponent A shoots opponent B, then while so occupied, opponent C can shoot A, thus winning the conflict. Since it is the second opponent to shoot that has the advantage, no one wants to go first.
DS,
I'm not trying to twist your words, but following your logic, you are making a point in favor of Iran and some nation hostile to both Iran and US/Israel possessing nukes.
I think you meant MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) where both sides have the ability to annihilate the other. I'm pretty certain Iran has enough non-nuke weapon options to destroy Israel and hurt the US that they don't need nuclear weapons for MAD.
Iran's capabilities:
ICBMs with MIRVs which can simultaneously reach Israel and Europe.
Radar evading, cruise missiles which can reach Israel and US targets throughout the region
Thousands of two man boats armed with super-gravitating torpedoes.
Advanced SAMs and anti-ship missiles.
Advanced research in dual purpose technologies (vaccines, genetics, chemical fertilizers, pesticides... -> CWs and BWs) although Iran has no declared stockpiles since they got rid of their CW munitions in the 1980's.
If Israel attacks Iran, I'm pretty certain they'll get an unpleasant response, which Iran can escalate to include BWs and CWs if Israel goes non-conventional. If Israel attacks Iran's nuclear sites, I'm fairly certain the response would be to target Israel's nuclear sites... most of which are probably well known by Iran.
I often disagree with gerryh, but not on his point:
gerryh: I'm having a problem understanding why ANYONE would support another country developing nuclear weapons. Why would anyone want to increase the chance of a nuclear war?
DS,
I'm not trying to twist your words, but following your logic, you are making a point in favor of Iran and some nation hostile to both Iran and US/Israel possessing nukes.
I think you meant MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) where both sides have the ability to annihilate the other. I'm pretty certain Iran has enough non-nuke weapon options to destroy Israel and hurt the US that they don't need nuclear weapons for MAD.
Iran's capabilities:
ICBMs with MIRVs which can simultaneously reach Israel and Europe.
Radar evading, cruise missiles which can reach Israel and US targets throughout the region
Thousands of two man boats armed with super-gravitating torpedoes.
Advanced SAMs and anti-ship missiles.
Advanced research in dual purpose technologies (vaccines, genetics, chemical fertilizers, pesticides... -> CWs and BWs) although Iran has no declared stockpiles since they got rid of their CW munitions in the 1980's.
If Israel attacks Iran, I'm pretty certain they'll get an unpleasant response, which Iran can escalate to include BWs and CWs if Israel goes non-conventional. If Israel attacks Iran's nuclear sites, I'm fairly certain the response would be to target Israel's nuclear sites... most of which are probably well known by Iran.
I often disagree with gerryh, but not on his point:
gerryh: I'm having a problem understanding why ANYONE would support another country developing nuclear weapons. Why would anyone want to increase the chance of a nuclear war?
Then why do you continue to support Iran in their push to develop nuclear weapons using the excuse that Israel possess them so why shouldn't Iran.
And I expected that- Obama is on the right track - reductions - and it all takes time. I understand that- to think they will all sit down and say- we all agree to get rid of nukes is not going to happen for a long time.
Why flap your lips for ten minutes for something that can be said with two words...:smile:
Because it was more fun missing the three question marks at the end of the question, so as to make it sound like you stated it, instead of asked it.
I find it odd that some that cries incessantly about other member twisting words, or whatnot, would do that.
At any rate, it's against the new policy.
I agree with you. No nation should possess nuclear weapons. Neither Iran or Israel. I support the NPT requirement that all nuke weapon possessing nations must reduce and eliminate their nuclear arsenals. I am not opposed to keeping a few hundred nukes around under strict international controls in the unlikely event we need one to destroy an asteroid on a collision course with earth or defend earth from an alien invasion.
I have never made a statement in favor of Iran possessing nuclear weapons. I oppose Iran enriching beyond 20% (no purpose except to make nuclear weapon components) or attempting to build and test a nuclear weapon. Iran can enrich uranium up to the 20% limit which is sufficient for power generation and medical isotope production. I support continued IAEA monitoring of Iran's nuclear program to verify they remain NPT compliant and that they don't have a clandestine nuclear weapons program.
Is making a deliberate false statement against Forum Rules- As you have appointed yourself to be the Rule Meister I seek your advice.
I have never made a statement in favor of Iran possessing nuclear weapons. If you believe otherwise then quote me. When you realize that you can't find a quote which supports your opinion, then the right thing to do would be to retract your false allegation and apologize.
There ya go jumping to conclusions- I sought your advice. That was all. I did not break or bend any rules.
I just tagged my question on your post.
Oh yes I have made posts where you have yet to apologize.
The same would apply to your twisting Colpy's posts.
Now complain to the Mods if you wish - Red tag it if you feel that need.
Back to you. And why you have you still not apologized for those posts? Valid reasons would be kinda neat I would say.
Just a momentary stray post. Agh Beg4Givness. I promise to follow the straight and narrow - till I stray agin.
But you see no reason for Iran not to have Nuke Weapons?
