|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
contrarian
Joined: 20 Jan 2007
Location: Nearly in NK
|
 Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2008 10:34 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| The Russians are doing very well financially selling atomic data and materail to Iran. They also sell a lot of weapons. The same with Syria. The US/Israel takes them out and they get to do it again. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 12, 2008 4:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| NAVFC wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| The Bush Administration is showing restraint. Excellent. This means that the U.S. gains leverage over Iran. |
How? since sanctions arent working, the longer we restrain israel the longer Iran has to develop its capability..itll be just like North Korea |
The permission can be given at any time.
I don't understand why the US should deny itself a card to play. Did the US invade Iraq just to bend over and give up Iraqi airspace for Israel's whims, carte blanche? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
contrarian
Joined: 20 Jan 2007
Location: Nearly in NK
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 12, 2008 5:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| One of the prime reasons for 9/11 and everything since then was the US support for Isreal. That will no chnage. For example Obama is certain to lose Florida becuase he's lost the Jewish vote. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NAVFC
Joined: 10 May 2006
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 12, 2008 5:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| NAVFC wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| The Bush Administration is showing restraint. Excellent. This means that the U.S. gains leverage over Iran. |
How? since sanctions arent working, the longer we restrain israel the longer Iran has to develop its capability..itll be just like North Korea |
The permission can be given at any time.
I don't understand why the US should deny itself a card to play. Did the US invade Iraq just to bend over and give up Iraqi airspace for Israel's whims, carte blanche? |
This makes no sense. its not aout hving a card. As once Iran is nuclear armed all bets are off, the power balance changes. By denying Israel the permission, we are shooting ourselves in the foot. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 12, 2008 6:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| NAVFC wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| NAVFC wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| The Bush Administration is showing restraint. Excellent. This means that the U.S. gains leverage over Iran. |
How? since sanctions arent working, the longer we restrain israel the longer Iran has to develop its capability..itll be just like North Korea |
The permission can be given at any time.
I don't understand why the US should deny itself a card to play. Did the US invade Iraq just to bend over and give up Iraqi airspace for Israel's whims, carte blanche? |
This makes no sense. its not aout hving a card. As once Iran is nuclear armed all bets are off, the power balance changes. By denying Israel the permission, we are shooting ourselves in the foot. |
So kindly explain to me. How does one conduct diplomacy? One should preferably have something the other needs, or something the other wants. Carrot or stick, hopefully both. The beauty about holding this card is that if diplomacy fails, and Iran is at a very developed stage of nuclear research, the US can give the permission. As simple as a phone call. One wonders why this doesn't make any sense.
Unless of course you just want to see Iran bombed. In which case, holding the card is not what you do. Of course just allowing Israel to simply bomb Iran is probably a very, very poor move. After all, Iran holds its own cards, specifically Hezbollah which is a world-wide terrorist network waiting to strike across the world.
And I would dispute the idea that sanctions are not working. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ReeseDog
Joined: 05 Apr 2008
Location: Classified
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 12, 2008 7:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Israel knows that should Iran become capable of putting nukes in the air, Tel Aviv is toast. Israel will act, at some point, with or without US sanction.
And we will back them up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 12, 2008 11:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The US needs a new strategy for dealing with Iran.
Essential to such a strategy is having the right weapons to send Iran the right message. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NAVFC
Joined: 10 May 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2008 1:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| NAVFC wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| NAVFC wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| The Bush Administration is showing restraint. Excellent. This means that the U.S. gains leverage over Iran. |
How? since sanctions arent working, the longer we restrain israel the longer Iran has to develop its capability..itll be just like North Korea |
The permission can be given at any time.
I don't understand why the US should deny itself a card to play. Did the US invade Iraq just to bend over and give up Iraqi airspace for Israel's whims, carte blanche? |
This makes no sense. its not aout hving a card. As once Iran is nuclear armed all bets are off, the power balance changes. By denying Israel the permission, we are shooting ourselves in the foot. |
So kindly explain to me. How does one conduct diplomacy? One should preferably have something the other needs, or something the other wants. Carrot or stick, hopefully both. The beauty about holding this card is that if diplomacy fails, and Iran is at a very developed stage of nuclear research, the US can give the permission. As simple as a phone call. One wonders why this doesn't make any sense.
Unless of course you just want to see Iran bombed. In which case, holding the card is not what you do. Of course just allowing Israel to simply bomb Iran is probably a very, very poor move. After all, Iran holds its own cards, specifically Hezbollah which is a world-wide terrorist network waiting to strike across the world.
And I would dispute the idea that sanctions are not working. |
With all do respect, have you been living under a rock?
Weve been enganging Iran diplomaticlly for 6 years.
This started in 2002. Weve offered Iran WTO membership, economic incentives, nuclear reactors and nuclear (non weaponizable) technology assistance, weve offered security gaurantees and normaliation of relations. So dont even get started on the whole diplomacy thing
back when this whole thing started back in 2002 when there secret nuclear program was outted by dissidents intelligence reported that sometime after 2010 Iran would be capable of building a bomb. That was 2002.
The EU and US have offered everything under the Sun and each time the Iranians turned it down. You cant expect the UN to offer Iran the world on a platter!
And obviously, sanctions AREN'T working. Iran's behavior hasnt changed.
well its late 2008. 2010 is right around the corner. We cant fiddle around with the Iranians anymore.
When the program was outted it was discovered to have already been going on 20 years!
This leaves us strapped for time.
Furthermore, if we let them get to far then bombing will be impossbile without massive civilians casualties due to radiation poisoning, such as if they are allowed to put nuclear fuel into the Bushehr reactor, or get the full cascade at Natanz up.
That gives the world a very limited amount of time in which to consider a military strike to avert there nuclearization.
Diplomacy is good, but this is a joke just like North Korea "lets talk nice with them and hope they dont do it"
Iran has had far more incentives offered to it then anyone, The last offer Iran turned down from the US and EU was very very lucrative and would have been a huge boon to the Iranian economy, but they too turned that down.
And the fact that they are still at it, and still seem to have the same attitude, shows that sanctions ARENT working.
Oh and as you may or may not be aware Russia and China have shot down the latest attempt to censure Iran in the UN (russias motive being ovious) so thanks to those 2 nations the diplomatic process is at a virtual dead lock, given they have Veto power on UNSEC.
Last edited by NAVFC on Sat Sep 13, 2008 1:27 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NAVFC
Joined: 10 May 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2008 1:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
The US needs a new strategy for dealing with Iran.
Essential to such a strategy is having the right weapons to send Iran the right message. |
We do.... bunker busters, of the 30000 lb and 5000 lb variety.
The following facilities will need to be destroyed:
The Reactors at Busherh, and Arak. Arak is a reactor that will output plutonium as a byproduct.
The uranium enrichment facility at Natanz.
The Uranium Conversion facility at Eshfahanz.
Also, B-2s modified to carry the new 30000lb bunker buster bomb will need to destroy the underground nuclear facilities at chalus.
This facility is however, staffed by experts from Russia, China and North Korea. However due to a desire to not be seen as helping Iran go nuclear, i doubt those 3 nations will make much of a fuss at the death of their personnel
there is also a Nuclear weapons development facility near the Karin river called Darkhovin.
Iran has been offered incentive after incentive after incentive, and each time they basiclly tell the international community to f-off.
2010 is getting close.
We cant afford to just wait around and do nothing. If Iran isnt going to listen to diplomacy then military force must be considered.
Alot of people shout diplomacy, diplomacy" without even stopping to consider that diplomacy has been ongoing and been failing. Lucrative diplomacy all kinds of offers being made.
if diplomacy fails, then the longer we wait the more risk we assume with a strike (such as from radiation poisoning) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2008 2:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| NAVFC wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
The US needs a new strategy for dealing with Iran.
Essential to such a strategy is having the right weapons to send Iran the right message. |
We do.... bunker busters, of the 30000 lb and 5000 lb variety.
The following facilities will need to be destroyed:
The Reactors at Busherh, and Arak. Arak is a reactor that will output plutonium as a byproduct.
The uranium enrichment facility at Natanz.
The Uranium Conversion facility at Eshfahanz.
Also, B-2s modified to carry the new 30000lb bunker buster bomb will need to destroy the underground nuclear facilities at chalus.
This facility is however, staffed by experts from Russia, China and North Korea. However due to a desire to not be seen as helping Iran go nuclear, i doubt those 3 nations will make much of a fuss at the death of their personnel
there is also a Nuclear weapons development facility near the Karin river called Darkhovin.
Iran has been offered incentive after incentive after incentive, and each time they basiclly tell the international community to f-off.
2010 is getting close.
We cant afford to just wait around and do nothing. If Iran isnt going to listen to diplomacy then military force must be considered.
Alot of people shout diplomacy, diplomacy" without even stopping to consider that diplomacy has been ongoing and been failing. Lucrative diplomacy all kinds of offers being made.
if diplomacy fails, then the longer we wait the more risk we assume with a strike (such as from radiation poisoning) |
Bunker busters are not powerful enough..
And in fact air power probably isn't powerful enough to knock out Iran.
Israel couldn't knock out Hizzbollah with airpower.
Nuclear weapons are a taboo.
The US needs something else. Something much , much more powerful than bunker busters.
The the US would be able put Iran on notice. They will not be able to use nuclear weapons to save themselves from the consequences of sponsoring terror.
At the same time bombing Iran right now would empower the hardliners for another 20 years. We don't know who is going to lead Iran when its supreme leader dies. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NAVFC
Joined: 10 May 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2008 12:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| NAVFC wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
The US needs a new strategy for dealing with Iran.
Essential to such a strategy is having the right weapons to send Iran the right message. |
We do.... bunker busters, of the 30000 lb and 5000 lb variety.
The following facilities will need to be destroyed:
The Reactors at Busherh, and Arak. Arak is a reactor that will output plutonium as a byproduct.
The uranium enrichment facility at Natanz.
The Uranium Conversion facility at Eshfahanz.
Also, B-2s modified to carry the new 30000lb bunker buster bomb will need to destroy the underground nuclear facilities at chalus.
This facility is however, staffed by experts from Russia, China and North Korea. However due to a desire to not be seen as helping Iran go nuclear, i doubt those 3 nations will make much of a fuss at the death of their personnel
there is also a Nuclear weapons development facility near the Karin river called Darkhovin.
Iran has been offered incentive after incentive after incentive, and each time they basiclly tell the international community to f-off.
2010 is getting close.
We cant afford to just wait around and do nothing. If Iran isnt going to listen to diplomacy then military force must be considered.
Alot of people shout diplomacy, diplomacy" without even stopping to consider that diplomacy has been ongoing and been failing. Lucrative diplomacy all kinds of offers being made.
if diplomacy fails, then the longer we wait the more risk we assume with a strike (such as from radiation poisoning) |
Bunker busters are not powerful enough..
And in fact air power probably isn't powerful enough to knock out Iran.
Israel couldn't knock out Hizzbollah with airpower.
Nuclear weapons are a taboo.
The US needs something else. Something much , much more powerful than bunker busters.
The the US would be able put Iran on notice. They will not be able to use nuclear weapons to save themselves from the consequences of sponsoring terror.
At the same time bombing Iran right now would empower the hardliners for another 20 years. We don't know who is going to lead Iran when its supreme leader dies. |
The new 30000lb bunker buster is more then adequate for destroying Iran's hardened nuclear facilties. The goal of any strike wouldnt be to "knock out" Iran, but to destroy their nuclear production capabilities.
As far as the note about sponsoring terror, Iran has been doing that for years vis a vis, Hezbollah without many consequences so I doubt they are too concerned.
If Iran goes nuclear it will change the balance of power and cause a middle eastern arms race, where many nations in the ME will want nuclear weapons simply to counter Iran.
That would gravely increase the chances of a weapon falling into terrorist hands.
Not to mention, but then said nations will also feel alot more bold, and will do things knowing that the incentive to stop them from doing such just shrank when they went nuclear..the North Korea effect...having nuclear weapons is the only reason KJI is still in power. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2008 12:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| NAVFC wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| NAVFC wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
The US needs a new strategy for dealing with Iran.
Essential to such a strategy is having the right weapons to send Iran the right message. |
We do.... bunker busters, of the 30000 lb and 5000 lb variety.
The following facilities will need to be destroyed:
The Reactors at Busherh, and Arak. Arak is a reactor that will output plutonium as a byproduct.
The uranium enrichment facility at Natanz.
The Uranium Conversion facility at Eshfahanz.
Also, B-2s modified to carry the new 30000lb bunker buster bomb will need to destroy the underground nuclear facilities at chalus.
This facility is however, staffed by experts from Russia, China and North Korea. However due to a desire to not be seen as helping Iran go nuclear, i doubt those 3 nations will make much of a fuss at the death of their personnel
there is also a Nuclear weapons development facility near the Karin river called Darkhovin.
Iran has been offered incentive after incentive after incentive, and each time they basiclly tell the international community to f-off.
2010 is getting close.
We cant afford to just wait around and do nothing. If Iran isnt going to listen to diplomacy then military force must be considered.
Alot of people shout diplomacy, diplomacy" without even stopping to consider that diplomacy has been ongoing and been failing. Lucrative diplomacy all kinds of offers being made.
if diplomacy fails, then the longer we wait the more risk we assume with a strike (such as from radiation poisoning) |
Bunker busters are not powerful enough..
And in fact air power probably isn't powerful enough to knock out Iran.
Israel couldn't knock out Hizzbollah with airpower.
Nuclear weapons are a taboo.
The US needs something else. Something much , much more powerful than bunker busters.
The the US would be able put Iran on notice. They will not be able to use nuclear weapons to save themselves from the consequences of sponsoring terror.
At the same time bombing Iran right now would empower the hardliners for another 20 years. We don't know who is going to lead Iran when its supreme leader dies. |
The new 30000lb bunker buster is more then adequate for destroying Iran's hardened nuclear facilties. The goal of any strike wouldnt be to "knock out" Iran, but to destroy their nuclear production capabilities.
As far as the note about sponsoring terror, Iran has been doing that for years vis a vis, Hezbollah without many consequences so I doubt they are too concerned. |
According to Seymour Hersh, yes, the goal of an Israeli strike on Iran would be precisely to knock out Iranian command and control. They would strike Tehran political and military targets in the hopes of paralyzing the country and allowing perhaps for a more extended campaign against their extensive and protected nuclear research sites and missile facilities. Their nuclear production capabilities, such as little as we know about them, are more spread out and protected than Osiraq was in the early 80s. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NAVFC
Joined: 10 May 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2008 1:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| NAVFC wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| NAVFC wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
The US needs a new strategy for dealing with Iran.
Essential to such a strategy is having the right weapons to send Iran the right message. |
We do.... bunker busters, of the 30000 lb and 5000 lb variety.
The following facilities will need to be destroyed:
The Reactors at Busherh, and Arak. Arak is a reactor that will output plutonium as a byproduct.
The uranium enrichment facility at Natanz.
The Uranium Conversion facility at Eshfahanz.
Also, B-2s modified to carry the new 30000lb bunker buster bomb will need to destroy the underground nuclear facilities at chalus.
This facility is however, staffed by experts from Russia, China and North Korea. However due to a desire to not be seen as helping Iran go nuclear, i doubt those 3 nations will make much of a fuss at the death of their personnel
there is also a Nuclear weapons development facility near the Karin river called Darkhovin.
Iran has been offered incentive after incentive after incentive, and each time they basiclly tell the international community to f-off.
2010 is getting close.
We cant afford to just wait around and do nothing. If Iran isnt going to listen to diplomacy then military force must be considered.
Alot of people shout diplomacy, diplomacy" without even stopping to consider that diplomacy has been ongoing and been failing. Lucrative diplomacy all kinds of offers being made.
if diplomacy fails, then the longer we wait the more risk we assume with a strike (such as from radiation poisoning) |
Bunker busters are not powerful enough..
And in fact air power probably isn't powerful enough to knock out Iran.
Israel couldn't knock out Hizzbollah with airpower.
Nuclear weapons are a taboo.
The US needs something else. Something much , much more powerful than bunker busters.
The the US would be able put Iran on notice. They will not be able to use nuclear weapons to save themselves from the consequences of sponsoring terror.
At the same time bombing Iran right now would empower the hardliners for another 20 years. We don't know who is going to lead Iran when its supreme leader dies. |
The new 30000lb bunker buster is more then adequate for destroying Iran's hardened nuclear facilties. The goal of any strike wouldnt be to "knock out" Iran, but to destroy their nuclear production capabilities.
As far as the note about sponsoring terror, Iran has been doing that for years vis a vis, Hezbollah without many consequences so I doubt they are too concerned. |
According to Seymour Hersh, yes, the goal of an Israeli strike on Iran would be precisely to knock out Iranian command and control. They would strike Tehran political and military targets in the hopes of paralyzing the country and allowing perhaps for a more extended campaign against their extensive and protected nuclear research sites and missile facilities. Their nuclear production capabilities, such as little as we know about them, are more spread out and protected than Osiraq was in the early 80s. |
Hersh? since when is a guy who as of late has made some crazy claims,
(such as that US Navy seals would attack fellow americans..explained later in this post)
and Seymour Hersh has very little credbility.
1. His guessing is speculation at best. No Israeli official has ever briefed him on their contingency plans. He hasnt been to any planning meetings. Nothing. He has no credibility. Hes like the boy who called wolf.
He has said seevral times about both the US and Israel that well be going to war this month or that month and sure enough it doesnt happen.
Especially when he said the US was going to us B-61 thermonuclear bombs on Iran..
That in itself shows him non credible on this issue, as the B-61 thermonuclear bomb is a gravity bomb that detonates on the surface not underground
Or Hersh's claim that Cheney planned a operation to start a war by having US navy SEALs dress as Iranian PT boat crews and then start fights with US Ships.
Those kind of crazy claims , made without any evidence whatsoever, reduce Hersh's credibility to nil. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2008 1:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| NAVFC wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| NAVFC wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| NAVFC wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
The US needs a new strategy for dealing with Iran.
Essential to such a strategy is having the right weapons to send Iran the right message. |
We do.... bunker busters, of the 30000 lb and 5000 lb variety.
The following facilities will need to be destroyed:
The Reactors at Busherh, and Arak. Arak is a reactor that will output plutonium as a byproduct.
The uranium enrichment facility at Natanz.
The Uranium Conversion facility at Eshfahanz.
Also, B-2s modified to carry the new 30000lb bunker buster bomb will need to destroy the underground nuclear facilities at chalus.
This facility is however, staffed by experts from Russia, China and North Korea. However due to a desire to not be seen as helping Iran go nuclear, i doubt those 3 nations will make much of a fuss at the death of their personnel
there is also a Nuclear weapons development facility near the Karin river called Darkhovin.
Iran has been offered incentive after incentive after incentive, and each time they basiclly tell the international community to f-off.
2010 is getting close.
We cant afford to just wait around and do nothing. If Iran isnt going to listen to diplomacy then military force must be considered.
Alot of people shout diplomacy, diplomacy" without even stopping to consider that diplomacy has been ongoing and been failing. Lucrative diplomacy all kinds of offers being made.
if diplomacy fails, then the longer we wait the more risk we assume with a strike (such as from radiation poisoning) |
Bunker busters are not powerful enough..
And in fact air power probably isn't powerful enough to knock out Iran.
Israel couldn't knock out Hizzbollah with airpower.
Nuclear weapons are a taboo.
The US needs something else. Something much , much more powerful than bunker busters.
The the US would be able put Iran on notice. They will not be able to use nuclear weapons to save themselves from the consequences of sponsoring terror.
At the same time bombing Iran right now would empower the hardliners for another 20 years. We don't know who is going to lead Iran when its supreme leader dies. |
The new 30000lb bunker buster is more then adequate for destroying Iran's hardened nuclear facilties. The goal of any strike wouldnt be to "knock out" Iran, but to destroy their nuclear production capabilities.
As far as the note about sponsoring terror, Iran has been doing that for years vis a vis, Hezbollah without many consequences so I doubt they are too concerned. |
According to Seymour Hersh, yes, the goal of an Israeli strike on Iran would be precisely to knock out Iranian command and control. They would strike Tehran political and military targets in the hopes of paralyzing the country and allowing perhaps for a more extended campaign against their extensive and protected nuclear research sites and missile facilities. Their nuclear production capabilities, such as little as we know about them, are more spread out and protected than Osiraq was in the early 80s. |
Hersh? since when is a guy who as of late has made some crazy claims,
(such as that US Navy seals would attack fellow americans..explained later in this post)
and Seymour Hersh has very little credbility.
1. His guessing is speculation at best. No Israeli official has ever briefed him on their contingency plans. He hasnt been to any planning meetings. Nothing. He has no credibility. Hes like the boy who called wolf.
He has said seevral times about both the US and Israel that well be going to war this month or that month and sure enough it doesnt happen.
Especially when he said the US was going to us B-61 thermonuclear bombs on Iran..
That in itself shows him non credible on this issue, as the B-61 thermonuclear bomb is a gravity bomb that detonates on the surface not underground
Or Hersh's claim that Cheney planned a operation to start a war by having US navy SEALs dress as Iranian PT boat crews and then start fights with US Ships.
Those kind of crazy claims , made without any evidence whatsoever, reduce Hersh's credibility to nil. |
I'm getting the sense that you'd impeach any source that wasn't politically aligned with your own views.
Listen, unlike some of Hersh's other claims, this one makes sense. You take out command & control and darken the picture for the Iranians. One assumes that Iranian C&C isn't as stable or reinforced as, say, American C&C. Paralysis of C&C might also have some salutory effects re: Hezbollah reaction, given how close Hezbollah and Iran are. Nevertheless, I have at least one source for my conception of likely Israeli strategy. And I'm very doubtful that the Israelis, as reality-based as they are shrewd (as opposed to this administration pre-2006), would simply try another Osiraq operation given the manifest differences of Iran's situation today from Iraq's nuclear program in the early 1980s. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2008 4:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| While it would be better if Iran does not develop a nuclear strike capability, I do not believe it has to be the end of the world if she does. The West survived the Soviet Union and China getting the bomb and Israel can survive Iran getting it. Starting a war to maintain Israeli nuclear superiority does not sound like a good deal. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
