We can has holy war?

Occam's Chainsaw: and Israel's arsenal

Israel has no nuclear weapons, that's their story, and they're sticking to it.

Basically, North Korea and Iran both decided to seek nuclear weapons in the wake of Desert Storm, and OIF just reinforced that decision. Both regimes realized that their equipment was at minimum as obsolete as Saddam's, and realized that their conventional forces wouldn't amount to a speed-bump should the balloon go up.

Sure, one could argue that the terrain is very different, and that their respective militaries have some things going for them that Saddam's didn't, but you're asking them to bet their lives that they can win conventionally when there's little reason for them to be confident that they would be able to do so. As far as they're concerned, they don't really care how much trouble and losses the US would take in the aftermath if it means they get caught hiding in a hole before asymmetric warfare can save them.

So the only rational decision, aside from behaving, is to get a nuke. No one should be surprised by this.

Yeah, I hear they can strike the continental US with weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes, and their fanatical elite troops have been dumping babies out of incubators.

Therion: Yeah, I hear they can strike the continental US with weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes, and their fanatical elite troops have been dumping babies out of incubators.

I don't think Iran has any nukes yet, and probably pretty far from a delivery platform capable of reaching the US. The North Koreans have detonated a couple of nukes, but so far there's no reason to think they have integrated a weapon with their Taepodong2 as an operational threat.

On top of that, North Korea isn't exactly bristling with launch sites, and it's not like they can fire one off in less time than it takes for a cruise missile to get to the pad.

vygramul: The North Koreans have detonated a couple of nukes, but so far there's no reason to think they have integrated a weapon with their Taepodong2 as an operational threat.

My dong is so threatening that I have to *glue* it to my leg.

SoCalSurfer: Tatsuma?

Naw, but thanks.

/Jewish

vygramul: So the only rational decision, aside from behaving, is to get a nuke. No one should be surprised by this.

Historically speaking, possession of nuclear weapons does not deter conventional warfare, and Iran already has a nuclear option (closing the straits of Hormuz) so seeking nuclear weapons isn't so much of a practical option to avoid warfare so much as it is a political tool to impress other nations.

I say we send some nukes to iran... just hope they can catch em!

/I keed I keed
//maybe

BarbadoSlim: Excellent regulating there, Lou.


/Religion of Peace...

Kind of hard to regulate the government of a sovereign nation, Skippy.

toraque: vygramul: So the only rational decision, aside from behaving, is to get a nuke. No one should be surprised by this.

Historically speaking, possession of nuclear weapons does not deter conventional warfare, and Iran already has a nuclear option (closing the straits of Hormuz) so seeking nuclear weapons isn't so much of a practical option to avoid warfare so much as it is a political tool to impress other nations.

Iran had that option in 1985 when we shelled its oil platforms. In addition, if we struck first, Iran's mine-laying assets would be first hit, and Iran has to think that would be the case. Finally, mining the straits screws not just their enemies, but every nation in the Gulf. That's not really a great idea for them.

In addition, nukes are a VERY different beast.

LeglessDog: vygramul: Therion: Yeah, I hear they can strike the continental US with weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes, and their fanatical elite troops have been dumping babies out of incubators.

I don't think Iran has any nukes yet, and probably pretty far from a delivery platform capable of reaching the US. The North Koreans have detonated a couple of nukes, but so far there's no reason to think they have integrated a weapon with their Taepodong2 as an operational threat.

On top of that, North Korea isn't exactly bristling with launch sites, and it's not like they can fire one off in less time than it takes for a cruise missile to get to the pad.

Land and water-based nukes are the main concern . . . a nuke can fit in a panel van or small seaworthy vessel . . . and even a suitcase, once the technology is developed enough.

That's not a terribly good delivery mechanism for a host of reasons, not least of which is the lack of executive control over the weapon long, long, long before it achieves a deliverable envelope.

BarbadoSlim: SnakeMan: BarbadoSlim: Excellent regulating there, Lou.


/Religion of Peace...

Kind of hard to regulate the government of a sovereign nation, Skippy.

Well, that's basically their job, slick.

And how are they supposed to do their job, exactly? A government can regulate a private citizen by threatening them with jail or fines. That's because a government has guns and a citizen does not, or at least the government has way more guns. So how do you regulate a government aside from threatening to bomb them back to the Stone Age? How do you counter an organization that has most of the guns in a geographical area except by aiming a nuke at them? Sanctions? Don't make me laugh. You can sanction them all they want, it doesn't deter them. You naive moron.

elvindeath: So Obama's poll numbers are finally so persistently, abysmally low, it's time to start another war ? I'm sure he and all the press will be working overtime to explain how this is legit and Bush's invasion of Iraq was all horecrap.

Obama isn't pushing any of this.

Laughs from his grave.

/Another thing BP farked up.

video man: [upload.wikimedia.org image 481x391]

Laughs from his grave.

/Another thing BP farked up.

Yes, it was BP's fault that Iran stole their oil fields.

Yeah, I said their oil fields. Goddamn stupid collectivists. Just because you say land is yours doesn't mean you have a moral claim to the fruits of other people's productive labor.

vygramul: toraque: vygramul: So the only rational decision, aside from behaving, is to get a nuke. No one should be surprised by this.

Historically speaking, possession of nuclear weapons does not deter conventional warfare, and Iran already has a nuclear option (closing the straits of Hormuz) so seeking nuclear weapons isn't so much of a practical option to avoid warfare so much as it is a political tool to impress other nations.

Iran had that option in 1985 when we shelled its oil platforms. In addition, if we struck first, Iran's mine-laying assets would be first hit, and Iran has to think that would be the case. Finally, mining the straits screws not just their enemies, but every nation in the Gulf. That's not really a great idea for them.

In addition, nukes are a VERY different beast.

Yes, closing the gulf or threatening to close it risks the US going berserk on them since it will crash the world economy. That's why I called it the 'nuclear option.' It's the kind of thing you really, really don't want to do unless you have to, which is why it works better as a threat than an actual attack. This is pretty much the same thing that North Korea has with all of it's artillery pointing at Seoul; we can't really do much over there without risking millions of South Korean lives.

Nuclear weapons tend not to actually get used even in the face of an existential threat to the regime that controls them. Israel didn't drop nukes during the start of the Six-day war even when it looked like they were going to get pushed into the sea, even though (reportedly) IDF doctrine stated that they would be used in event of that kind of scenario. In the same way, neither Pakistan nor India have fired nukes at each other even though they've been in a state of war for pretty much all of Pakistan's existence, and neither we nor the Soviets actually launched nukes during the cold war in spite of all the times we came close to, or threatened to use them.

Iran has a lot more tools for closing the gulf than just mines, also. Land based anti ship missiles, packs of light attack boats, attack aircraft, you name it. Yes, we could stop a lot of it if we packed the Strait with USN ships, but there's no way we could stop everything, and the televised image of just one supertanker on fire in the gulf would shut down the economy.

Iran doesn't need nukes to pursue the political goals they have, and developing them exposes them to a lot of risks they wouldn't otherwise have to deal with. Unfortunately, they're being told they can't have them, which means they pretty much have to make the attempt if they want to be seen as the guys standing up to the Big Bad US.

netweavr: Can't help but remember how convinced everyone was about Iraq.

So what happened to the WMDs? Were they just never there? I love how everyone acts like Iraq never had WMDs. Oh well, guess they never had them, derp de derp.

SnakeMan: video man: [upload.wikimedia.org image 481x391]

Laughs from his grave.

/Another thing BP farked up.

Yes, it was BP's fault that Iran stole their oil fields.

Yeah, I said their oil fields. Goddamn stupid collectivists. Just because you say land is yours doesn't mean you have a moral claim to the fruits of other people's productive labor.

You're confusing "owning" with "labor".

SnakeMan: netweavr: Can't help but remember how convinced everyone was about Iraq.

So what happened to the WMDs? Were they just never there? I love how everyone acts like Iraq never had WMDs. Oh well, guess they never had them, derp de derp.

Good thing we kept those receipts, huh ?

just let them. the situation will sort itself out naturally.

BarbadoSlim: SnakeMan: BarbadoSlim: SnakeMan: BarbadoSlim: Excellent regulating there, Lou.


/Religion of Peace...

Kind of hard to regulate the government of a sovereign nation, Skippy.

Well, that's basically their job, slick.

And how are they supposed to do their job, exactly? A government can regulate a private citizen by threatening them with jail or fines. That's because a government has guns and a citizen does not, or at least the government has way more guns. So how do you regulate a government aside from threatening to bomb them back to the Stone Age? How do you counter an organization that has most of the guns in a geographical area except by aiming a nuke at them? Sanctions? Don't make me laugh. You can sanction them all they want, it doesn't deter them. You naive moron.

So you are agreeing that with me that IAEA is basically useless. I'll just ignore the rest of your uncalled for insults.

Well of course it's useless. No shiat, Sherlock, did you figure that all by yourself? How could it be anything BUT? Did you also figure out that the U.N. is worthless? Wow, you're a genius!

Ain't none of what you want to get done can get done without big bombs. Sorry to break it to you children, that's how the world works.

netweavr: Can't help but remember how convinced everyone was about Iraq.

I wasn't convinced about Iraq long before it was cool to not be convinced about Iraq.

video man: SnakeMan: video man: [upload.wikimedia.org image 481x391]

Laughs from his grave.

/Another thing BP farked up.

Yes, it was BP's fault that Iran stole their oil fields.

Yeah, I said their oil fields. Goddamn stupid collectivists. Just because you say land is yours doesn't mean you have a moral claim to the fruits of other people's productive labor.

You're confusing "owning" with "labor".

Marxist tool.

SnakeMan: video man: SnakeMan: video man: [upload.wikimedia.org image 481x391]

Laughs from his grave.

/Another thing BP farked up.

Yes, it was BP's fault that Iran stole their oil fields.

Yeah, I said their oil fields. Goddamn stupid collectivists. Just because you say land is yours doesn't mean you have a moral claim to the fruits of other people's productive labor.

You're confusing "owning" with "labor".

Marxist tool.

I love you too.