hate these ads?, log in or register to hide them
Page 971 of 975 FirstFirst ... 471871921961968969970971972973974 ... LastLast
Results 19,401 to 19,420 of 19499

Thread: Jihadist Caliphate LLC. Extremist Thunderdome's everywhere.

  1. #19401

    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    Chair
    Posts
    5,917
    The only way to stop a bad guy with a nuke, is a good guy with a nuke.

  2. #19402
    מלך יהודים Zeekar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    14,810
    Quote Originally Posted by jimmychrist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RazoR View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jimmychrist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    Reminder that Iran is only a problem because the Americans shit themselves at the idea of nationalised Iranian oil cutting off corporate profits
    If corporate profits is the price we pay for an Iran without nukes I'm fine with that
    Any industrial nation willing to have actual measure of independence is going to work towards nukes.
    Sure. And this particular industrial nation should not be allowed to.
    why?


    

  3. #19403
    Liare's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    11,441
    Quote Originally Posted by Zeekar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jimmychrist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RazoR View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jimmychrist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    Reminder that Iran is only a problem because the Americans shit themselves at the idea of nationalised Iranian oil cutting off corporate profits
    If corporate profits is the price we pay for an Iran without nukes I'm fine with that
    Any industrial nation willing to have actual measure of independence is going to work towards nukes.
    Sure. And this particular industrial nation should not be allowed to.
    why?
    because i makes it harder to roll up and provide a healthy dose of genocide freedom
    Viking, n.:
    1. Daring Scandinavian seafarers, explorers, adventurers, entrepreneurs world-famous for their aggressive, nautical import business, highly leveraged takeovers and blue eyes.
    2. Bloodthirsty sea pirates who ravaged northern Europe beginning in the 9th century.

    Hagar's note: The first definition is much preferred; the second is used only by malcontents, the envious, and disgruntled owners of waterfront property.

  4. #19404
    Alistair's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    12,210
    Is the world better with more nuclear weapons?

    Should every nation have them?
    This message is hidden because Don Rumata is on your ignore list.
    This message is hidden because Isyel is on your ignore list.
    This message is hidden because XenosisMk4 is on your ignore list.
    This message is hidden because Malcanis is on your ignore list.


  5. #19405
    Meester's Avatar
    Join Date
    October 25, 2011
    Posts
    1,030
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Is the world better with more nuclear weapons?

    Should every nation have them?
    Might help when the aliens attack.

    But they might have nukes too so.....

  6. #19406
    Donor
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    16,391
    Quote Originally Posted by Meester View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Is the world better with more nuclear weapons?

    Should every nation have them?
    Might help when the aliens attack.

    But they might have nukes too so.....
    Aliens can just drop a rock on us.

  7. #19407
    The Pube Whisperer Maximillian's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    3,746
    The issue with Iran getting nukes is that the Saudis will get nukes. Same reason why India getting nukes led to Pakistan getting nukes. And North Korean nukes will lead to South Korea and Japan getting nukes if the USA's nuclear umbrella ever looks like fading away.

    In fact it goes right back to the USA nuking Japan. The message is that if you get into a war with a nuclear armed power they are far more likely to nuke you if you can't nuke them back.

    The issue with Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabian or other nations like that getting nukes is the threat that their regimes collapse and in the chaos bad actors get their hands on them. That is why there was panic when the USSR dissolved because all those nukes were suddenly up for grabs.

    I actually don't believe that you can stop the spread of nukes, merely slow it down a bit. Any regime that believes that other nations want to destroy it will see nukes as the only guaranteed survival card. But, as more small players get them, the chances of them being used increases.
    Last edited by Maximillian; February 12 2018 at 01:48:00 AM.

  8. #19408
    Donor Sparq's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 11, 2011
    Location
    Strayastan
    Posts
    9,174
    Quote Originally Posted by Maximillian View Post
    The issue with Iran getting nukes is that the Saudis will get nukes.
    I think the situation is much more acute than this: if the present regime in Iran acquires nukes, Israel will view it as an immediate existential threat and launch an operation to disarm Iran of such weapons. If that means Israel has to carry out a limited nuclear strike on hardened targets within Iran, then I assume that is what they'll do and damn the consequences.

    This is hinted at in the Begin Doctrine revealed in June 1981 after Israel knocked out Iraq's nuclear reactor in Operation Opera,

    "On no account shall we permit an enemy to develop weapons of mass destruction against the people of Israel. We shall defend the citizens of Israel in good time and with all the means at our disposal."
    - Prime Minister Menachem Begin

    This half of the doctrine has been notably exercised twice more since then, with Operation Orchard striking directly against the presumed nuclear development site in Syria and the suspected involvement of Israel in the development & successful application of the Stuxnet worm to damage uranium enrichment equipment in Iran.

    Furthermore, Israel is implicated in the assassination of Iranian scientists - this and the reliance on U.S. & European economic sanctions against the Iranian regime (as well as diplomatic efforts of those two powers) combine as a "softly, softly" approach to preventing Iran from achieving nuclear armament, compared to the alternative of a direct bombing campaign. This is probably all down to the relative difficulty of performing a surgical (conventional) strike within territorial Iran compared to neighboring Syria or Iraq.

    Challenges include:

    • Diplomatic repercussions of overflying Israeli neighbors to commit violence on the neighbor of the neighbor.
    • Penetrating and/or suppressing Iranian air defenses.
    • Facilitating air mobile (or other) rescue of downed crew.
    • Mission complication by dispersal of targets and/or hardening of structures.
    • Political, home country repercussions for a failed strike or the loss or capture of crew.


    For all these challenges, there is cause to suspect that the only viable strike option for Israel to follow is a limited nuclear strike because it maximizes the likelihood of success.

    If the Iranians develop a viable nuclear weapon (or Israel becomes convinced they have) they will act and the Saudis won't have time - or necessarily any further inclination - to get nukes of their own once they observe the consequences of this assertive counter-proliferation policy.
    Last edited by Sparq; February 12 2018 at 03:25:56 AM.

  9. #19409
    The Pube Whisperer Maximillian's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    3,746
    The Saudis already have an agreement to buy Pakistani nukes.

    I agree that Israel may strike at Iran but I suspect that they don't have the capacity. Israel's best defense against being nuked is the fact that it contains sites most holy to Islam, and the fact that fallout would devastate surrounding Muslim nations, including Shia majority nations.

    But the fact that you have nuclear actors who fear for their very existence is in part what makes nukes in that region so dangerous.

  10. #19410
    Movember 2011 RazoR's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    The Motherland
    Posts
    28,315
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparq View Post
    If that means Israel has to carry out a limited nuclear strike on hardened targets within Iran, then I assume that is what they'll do and damn the consequences.
    jews can't possibly be this dumb

    the second iran gets nukes they will back the fuck off and let the country have some peace

    then another 50 years later united iran, iraq and syria will elect a gay disabled aids-positive asian transgender as their president

  11. #19411
    Donor Sparq's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 11, 2011
    Location
    Strayastan
    Posts
    9,174
    Quote Originally Posted by RazoR View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparq View Post
    If that means Israel has to carry out a limited nuclear strike on hardened targets within Iran, then I assume that is what they'll do and damn the consequences.
    jews can't possibly be this dumb
    It stems from a policy public since '81 and repeatedly demonstrated at a conventional (non-nuclear) level, so long as circumstances allow.

    It isn't a question of "smart" or "dumb" but rather "it is what it is" and again, it has been a repeatedly demonstrated outcome in the region.

    You might as well ask why their neighbors have each pursued nuclear weapons and whether they are the dumb ones - especially those who keep chasing nukes after each demonstration.

    Quote Originally Posted by RazoR View Post
    the second iran gets nukes they will back the fuck off and let the country have some peace
    Except they won't, because at best they'll have a few smoking craters where they used to have nukes & production capacity. At worst, they'll have a couple freshly baked, glass-coated parking lots.

    If they respond to Israel with anything other than conventional weapons, they'll have an abundance of cheap parking.

    Nothing that I'm saying here is a secret, you know. Furthermore, I'm not arguing for or against it - I'm just presenting my observations of the publicly available information.

    Quote Originally Posted by RazoR View Post
    then another 50 years later united iran, iraq and syria will elect a gay disabled aids-positive asian transgender as their president
    okay.jpg
    Last edited by Sparq; February 12 2018 at 03:57:59 AM.

  12. #19412
    Movember 2011 RazoR's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    The Motherland
    Posts
    28,315
    so what you are saying is that jews are evil

    sure you aren't a holocaust denier as well?

  13. #19413
    evil edna's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    5,266
    wuh

  14. #19414
    Movember 2011 RazoR's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    The Motherland
    Posts
    28,315
    ok, ok

    machiavellian warmongers

  15. #19415
    Donor Sparq's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 11, 2011
    Location
    Strayastan
    Posts
    9,174
    Quote Originally Posted by evil edna View Post
    wuh

  16. #19416
    Movember 2011 RazoR's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    The Motherland
    Posts
    28,315
    IAF Chief of Staff: Syrians have a lot of nerve to fire at us

    http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/241772

  17. #19417
    Frug's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    13,483
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparq View Post
    If the Iranians develop a viable nuclear weapon (or Israel becomes convinced they have) they will act and the Saudis won't have time - or necessarily any further inclination - to get nukes of their own once they observe the consequences of this assertive counter-proliferation policy.
    I might buy your whole post except this last bit, they'd never nuke the Saudis. Them's 'murican allies and the pressure against the Saudis to develop them comes from 'murica.

    Quote Originally Posted by Loire
    I'm too stupid to say anything that deserves being in your magnificent signature.

  18. #19418

    Join Date
    April 11, 2011
    Posts
    9,395
    Quote Originally Posted by RazoR View Post
    so what you are saying is that jews are evil

    sure you aren't a holocaust denier as well?
    Razor combining both Russian and Jewish victim complexes is a sight to behold.

  19. #19419
    Donor Sparq's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 11, 2011
    Location
    Strayastan
    Posts
    9,174
    Quote Originally Posted by Maximillian View Post
    The Saudis already have an agreement to buy Pakistani nukes.
    Unless they're somehow already in situ, that agreement can still only be worth as much as the paper it's written on until it's actually realized - or not.

    As things stand, the Saudis built launch rails facing Iran and Israel. EDIT: by which I mean, don't assume this doesn't weigh just as heavily on the minds of Israeli policy makers & military planners.

    Quote Originally Posted by Maximillian View Post
    I agree that Israel may strike at Iran but I suspect that they don't have the capacity.
    As a part of their nuclear triad, the Israelis are supposed to have a nuclear armed ICBM, the latest derivative of their 'Jericho' family of ballistic missiles.

    The IAF is also sufficiently complex & competent to pull off a delivery with planes (EDIT: but it's much 'riskier' for reasons I outlined before)

    Quote Originally Posted by Maximillian View Post
    Israel's best defense against being nuked is the fact that it contains sites most holy to Islam, and the fact that fallout would devastate surrounding Muslim nations, including Shia majority nations.
    This doesn't gel with the recent history of (EDIT: cultural) atrocity between Islamic factions involving the frequent destruction of historical & holy sites, either as a direct result of conflict or even as a more banal side effect of modern urban development.

    Israel is also relatively tiny to other Arab states and densely populated, making it uniquely susceptible to attacks from weapons of mass destruction. EDIT: jumping back to the incident that precipitated this aspect of the wider discussion, this would in part be why they took the Iranian drone incursion so seriously. Any intrusion into their airspace is of significant concern because it has the potential to be either a probe for data or an outright "dry-run".

    Depending on the type & application of weapons, fallout cannot be controlled but can potentially be reduced.

    EDIT: These three factors - demonstrated disregard for cultural & religious sites, relatively small target size & the potential for overly optimistic thinking in the mind of an aggressor - combined, make for significant danger.

    Quote Originally Posted by Maximillian View Post
    But the fact that you have nuclear actors who fear for their very existence is in part what makes nukes in that region so dangerous.
    Yup.

    As an aside, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists can posit that we're all "two minutes to midnight" but their statement barely mentions the Middle East. I'm think Facebook & Google (social media) get more column inches. While everyone is distracted by north Korea, I'm more genuinely worried by anything impacting on the present agreement to stall Iranian nuclear development. This is an area where President Trump has been especially unhelpful.

    Quote Originally Posted by Frug View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparq View Post
    If the Iranians develop a viable nuclear weapon (or Israel becomes convinced they have) they will act and the Saudis won't have time - or necessarily any further inclination - to get nukes of their own once they observe the consequences of this assertive counter-proliferation policy.
    I might buy your whole post except this last bit, they'd never nuke the Saudis. Them's 'murican allies and the pressure against the Saudis to develop them comes from 'murica.
    Sorry, I'm not trying to imply they absolutely would nuke the Saudis, what I was trying to say is that I think their (the Saudis) seeing Iran face a nuclear strike might actually serve to give them pause for two reasons - one, the whole potential of "get nukes, get nuked" escalation in the doctrine and two, if Iran doesn't have them anymore then arguably they don't need to pursue them, which is supposed to be the root cause of them needing to be armed in such a fashion.
    Last edited by Sparq; February 12 2018 at 05:18:52 AM.

  20. #19420
    The Pube Whisperer Maximillian's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    3,746
    When I say that Israel doesn't have the capacity I mean that they don't have the ability to be guaranteed to wipe out all of Iran's nuclear program or weapons with a conventional or nuclear strike. Israel is geographically compact so a single nuke hitting them will do far more damage and a few nukes hitting Iran.

    It would also start a Israel vs. all of Islam war they would not win.

    Israel's nukes are not first strike weapons, they are if we are going down we are taking you all to hell with us weapons.

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •