Featured IRANIAN NUCLEAR SCIENTIST ASSASSINATED: STATE TV NEWS

[thetutle]

Both Russia and the United States are nuclear equipped states that have avoided direct military engagement with each-other, thus mitigating the possibility of a nuclear exchange between the two great powers. Nuclear nations (as you know) tend to not get into conflagrations with one another for obvious reasons, MAD and all that jazz...

Russian use of conventional Ballistic Missiles such as the Iskander (conventionally armed) would be limited against non-nuclear armed nations making the implementation of such weapons viable in a tactical use case, the same way Iran wants to use their arsenal of ballistic missiles. In the argument I made for Iran I was specifically talking about Israel and how Iran's conventional arsenal would become useless because any coordinated large-scale missile attack by Iran will be (most probably) met with a nuclear counter-attack due to Iran's newly acquired nuclear weapons status. The policy of MAD applies from that point moving forward, there's little arguing against this as Israel already views Iran's conventional missile arsenal as an existential threat of sorts, so Iran putting into service nuclear weaponry will only solidify Israeli's immediate use of nuclear weapons against Iran proper as a first option when an exchange of fire happens. We've already had rather concerning rhetoric come from Netanyahu's moth himself insinuating the use of nuclear weapons in any future conflict, granted that is up for interpretation though lol.

There's a good reason why Iran has opted to go with a massive conventionally armed Ballistic Missile fleet instead of a nuclear tipped one and that's so that they can actively use BMs (whatever shape or form they come in) in a tactical manner as to not push their aggressor (Israel) to use nuclear weapons in return. The real crux of this issue lies not within the weapons themselves but escalatory options both sides choose to use when responding.

Simply put, The Israelis aren't going to risk not responding to a potential nuclear attack, by launching just a conventional attack of their own.

Thats some real mental acrobatics right there. Lots to mental acrobatics to justify why nukes are bad for Iran.

Iran should not get nukes because it will render their conventional missile force useless. lol this is great!!!

Medieval knights should not have guns because they will make their massive arsenal of swords useless. Brilliant. truly brilliant.

America should never have developed the het fighter as it made their huge arsenal of propeller planes useless. Bravo!

Iran houd not get nukes as its massive missile arsenal will be obsolete. yay!

A CIA operative reading this has just chocked on his doughnut from laughter. They will blame you for his death. Please.

If Iran gets nukes they won't have to launch any ballistic missies. If they do, the regional nuke powers will have the option to immediately nuke Iran and kill 50 million people. And 20 minutes after that watch their whole nation of 7 million wiped out in a nuclear holocaust. OR wait to see what sort of. missile it is and act rationally.

You think this is realistic scenario?

Imagine reading a history book in 100 years, and it reads, "there was once a country called Israel, so paranoid that once the Iranians launched a missile/s, they responded with a massive nuclear first strike, leading to a brief exchange of nuclear weapons and eliminating most of the population of both countries. now the exclusion zone of Israel is a memorial to the 7 million victims, and the exclusion zone of Iran is a 50 million person graveyard and national park."

please. Countries don't end their existence on some military commander taking a bad guess.

 

[zartosht]

zionist rats are giving warning to their citizens to not travel.....

one has to wonder. if your a life/materialistic worshipping big nosed coward, why start something you cant finish?

last time some zionists in bulgaria got blown up in exchange for their terrorist murders of Iranian nuclear scientist. I suspect a bigger fist awaits the zionists chin this round.

pathetic cowards.

 

[ZY-CN-CA]

Do you think Iran doesn't want revenge?

Not without revenge,

It's hard to revenge！

 

[Philosopher]

zionist rats are giving warning to their citizens to not travel.....

one has to wonder. if your a life/materialistic worshipping big nosed coward, why start something you cant finish?

last time some zionists in bulgaria got blown up in exchange for their terrorist murders of Iranian nuclear scientist. I suspect a bigger fist awaits the zionists chin this round.

pathetic cowards.

The Israelis see it as a "act now or die later" scenario. From their perspective, either they act or their very existence is at stake. Listen to their prominent figures such as General Yaakov Amidror to get a sense of their mindset. Forget Iran's nuclear program for a second which they see also as an existential threat and focus on how Iran is creating a "ring of fire" around Israel. They are desperately trying to prevent a new Hezbollah being formed in Syria against them, hence why you're seeing these sporadic attacks. Of course these attempts are ultimately in vain and such groups have formed and will become on par with Hezbollah in the future.

As for these attacks inside Iran, these attacks are too small to effect Iran's programs in any meaningful way. The Israelis know what really is required to truly push Iran's program back i.e a full scale war. But via these attacks they're admitting they lack the nerve and of course the capability to do this. The American Pentagon has given up on an idea of war with Iran a while back. Iran's defence and nuclear program well protected and vast and nothing short of a full on ground invasion will truly put a stop to it. And I do not believe any American out there has seen enough Hollywood movies to be deluded by a notion they could invade Iran. So their strategy now is just to put as much stumbling block in Iran's path as possible.

 

[Blue In Green]

Putting aside your childish patronizing of my argument (which is sound logically). The Iranians and their leaders have no wish to see "50 million" of their own perish in the fires of a nuclear explosion and would much rather limit a potential conflict to conventional means if they can help it. I can't imagine you would be remiss in admitting this simply outcome (that being not seeing millions of your own die) that any national leaders would want for their country and citizens.

Just for clarifications sake, I don't think nuclear weapons are particularly bad, in fact I've been quite open to Iran having them and have actively pushed for (in the past) on PDF for Iran acquiring Nuclear weapons. My current position with relations to our discussion has to do purely with the practical applications of such a methodology given real-world evidence and how IRAN ISTELF has chosen to combat Israel/America and Co. in the region using massive conventional BM capabilities.

-- "Thats some real mental acrobatics right there. Lots to mental acrobatics to justify why nukes are bad for Iran."

No I don't think so, respectively speaking, Israel has threatened to use nuclear weapons in the past (Samson Option) which coerced the Americans into sending them piles of military equipment to change the course of the war many decades ago. Who's to say the Israelis (who are quite radical in their approach to regional affairs, imo) wont be more open to threatening Iran with nuclear war given just how much a "existential threat" Iran poses?

-- " Iran should not get nukes because it will render their conventional missile force useless. lol this is great!!"

If Iran's goal is to not get nuked and openly admitting to a nuclear arsenal sees that happen, then yes it's perfectly feasible to see why Iran's conventional missile fleet would become "useless". Don't view what I'm saying as an absolute, I don't really think that the missiles themselves or the methodology behind their use will become entirely defunct in the event Iran fully develops and implements Nuclear weaponry across their vast/diverse arsenal.

-- "Medieval knights should not have guns because they will make their massive arsenal of swords useless. Brilliant. truly brilliant."

I don't see the relationship, quite frankly you're being erroneous.

-- "America should never have developed the het (jet*) fighter as it made their huge arsenal of propeller planes useless. Bravo!"

Again, another outlandish comparison that has nothing to do with the topic at-hand.

Nuclear weapons are a big step-up from conventional weapons like jet-fighters/propeller planes and the like. I don't see what sort of analogy you're trying to make here.

-- "Iran houd (should*) not get nukes as its massive missile arsenal will be obsolete. yay!"

If you're goal is to not get nuked in an exchange of fire, and a nuclear weapons status sees that potential reality have a greater chance of occurring: then yes it's perfectly fine to say something along those lines although I wouldn't use the word "obsolete" as that word is too all encompassing and disingenuous.

As aforementioned, I do not think Iran's conventional arsenal will be completely unusable, just the inherent risks of using them (along side nuclear weapons status) will be much higher.

-- "A CIA operative reading this has just chocked on his doughnut from laughter. They will blame you for his death. Please."

You're unreasonably rude for someone engaging in a cordial discussion about a topic in which anyone's assertion is tenable... I didn't know you had insider knowledge on how Iran views its arsenal of ballistic missiles, care to give us some of that knowledge you apparently know that the rest of us don't?

I mean it genuinely would seem (given your overbearingly condescending tone) that you are REALLY sure about what is you're saying and have thoroughly thought this all out and to go as far as completely dismissing my argument (and others), simply chalking-it-up to "mental gymnastics" even though Iran's own policies and methodology would point out to me being more in the "right" than you.

But for the sake of the discussion, I wont stoop down to patronizing antics since I do agree with what you're saying (as far as Iran getting nuclear eventually) and I'm only arguing on behalf of what I think Iran is doing with respect to its policies/views on nuclear weapons.

 

[thetutle]

Putting aside your childish patronizing of my argument (which is sound logically). The Iranians and their leaders have no wish to see "50 million" of their own perish in the fires of a nuclear explosion and would much rather limit a potential conflict to conventional means if they can help it. I can't imagine you would be remiss in admitting this simply outcome (that being not seeing millions of your own die) that any national leaders would want for their country and citizens.

Just for clarifications sake, I don't think nuclear weapons are particularly bad, in fact I've been quite open to Iran having them and have actively pushed for (in the past) on PDF for Iran acquiring Nuclear weapons. My current position with relations to our discussion has to do purely with the practical applications of such a methodology given real-world evidence and how IRAN ISTELF has chosen to combat Israel/America and Co. in the region using massive conventional BM capabilities.

Again, mental gymnastics in trying to convince people that Nukes will not make Iran safer are astounding.

Ok, I don't want to see 50 million Iranians dead either in a nuclear holocaust. But, lets do a theoretical game play.

Scenario 1:
Iran has nukes:
Firstly, if Israel had a bad day and decides to nuke Iran with a massive first strike. the moment they push that button, they know that they, their families and future generations have come to an end, and people will only know them from history books. Because Iran will retaliate with a massive nuclear strike.

Scenario 2:
Iran has no nukes:
Israel decides that for some reason Iran should be nuked and launches a massive first strike, killing 50 million irnianns. The moment they push that button, they know that Iran will cease to exist and there will be no meaningful consequences for them, their families or anyone.
Perhaps 5,000 missiles will rain down and kill 10,000 or 20,000 people and some factories will need to be rebuilt. In fact they know that it will serve as a good lesson for the entire region.

In which of the above scenarios is it more likely that someone will launch a nuclear attack on Iran?

Strategists in America, UK, France, Russia and China have may decades ago concluded that scenario 1 if favourable. many Iranians are struggling with this concept and claim that the major world powers are somehow mistaken in their calculations.

 

[Dariush the Great]

Again, mental gymnastics in trying to convince people that Nukes will not make Iran safer are astounding.

Ok, I don't want to see 50 million Iranians dead either in a nuclear holocaust. But, lets do a theoretical game play.

Scenario 1:
Iran has nukes:
Firstly, if Israel had a bad day and decides to nuke Iran with a massive first strike. the moment they push that button, they know that they, their families and future generations have come to an end, and people will only know them from history books. Because Iran will retaliate with a massive nuclear strike.

Scenario 2:
Iran has no nukes:
Israel decides that for some reason Iran should be nuked and launches a massive first strike, killing 50 million irnianns. The moment they push that button, they know that Iran will cease to exist and there will be no meaningful consequences for them, their families or anyone.
Perhaps 5,000 missiles will rain down and kill 10,000 or 20,000 people and some factories will need to be rebuilt. In fact they know that it will serve as a good lesson for the entire region.

In which of the above scenarios is it more likely that someone will launch a nuclear attack on Iran?

Strategists in America, UK, France, Russia and China have may decades ago concluded that scenario 1 if favourable. many Iranians are struggling with this concept and claim that the major world powers are somehow mistaken in their calculations.

I think BG only pushes that narrative because we are forced to due to IR's position. No sane man will ever argue that nukes are a bad option for Iran.

 

[Cthulhu]

A CIA operative reading this has just chocked on his doughnut from laughter. They will blame you for his death. Please.

People who spew these bullshits online are CIA operatives themselves, Mostly a bunch of traitors recruited by the cia and their object is to keep Iran weak.

 

[Blue In Green]

Again, mental gymnastics in trying to convince people that Nukes will not make Iran safer are astounding.

Ok, I don't want to see 50 million Iranians dead either in a nuclear holocaust. But, lets do a theoretical game play.

Scenario 1:
Iran has nukes:
Firstly, if Israel had a bad day and decides to nuke Iran with a massive first strike. the moment they push that button, they know that they, their families and future generations have come to an end, and people will only know them from history books. Because Iran will retaliate with a massive nuclear strike.

Scenario 2:
Iran has no nukes:
Israel decides that for some reason Iran should be nuked and launches a massive first strike, killing 50 million irnianns. The moment they push that button, they know that Iran will cease to exist and there will be no meaningful consequences for them, their families or anyone.
Perhaps 5,000 missiles will rain down and kill 10,000 or 20,000 people and some factories will need to be rebuilt. In fact they know that it will serve as a good lesson for the entire region.

In which of the above scenarios is it more likely that someone will launch a nuclear attack on Iran?

Strategists in America, UK, France, Russia and China have may decades ago concluded that scenario 1 if favourable. many Iranians are struggling with this concept and claim that the major world powers are somehow mistaken in their calculations.

Fair enough, In this case I personally agree with you but I'm not the stumbling block towards a nuclear weapon for Iran now am I?

The issue is whether the Iranian leadership sees it the same way as you put it which has been a problem for quite some time now. It is not me who holds the ultimate authority in Iran choosing to build a nuclear weapon or not: which given such dire threats coming Israel, I would also say it's an important decision to take into further consideration all things considered.

Dariush said it perfectly, I'm only presenting the argument as Iran (presumably) views it, that's all.

 

[thetutle]

Fair enough, In this case I personally agree with you but I'm not the stumbling block towards a nuclear weapon for Iran now am I?

The issue is whether the Iranian leadership sees it the same way as you put it which has been a problem for quite some time now. It is not me who holds the ultimate authority in Iran choosing to build a nuclear weapon or not: which given such dire threats coming Israel, I would also say it's an important decision to take into further consideration all things considered.

Dariush said it perfectly, I'm only presenting the argument as Iran (presumably) views it, that's all.

I realise that. I feel terribly sorry for the people that will suffer because of this incompetence in the Iranian leadership.

 

[SalarHaqq]

Yeah for sure, its ok to agree to disagree. I just think its taking a massive logical leap of faith to say that nukes don't make Iran more secure or powerful. its almost disingenuous.

I did not make that claim, please do not alter my words.

What I take issue with is the notion that no other option exists, or that similar degrees of deterrence (with some added advantages) cannot be ensured by a thought out, appropriate and fool-proof asymmetrical conventional doctrine.

Once there are nukes that can destroy the Middle East, no-one will assassinate any scientist as it achieves nothing. And the retaliation can be unlimited by Iran.

It is unlikely that the Iranian nuclear doctrine, in case Iran acquired such weapons, would permit their use in retaliation for the assassination of a scientist. None of the nuclear powers has had a doctrine that permissive when it comes to first use of nuclear arms.

At most, an Iranian nuclear umbrella would allow Tehran to retaliate in kind (.e. try to assassinate a zionist scientist or official) without expecting much of an escalation in return.

But the assassination of an almost retired scientist is no game changing action.

or it's even more likely that Israel and Iran don't strike each other at all and live at peace for the next 200 years. Why gamble with a nuclear holocaust of their own people?

This is not really conceivable. Extremist zionist elites will not rest until they are decisively routed or until they reach their global hegemonic goals.

Now to Saudi Arabia. Lets say Saudi send some terrorists to blow up an Iranian facility. And Iran responds with 30 conventional missiles to destroy every facility owned by the Saudi secret service. After sorting through he rubble, what does Saudi do? 1) pick up the phone Pashinyan style and complain to America that Iran is evil, 2) write a strongly worded letter to Iran 3) promise retaliation in due time when it is good and ready 4) kindly ask Iran not to bomb them anymore?

So nukes give Iran total freedom to do basically whatever it wants for the next 1000 years. How can they not?

It's somewhat more complicated than that. If it wasn't, then the US regime's overwhelming nuclear arsenal would have prevented Iran from directing Lebanese allies to strike a Marines barrack in Lebanon in the 1980's. Or from arming Iraqi resistance groups against US occupiers in the 2000's.

Nuclear weapons offer advantages, but do not allow those who possess them to do literally whatever they want. There always will be certain political and other limitations to their usefulness.

And freedom from invasion. freedom to not have to devote so much energy to stopping an invasion that will never come.

That is already achieved by Iran's conventional counter-force doctrine and arms systems. No Iranian official seriously thinks that there's an accute risk of invasion. Consequently they aren't devoting much energy on that particular issue.

Sure they will be some sanctions, but if they hurt Iran, they can just allow the unemployed to come to Europe. Maybe start by sending 20 million refugees to Europe and see how quickly those cantons are lifted. Iran already has sanctions. so it has nothing to lose.

The US would certainly try to use military means or to stage a coup (if they manage to) in order to prevent Iran from manufacturing nuclear weapons.

Now I'm not saying that they'd succeed or that this is the reason why Iran should not go for them. The main reason not to develop nuclear bombs right now is because Iran's currently existing assets are enough already to prevent overt military aggression.

the only thing a nuclear free Iran does is allow its rivals to sleep safe and sound at night. For that they should be eternally grateful to Irans leaders. And I'm sure they are.

They certainly do not seem to be sleeping as tightly and worrilessly as you suggest. Just look at their obsessional antics vis a vis Iran, as highlighted among others by Wikileaks documents (including the one where Saudi officials urge the US to "cut the head of the snake" i.e. Iran, and many, many similar ones).

In fact they are scared to death from Iran's emergence as a major regional power, and by the constant fear that their western imperialist protectors (without which they would crumble) might abandon them.

So now i'd like to hear someones arguments why Iran is more powerful without the "anti islamic" nukes.

I don't remember anyone claiming Iran is more powerful without nuclear weapons. But that the objective of deterring overt military aggression is already served in a satisfactory manner by Iran's current means of defence. The most important of which is Iran's ballistic conventional counter-force arsenal.

As for why this is so, the weblog article I linked before explains it all, and better than I would. So if one is interested in familiarizing oneself with Iran's perspective in this regard, an article like this is mandatory reading:

Iran's path to a second strike capability

The concept Interpretation of Irans new basing concept Non-nuclear states can have the highest conventional military capability but are alwa...

patarames.blogspot.com

I realise that. I feel terribly sorry for the people that will suffer because of this incompetence in the Iranian leadership.

No doomsday scenarios are going to come to pass (including due to a lack of nuclear weapons).


____

As for these attacks inside Iran, these attacks are too small to effect Iran's programs in any meaningful way. The Israelis know what really is required to truly push Iran's program back i.e a full scale war.

...and full scale aggression in turn is effectively being deterred by Iran's existing means of defence. Well said, thank you.

Yet some are using these peripheral attacks as a justification to lambast the Iranian leadership while losing sight of the big picture. Now I'm not one to say that Iran's response to such acts has been beyond criticism, and I would personally prefer to see harsher retaliation by Iran.

However to extrapolate based on these terror attacks and to paint doomdsay scenarios of an assured imminent war resulting in the destruction of Iran due to a lack of nuclear weapons, while attacking anyone who disagrees with libellous, far-fetched and bizarre ad hominems is quite something.

Especially when it's coming from users who otherwise do not really believe in the necessity to resist zionism in the first place and would, apparently, rather have Iran mend ties with Washington and the apartheid regime than see the IR pursue its principled anti-imperial Resistance.

_____


@BlueInGreen :

People who spew these bullshits online are CIA operatives themselves, Mostly a bunch of traitors recruited by the cia and their object is to keep Iran weak.

Users who have an issue with Iran resisting "Israel" in the first place (and who seem to sympathize with the notion that Iranians should rise up against their ruling system, something that would only destabilize Iran as a whole, which is why it is actively being pushed for by Washington), calling other Iranian users (and friends of Iran) "CIA operatives" because they fail to grasp the logic behind Iran's conventional counter-force doctrine. Pretty unfortunate.

 

[Blue In Green]

I did not make that claim, please do not alter my words.

What I take issue with is the notion that no other option exists, or that similar degrees of deterrence (with some added advantages) cannot be ensured by a thought out, appropriate and fool-proof asymmetrical conventional doctrine.



It is unlikely that the Iranian nuclear doctrine, in case Iran acquired such weapons, would permit their use in retaliation for the assassination of a scientist. None of the nuclear powers has had a doctrine that permissive when it comes to first use of nuclear arms.

At most, an Iranian nuclear umbrella would allow Tehran to retaliate in kind (.e. try to assassinate a zionist scientist or official) without expecting much of an escalation in return.

But the assassination of an almost retired scientist is no game changing action.



This is not really conceivable. Extremist zionist elites will not rest until they are decisively routed or until they reach their global hegemonic goals.



It's somewhat more complicated than that. If it wasn't, then the US regime's overwhelming nuclear arsenal would have prevented Iran from directing Lebanese allies to strike a Marines barrack in Lebanon in the 1980's. Or from arming Iraqi resistance groups against US occupiers in the 2000's.

Nuclear weapons offer advantages, but do not allow those who possess them to do literally whatever they want. There always will be certain political and other limitations to their usefulness.



That is already achieved by Iran's conventional counter-force doctrine and arms systems. No Iranian official seriously thinks that there's an accute risk of invasion. Consequently they aren't devoting much energy on that particular issue.



The US would certainly try to use military means or to stage a coup (if they manage to) in order to prevent Iran from manufacturing nuclear weapons.

Now I'm not saying that they'd succeed or that this is the reason why Iran should not go for them. The main reason not to develop nuclear bombs right now is because Iran's currently existing assets are enough already to prevent overt military aggression.



They certainly do not seem to be sleeping as tightly and worrilessly as you suggest. Just look at their obsessional antics vis a vis Iran, as highlighted among others by Wikileaks documents (including the one where Saudi officials urge the US to "cut the head of the snake" i.e. Iran, and many, many similar ones).

In fact they are scared to death from Iran's emergence as a major regional power, and by the constant fear that their western imperialist protectors (without which they would crumble) might abandon them.



I don't remember anyone claiming Iran is more powerful without nuclear weapons. But that the objective of deterring overt military aggression is already served by Iran's current means of defence. The most important of which is Iran's ballistic conventional counter-force arsenal.

As for why this is so, the weblog article I linked before explains it all, and better than I would. So if one is interested in familiarizing oneself with Iran's perspective in this regard, an article like this is mandatory reading:

Iran's path to a second strike capability

The concept Interpretation of Irans new basing concept Non-nuclear states can have the highest conventional military capability but are alwa...

patarames.blogspot.com

No doomsday scenarios are going to come to pass (nor owing to a lack of nuclear weapons).


____




...and full scale aggression in turn is effectively being deterred by Iran's existing means of defence. Well said, thank you.

Yet some are using these peripheral attacks as a justification to lambast the Iranian leadership while losing sight of the big picture. Now I'm not one to say that Iran's response to such acts has been beyond criticism, and I would personally prefer to see harsher retaliation by Iran.

However to extrapolate based on these terror attacks and to paint doomdsay scenarios of an assured imminent war resulting in the destruction of Iran due to a lack of nuclear weapons, while attacking anyone who disagrees with libellous, far-fetched and bizarre ad hominems is quite something.

Especially when it's coming from users who otherwise do not really believe in the necessity to resist zionism in the first place and would, apparently, rather have Iran mend ties with Washington and the apartheid regime than see the IR pursue its principled anti-imperial Resistance.

_____


@BlueInGreen Look at this:



Users who have an issue with Iran resisting "Israel" in the first place (and who seem to sympathize with the notion that Iranians should rise up against their ruling system, which would only destabilize Iran as a whole, which is why it is actively being pushed for by Washington), calling other Iranian users (and friends of Iran) "CIA operatives" because they fail to grasp the logic behind Iran's conventional counter-force doctrine.

Users who have an issue with Iran resisting "Israel" in the first place (and who seem to sympathize with the notion that Iranians should rise up against their ruling system, which would only destabilize Iran as a whole, which is why it is actively being pushed for by Washington), calling other Iranian users (and friends of Iran) "CIA operatives" because they fail to grasp the logic behind Iran's conventional counter-force doctrine.

Eh, what can you really do Salar...those of us who are critical of Iran and some of their decisions on vital national security policies will always face some sort of backlash when trying too logically explain why certain governmental/defense decisions are the way they are, whether we agree with them or not (which shouldn't really matter when making objective arguments).

The operative word here is holistic.

One cannot be selective in how they apply their own logic to what a sovereign nation chooses to do in order to ensure its own national defense. In the case of Iran, they've clearly chosen to go the route of building thousands, upon thousands of ballistic missiles as to create some level of threat parity that no other nation in the Middle East, bar Israel (through the use of Nuclear weapons) can match. This has, as said so many times in the past, created a real and credible deterrence to nations who otherwise (in the absence of said weapons) would have launched a war of aggression on Iran over a decade ago, very little argument against this assertion as well. Them resorting to covert actions shows their reluctancy in engaging overtly which lends credence to the argument that Iran's current deterrence strategy is at-least somewhat working.

Just to clarify, people on PDF know my own position on Iran's government, that being I'm not the biggest supporter but i'm not blind to the inherent threat of instability that arises when calling for its removal or "changing" it. Also I am an American and at the end of the day, I have little actual sway in what happens in or to Iran so lol, there's that to take into account as well.

 

[Dariush the Great]

On topic : Can someone give a good explanation why immediately after the assassination the borders were not shut down ie trapping the suspects inside the country, increasing the chances for arresting them. Have we learned nothing about the previous 6 assassinations ? This is a disgrace.

 

[thetutle]

These arguments against nukes only go to show how strong ideology and dogma is and how it defeats logic at every turn.

Think about it this way. USA was bombing Japan into rubble in the closing days of WW2. Fire bombing cities and dropping everything on them killing hundreds of thousands of people per city.

They could have kept this up and killed 5 or 10 or even 20 million Japanese and I can tell you the Japanese would not have surrendered.

Soviets lost 40 million and did not surrender. So the Japanese would not surrender because of bombing, death and destruction.

What made the Japanese surrender, unconditionally? two atom bombs. just two little atom bombs, one that killed less than were killed in the firebombing of Tokyo.

doesn't that tell you al you need to know about nukes? the cost of production, the cost and security of storage, the cost of delivery and practicality. it wins wars and keeps nations safe.

no messy sabotage, no need to retaliate, because everyone leaves you well alone. Why is Iran being humiliated and afraid to retaliate or do anything while North Korea is left totally alone? Because they have nukes and no one can touch them. They can in fact do whatever they like and no-one can do anything.

In fact they can destroy quite a few American cities. and totally wipe out South Korea. and South Korea is not allowed to have nukes. The north can fire 100 missiles into south korean capital and what can South Korea or America do? not a darn thing. They would sit there and take it. like Iran does now.

you think America would come to the aid of South Korea if it risked losing a LA or San Francisco? let me tell you not a chance. you think South Korea would ever invade the north under any circumstances? it would never. simply because of nukes.

some here think Iran isa danger to someone because of these missiles. This is a joke. Iran is being picked apart and prepared for a syria scenario. And there is nothing it can do. the missiles have stopped a more robust approach, but they will not help Iran in the Long run. I don't think the west wants regime change, they just want to destroy he country and this regime can keep the rubble.

Anyway, you can delude yourself, but its pretty clear what weapons can save a country and what weapons cant. if missiles were that scary, Iran would not be permitted to haven them. there would already be a war.

And I do believe that if Iran tries to make nukes it will automatically trigger an invasion, but the crucial thing is, the moment a nuke is tested, that invasion will simply stop. Iran will be invited to be a part of the club. Similar to Pakistan.

my goodness, Pakistan harboured Bin Laden, and when Afghanistan did it, they invaded the country and killed their people for 20 years, and when Pakistan harboured him, they just pretended like nothing happened, they even made excuses for Pakistan saying, maybe it was rogue elements that did it.

If Iran had nukes, it could fire a missile into the Saudi Mistry of defence and the US would be like, "oh come on, that's not a nice thing to do, there is no military solution tot his argument. lets have a negotiation."

If Iran does that now, it would be the end of Iran.

 

[Dariush the Great]

These arguments against nukes only go to show how strong ideology and dogma is and how it defeats logic at every turn.

Think about it this way. USA was bombing Japan into rubble in the closing days of WW2. Fire bombing cities and dropping everything on them killing hundreds of thousands of people per city.

They could have kept this up and killed 5 or 10 or even 20 million Japanese and I can tell you the Japanese would not have surrendered.

Soviets lost 40 million and did not surrender. So the Japanese would not surrender because of bombing, death and destruction.

What made the Japanese surrender, unconditionally? two atom bombs. just two little atom bombs, one that killed less than were killed in the firebombing of Tokyo.

doesn't that tell you al you need to know about nukes? the cost of production, the cost and security of storage, the cost of delivery and practicality. it wins wars and keeps nations safe.

no messy sabotage, no need to retaliate, because everyone leaves you well alone. Why is Iran being humiliated and afraid to retaliate or do anything while North Korea is left totally alone? Because they have nukes and no one can touch them. They can in fact do whatever they like and no-one can do anything.

In fact they can destroy quite a few American cities. and totally wipe out South Korea. and South Korea is not allowed to have nukes. The north can fire 100 missiles into south korean capital and what can South Korea or America do? not a darn thing. They would sit there and take it. like Iran does now.

you think America would come to the aid of South Korea if it risked losing a LA or San Francisco? let me tell you not a chance. you think South Korea would ever invade the north under any circumstances? it would never. simply because of nukes.

some here think Iran isa danger to someone because of these missiles. This is a joke. Iran is being picked apart and prepared for a syria scenario. And there is nothing it can do. the missiles have stopped a more robust approach, but they will not help Iran in the Long run. I don't think the west wants regime change, they just want to destroy he country and this regime can keep the rubble.

Anyway, you can delude yourself, but its pretty clear what weapons can save a country and what weapons cant. if missiles were that scary, Iran would not be permitted to haven them. there would already be a war.

And I do believe that if Iran tries to make nukes it will automatically trigger an invasion, but the crucial thing is, the moment a nuke is tested, that invasion will simply stop. Iran will be invited to be a part of the club. Similar to Pakistan.

my goodness, Pakistan harboured Bin Laden, and when Afghanistan did it, they invaded the country and killed their people for 20 years, and when Pakistan harboured him, they just pretended like nothing happened, they even made excuses for Pakistan saying, maybe it was rogue elements that did it.

If Iran had nukes, it could fire a missile into the Saudi Mistry of defence and the US would be like, "oh come on, that's not a nice thing to do, there is no military solution tot his argument. lets have a negotiation."

If Iran does that now, it would be the end of Iran.

Well said.