[luke warm]

who do you think will start hostilities first, iran or israel (or the u.s.)?

missle test

[Al_U_Card]

let's see

if you ask Iran, Israel
if you ask the US, Iran
if you ask Israel, Israel


Israel wins!

[cranebill]

As soon as they ratify the missile defence sytem to be placed in Czech, The Russians will start the hostilities, provoked by the Americans

[Gerben42]

Depends on what you call "hostilities".
I will stay away from both Iran and Israel myself, thanks. No one ever wins a war, it's only the question who is the biggest loser.

My guess and hope is no one. Maybe at some point we'll become sensible and notice that we are much more successful if we try to get along.

I sure hope the opening poster is not hoping for some action. I think your post doesn't make this clear.

[hrothgar]

Define "start hostilities"

Israel and Iran have been waging a tit-for-tat proxy way in Lebanon for decades. I'd be hard pressed to say who started what.

If we're talking about covert military action using the regular standing army: The US has already been launching covert attacks against Iran. Seymour Hersch had a good article about this in the the New Yorker.

If we're talking about a significant military strike using regular army units, I'd guess that Israel is the most likely suspect, followed by the US.

[jtfanclub]

Will we even know?

Both the Syrians and the Israelis agree that some Israeli fighters strayed into Syrian airspace and were chased off, and the Israelis dropped their bombs (without arming them) to get the extra speed necessary to run away. the Israelis absolutely did not fly into into Syria and blow up a nuclear storage facility. Nope nope nope. I don't know if the leak was accidental or deliberate on that one, but it could easily have been passed off as nothing happened. There's a lot of evidence that the Americans are already fighting the Quds force (a division of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard).

It should be pointed out that Israel and Iran are natural allies (against the Sunni governments bent to destroy both of them), and were so for some time. In spite of the rhetoric, and in spite of them ending up on opposite sides in Lebanon, it's still not clear to me that the two countries are enemies. It may simply be that Iran is using the threat of force on Israel to keep the Americans in check.

It's very tough to tell what's really going on from reading the newspapers.

[mike777]

luke warm, on Jul 9 2008, 10:51 AM, said:

who do you think will start hostilities first, iran or israel (or the u.s.)?

missle test

It sounds like the USA is already engaging in 'acts of war" against Iran today.



Thank goodness Congress is not silent and and doing nothing. Thank goodness Congress has stopped the funding for these actions and simply does not just blame Bush or do nothing. Thank goodness the media is talking about these acts of war on 24 hour cable and on our front pages of our newspapers and local news.....or NOT!

As for Israel, one gets the impression it's people support a preemptive strike against Iran.

A few quotes from the Hersch article:
"..Democratic leadership....were willing, in secret to go along with the Administration in expanding covert activities directed at Iran, while the Party's presumptive candidate for President, ...has said he favors direct talks and diplomacy."



"Special Operations Forces have been conducting crossborder operations...since last year....seizing members of Al Quds...and pursuit of high value targets who may be killed or captured..."

[jtfanclub]

mike777, on Jul 9 2008, 02:17 PM, said:

A few quotes from the Hersch article:
"..Democratic leadership....were willing, in secret to go along with the Administration in expanding covert activities directed at Iran, while the Party's presumptive candidate for President, ...has said he favors direct talks and diplomacy."

I'm not sure why Hersh thinks this is a contradiction. The deal is that we cease hostilities in return for the Iranians not threatening with nukes. If we ceased hostilities before the negotiations, we just gave up our bargaining chips.

Also not sure why McCain thinks a missile shield would help. If I were Iran, I wouldn't nuke Europe, or even Israel. I'd nuke Riyadh for helping the Americans, and tell the Kuwaitis and Iraqis they were next. There's no long term benefit to Iran if they hurt Israel or Europe, but weakening the Arabs can turn them into a regional superpower, especially if they control all the oil coming out of the Middle East.

[luke warm]

cranebill, on Jul 9 2008, 11:29 AM, said:

As soon as they ratify the missile defence sytem to be placed in Czech, The Russians will start the hostilities, provoked by the Americans

yep, that looks to be a very ticklish situation... my understanding is that russia already threatened military action, if ...

Gerben42, on Jul 9 2008, 11:40 AM, said:

Depends on what you call "hostilities".

i guess i meant with missiles, given the headlines

Quote

I sure hope the opening poster is not hoping for some action. I think your post doesn't make this clear.

nope, i dislike war

[Gerben42]

Quote

I'd nuke Riyadh for helping the Americans, and tell the Kuwaitis and Iraqis they were next.

No you don't. I hope the EU will be strong enough to never talk to any country again that uses a nuclear weapon. No country or group of people can ever deserve to be attacked by such a weapon, as it is simply inhumane.

[luke warm]

Gerben42, on Jul 10 2008, 02:42 AM, said:

Quote

I'd nuke Riyadh for helping the Americans, and tell the Kuwaitis and Iraqis they were next.

No you don't. I hope the EU will be strong enough to never talk to any country again that uses a nuclear weapon. No country or group of people can ever deserve to be attacked by such a weapon, as it is simply inhumane.

war itself can be considered inhumane... this is the reason the neutron bomb was developed (well, one of the reasons), at least that's what "they" say... for example, the use of a neutron bomb vs. the firebombing of dresden

[Al_U_Card]

How about anyone that needs to kill someone be required to commit suicide first...

[Rossoneri]

Russia or Iran.

[cranebill]

Gerben42, on Jul 10 2008, 02:42 AM, said:

Quote

I'd nuke Riyadh for helping the Americans, and tell the Kuwaitis and Iraqis they were next.

No you don't. I hope the EU will be strong enough to never talk to any country again that uses a nuclear weapon. No country or group of people can ever deserve to be attacked by such a weapon, as it is simply inhumane.

I consider the fighting at Okinawa, was inhumane and the American invasion of Japan, would have been more inhumane (I am not associating any portion of blame on the Americans or Japanese).

The H Bomb, was lesser of two evils, if it is used again, maybe it will be for the same reason, to reduce effect and shorten suffering, since it was used, the Japanese have flourished, it was not Armagedon as some would have us think.

[Al_U_Card]

[quote name='cranebill' date='Jul 10 2008, 12:57 PM'] [quote name='Gerben42' date='Jul 10 2008, 02:42 AM'] [QUOTE] it was not Armagedon as some would have us think. [/quote]
Only because nobody else had one!

Poisoning wells, bombing dams, sterilizing ground zeroes, it won't end until we stop it.

Every nuclear power has run sims and taken damage estimates on how much they would "suffer" if involved in anything from a single nuke exchange to the whole mcgullion. They have bunkers and redundant control systems and stockpiles etc. etc......not because they fear this eventuality but because they are preparing for it.

[Al_U_Card]

btw Texas Hold'em would be a lot less popular if one of the options was that the bluffer, when called, could shoot the opponent who called....

[jtfanclub]

Gerben42, on Jul 10 2008, 02:42 AM, said:

Quote

I'd nuke Riyadh for helping the Americans, and tell the Kuwaitis and Iraqis they were next.

No you don't. I hope the EU will be strong enough to never talk to any country again that uses a nuclear weapon. No country or group of people can ever deserve to be attacked by such a weapon, as it is simply inhumane.

I'm talking about Iran here. Since Europe won't talk to a country that uses a nuke on anyone, why would it matter which country Iran used its nuke on?

Riyadh is close by, not protected by a missile shield, and has no real retailitory power. If Iran has, say, 100 nuclear missiles, and it uses a Hiroshima-sized one on Saudi Arabia, what is the rest of the world going to do about it?

[luke warm]

jtfanclub, on Jul 10 2008, 03:58 PM, said:

Gerben42, on Jul 10 2008, 02:42 AM, said:

Quote

I'd nuke Riyadh for helping the Americans, and tell the Kuwaitis and Iraqis they were next.

No you don't. I hope the EU will be strong enough to never talk to any country again that uses a nuclear weapon. No country or group of people can ever deserve to be attacked by such a weapon, as it is simply inhumane.

I'm talking about Iran here. Since Europe won't talk to a country that uses a nuke on anyone, why would it matter which country Iran used its nuke on?

Riyadh is close by, not protected by a missile shield, and has no real retailitory power. If Iran has, say, 100 nuclear missiles, and it uses a Hiroshima-sized one on Saudi Arabia, what is the rest of the world going to do about it?

i could be wrong but i doubt iran every develops nuclear weapons... the only way i see for it to happen is if the u.s. or someone else muzzles israel (or maybe if we get muzzled by someone)

[mike777]

If Iran wants to build one, if, I do not see how anyone could ever stop them. If the USA can build one in 3 years based on 1930-40 tech, how hard can it be based on 2010-20 technology? I assume they have all the PHD's and engineers they need, in house today. I assume what they do not have in country, they can buy or steal, how hard can it be?

I have read Japan could build a bomb in less than 30 days if it wants to. If Japan can do it in 30 days why should it take Iran ten or twenty or 100 more years?

1) I assume Iran knows all the theory on how to build a bomb.
2) I assume Iran has the blueprints on how to build a bomb.
3) I assume Iran has access to all the materials needed to build a bomb.
4) All they really need is the will to do it, and trial and error to put it all together.

[mike777]

http://rightweb.irc-...ofile/3683.html

Interesting reading about an EMP weapon released a hundred miles overhead creating an electromagnetic pulse which destroys the economy by destroying electronic circuits.