Iran - Do you think it's time for impeachment?

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


So they do have a pragmatic outlook as well, so they would probably shy away from actually attacking the USA. However they just might miscalculate and push the envelope too far somehow, thinking the USA is too weak or stretched out to react militarily to any aggressions they might commit or support in the Middle East.

[/ QUOTE ]


You mean like if, say, the US would launch an illegal preemptive attack?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. Please read what I wrote again (and which you quoted) and take it literally.

[/ QUOTE ]
John,

No offense, but you should really try to keep your emotions out of political discussion as it is super lame and many people won't want to talk politics with you.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm afraid that what you're saying isn't making sense to me. You asked if I meant something and I said no, please take what I said literally. Now you're talking about emotion but as far as I can tell we have only been discussing factual matters in a factual manner. (scratches head) [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

My post was in reference to the body of rude, tactless posts of yours in this thread and on this board in general, not that reply in particular.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just went back and reread all my posts in this thread. I do not see any rudeness that I have committed in this thread (and I do not recall being rude elsewhere). I have attempted only to discuss things in a dispassionate and factual manner in this thread. Could you possibly be confusing me with someone else? I really don't understand where you're coming from on this. I really hope you have me confused with someone else, because otherwise I am just completely baffled.

Are you reading the posts in a mode that allows you to see which author posted which post? (there are several different viewing modes; not sure which options you may have chosen, or how they all work)

Iron? Anyone? What the...? How could anyone possibly think I was being rude in this thread? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] (scratches head again) [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

edited:

P.S. What exactly did I say in this thread that you think is rude, KOTLP? I really don't get it. (scratches head for the third time) [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[KOTLP]

[ QUOTE ]
What exactly did I say in this thread that you think is rude, KOTLP? I really don't get it. (scratches head for the third time) [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Man, I'm totally sorry. I just went back and read your posts and the initial reply wasn't even meant for you... (must have did a quick reply that didn't thread right). Then after that I assumed it was the same poster. ugh. I honestly appreciate your contributions to this thread. was just getting so frustrated that half of the posts in this thread were worded hostile and one guy in particular was pissing me off (which is why I rarely come here). peace

[pokerpunchout]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So they do have a pragmatic outlook as well, so they would probably shy away from actually attacking the USA. However they just might miscalculate and push the envelope too far somehow, thinking the USA is too weak or stretched out to react militarily to any aggressions they might commit or support in the Middle East.

[/ QUOTE ]
You mean like if, say, the US would launch an illegal preemptive attack?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. Please read what I wrote again (and which you quoted) and take it literally.

[/ QUOTE ]

The United States military isn't stretched out as much as people think. We have something like 2 million active service members, of which only 130,000 are in Iraq.

Keep in mind we didn't use ground troops to win the first Gulf War, it was overwhelming air superiority. There are still two 2 aircraft carriers in the gulf, and I'm certain that troops could easily be relocated out of Iraq in case there was a conflict.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is assinine. There is now way our military in its current state could win a conflict with Iran. The US military is a "paper tiger" for all intensive purposes. We simply do not have enough troops to engage in a succesful full scale campaign against Iran. We could easily engage in an air war and take out much or their ability to communicate, ect..but their is no way to take control of the country with the current available troops we have.

There is also no way the US could currently win victory short of a strategy similar to WWII, i.e, nuclear weapons, draft, multi-national coalition presenting an overwhelming force, and I do not see any politicians or the American public wanting to do this. Our leaders and generals talk tough but none of them have shown the intelligence, fortitude, or simple disrespect for the life of the enemy it takes in order to win war.

[pokerpunchout]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Dude, EMP attack?

You don't know what you are talking about do you?

Where would they detonate the nuke to achieve this effect? EMP bombs exist, but they aren't that powerful, and the nuclear explosion from a hydrogen bomb would be far more devastating than the EMP after-effects.

You can't set off the EMP charge off of a nuke in the middle of New York, without destroying New York with the initial blast...

[/ QUOTE ]
The potential detonation would be high enough above the surface of the Earth that the blast would not produce physical damage to any city, but rather would produce electromagnetic damage to much of the continental USA. This would have the potential to disable much of the continental USA's power grid and place satellites, computers and other vital equipment at risk. Recovery could be very slow and modern life as we know it would change.

Excerpt below, from Jane's Defence News:

"The US armed forces infrastructure, and American society at large, remain vulnerable to a debilitating attack by an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) generated by a high-altitude nuclear blast, a senior-level, congressionally appointed panel has warned.

Several potential adversaries, such as China, are capable of launching a crippling EMP strike against the US with a nuclear-tipped ballistic missile, and others, such as North Korea or even terrorist groups, could have the capability by 2015, the panel said in its findings that it unveiled to US legislators at a hearing on 22 July. "
Jane's Defence Weekly

And from UsaToday, excerpt below:

"The saturation of society with modern electronics, while certainly a good thing overall, gives us an Achilles' heel. The more dependent we become on such electronics, the more vulnerable we are to societal chaos if a substantial portion of them fail simultaneously. It is said that an electromagnetic pulse, or EMP, could cause such a failure.
An EMP is generated by a nuclear explosion, or by a smaller-scale "e-bomb." If a terrorist or rogue nation detonated a nuclear bomb a few hundred miles above the United States, the resulting shock wave could damage or disrupt electronic components throughout the country. The consequences could be catastrophic. Our life-sustaining critical infrastructure such as communications networks, energy networks, and food and water distribution networks could all break down."

Vulnerable Electronics

And from Space News, excerpted:

"WASHINGTON — The United States is unprepared to deal with the disruptions to its electronic infrastructure that likely would result from a nuclear blast in space over its territory, a panel of experts told U.S. lawmakers recently."

Space.com/spacenews

and from HowStuffWorks, excerpted:

"While EMP weapons are generally considered non-lethal, they could easily kill people if they were directed towards particular targets. If an EMP knocked out a hospital's electricity, for example, any patient on life support would die immediately. An EMP weapon could also neutralize vehicles, including aircraft, causing catastrophic accidents.

In the end, the most far-reaching effect of an e-bomb could be psychological. A full-scale EMP attack in a developed country would instantly bring modern life to a screeching halt. There would be plenty of survivors, but they would find themselves in a very different world. "

How E-bombs Work

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. In order to use a nuclear device to properly achieve maximum EMP effect it must be detinated in the uper atmosphere. There is a mathmatical equation (I do not have it at present time) that basically shows the higher up the detination, the wider the spread of the EMP.

In short you need missles capable of reaching space in order to achieve maximum effect. Iran does not have this capability.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What exactly did I say in this thread that you think is rude, KOTLP? I really don't get it. (scratches head for the third time) [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Man, I'm totally sorry. I just went back and read your posts and the initial reply wasn't even meant for you... (must have did a quick reply that didn't thread right). Then after that I assumed it was the same poster. ugh. I honestly appreciate your contributions to this thread. was just getting so frustrated that half of the posts in this thread were worded hostile and one guy in particular was pissing me off (which is why I rarely come here). peace

[/ QUOTE ]

No problem, and thanks for the explanation. Mistakes happen [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Dude, EMP attack?

You don't know what you are talking about do you?

Where would they detonate the nuke to achieve this effect? EMP bombs exist, but they aren't that powerful, and the nuclear explosion from a hydrogen bomb would be far more devastating than the EMP after-effects.

You can't set off the EMP charge off of a nuke in the middle of New York, without destroying New York with the initial blast...

[/ QUOTE ]
The potential detonation would be high enough above the surface of the Earth that the blast would not produce physical damage to any city, but rather would produce electromagnetic damage to much of the continental USA. This would have the potential to disable much of the continental USA's power grid and place satellites, computers and other vital equipment at risk. Recovery could be very slow and modern life as we know it would change.

Excerpt below, from Jane's Defence News:

"The US armed forces infrastructure, and American society at large, remain vulnerable to a debilitating attack by an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) generated by a high-altitude nuclear blast, a senior-level, congressionally appointed panel has warned.

Several potential adversaries, such as China, are capable of launching a crippling EMP strike against the US with a nuclear-tipped ballistic missile, and others, such as North Korea or even terrorist groups, could have the capability by 2015, the panel said in its findings that it unveiled to US legislators at a hearing on 22 July. "
Jane's Defence Weekly

And from UsaToday, excerpt below:

"The saturation of society with modern electronics, while certainly a good thing overall, gives us an Achilles' heel. The more dependent we become on such electronics, the more vulnerable we are to societal chaos if a substantial portion of them fail simultaneously. It is said that an electromagnetic pulse, or EMP, could cause such a failure.
An EMP is generated by a nuclear explosion, or by a smaller-scale "e-bomb." If a terrorist or rogue nation detonated a nuclear bomb a few hundred miles above the United States, the resulting shock wave could damage or disrupt electronic components throughout the country. The consequences could be catastrophic. Our life-sustaining critical infrastructure such as communications networks, energy networks, and food and water distribution networks could all break down."

Vulnerable Electronics

And from Space News, excerpted:

"WASHINGTON — The United States is unprepared to deal with the disruptions to its electronic infrastructure that likely would result from a nuclear blast in space over its territory, a panel of experts told U.S. lawmakers recently."

Space.com/spacenews

and from HowStuffWorks, excerpted:

"While EMP weapons are generally considered non-lethal, they could easily kill people if they were directed towards particular targets. If an EMP knocked out a hospital's electricity, for example, any patient on life support would die immediately. An EMP weapon could also neutralize vehicles, including aircraft, causing catastrophic accidents.

In the end, the most far-reaching effect of an e-bomb could be psychological. A full-scale EMP attack in a developed country would instantly bring modern life to a screeching halt. There would be plenty of survivors, but they would find themselves in a very different world. "

How E-bombs Work

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. In order to use a nuclear device to properly achieve maximum EMP effect it must be detinated in the uper atmosphere. There is a mathmatical equation (I do not have it at present time) that basically shows the higher up the detination, the wider the spread of the EMP.

In short you need missles capable of reaching space in order to achieve maximum effect. Iran does not have this capability.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point if we're sure that Iran does not have missiles capable of reaching space and if Iran will not have that capability in the near future. Now I'm curious, though: how high is the beginning of space/end of Earth's atmosphere, anyway? And what is the minimum type of missile that can reach it?

[ilyasik]

[ QUOTE ]
It's illegal to threaten aggressive war against another nation. Iran has no ability to attack us. And they do not have the intention to attack the United States

[/ QUOTE ]

absolutely right!
but i think that they never will attack iran because that would strengthen our islamic world and at the latest then you will have a big problem.

you should always remember that iran is not iraq!

[jdock99]

[ QUOTE ]
It's illegal to threaten aggressive war against another nation. Iran has no ability to attack us. And they do not have the intention to attack the United States

[/ QUOTE ]

Although I agree that in the short term Iran as a nation has not intention of formally attacking/invading the United States homeland, I think it is fairly obvious from Iran's support of Hezbollah that it is very capable of destabilizing the Middle East and "attacking" US economic interests.

[theweatherman]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it is fairly obvious from Iran's support of Hezbollah that it is very capable of destabilizing the Middle East and "attacking" US economic interests.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course this is ultimate evil. There is no way America would ever destabilize the middle east with wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. And heaven forbid "attacking" Iran's economic interests via economic sanctions!

Maybe we should invade ourselves