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

[Woolygimp]

[ 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.

[KOTLP]

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.

[Woolygimp]

[ 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 ]

Talking politics is so 18th century. From what I've heard, Shooting politics, throwing people off balcony politics, and poloniuming people to death politics are all the rave. Don't believe me? Ask Putin.

[KOTLP]

heh. I can understand things get a bit heated, but have some friggin tact, gentlepersons! I mean christ, just be polite and friendly, despite differences of opinion. When everyone goes off on rants based on ideological and/or political differences (that will likely never change as very few people seem capable of that) there is no progress of thought or good discussion.

[[Phill]]

You could argue that the first Gulf War was barely won - ironically if there was a push to Baghdad, or at least support for the uprising against Sadaam all this could have been very very different.

Heinsight being 20/20 and all.

But yeah, its basically a given that the US has no chance of winning a ground assault on Iran, they could only fight by means of air assault, and that gives very few options whilst provoking any number of retaliations.

John Kilduff,
[ QUOTE ]
As for how Iran might harm the USA, that picture would change dramatically should they acquire nuclear weapons. Right now Iran could attack U.S. interests overseas or send suicide bombers to attack in the U.S. If Iran acquires nukes they will be able to reach Europe with their missiles, and eventually will have missiles capable of reaching the USA. If Iran acquires nukes they might be able to use a ship-launched nuke to set off an EMP blast which could knock out much of the USA's electronic infrastructure in the homeland. Have you read about E.M.P.? It would be one way Iran could attempt assymetrical warfare and it could potentially be very devastating.

[/ QUOTE ]

Firstly, yeah, i know a hell of a lot about EMP, at least as much as you do. I also know they would never use an EMP blast generated from a nuclear detenation as a primary objective of such an attack.

As for that line "if Iran acquires nukes they will be able to reach Europe with their missiles". I wasnt aware Iran had missiles with such a range. There was great shock when the dossier on Iraqs weapons developments included a missile capable of reaching our base in Cyprus - i would have thought such a capability of Iran would be well known.

The distance between Tehran and London though is 2738 miles which is 4406 KM, which according to:
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iran/missile/
they do have missiles capable of reaching. Im unsure of the payload of it, but id imagine a small nuke could be carried on something they have.

Yeah, but like i said, there is litterally no way Iran would have a first strike nuke for obvious nuclear deterent based reasoning. Even if they wished they could wipe out the US and Israel, there is pretty much 0% likelyhood they would or could ever act on such impulses.

As for passing these weapons on to proxies, which im guessing meant terrorists, there has, to my knowledge, been zero evidence of Iran supporting terrorist groups acting outside the middle east - and thats only with me giving leaway on what is a terrorist and what is a freedom fighter.

[Woolygimp]

In terms of global geography, Israel is extremely close and small. Small enough to where very few nukes could finish the job.

As far as danger to the continental United States? I'm 100x more worried about one of these nukes ending up in the wrong hands, and winding up in NYC.

[[Phill]]

Yes, im well aware Israel is much closer and smaller, but i dont really live there and picked up on the missiles hitting Europe point.

But yeah, Israel could be hit, but then they do have a nuclear deterrent themselves - and if that didnt help either before or after such a hyperthetical attack, the US would undoubtedly step in a nuke Iran in retalliation.

And again, which wrong hands would this nuke end up in? Are we going back to the old all muslims = Al Quaeda argument here?

[Howard Beale]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And YOU can assert this how?

[/ QUOTE ]

Um, I can assert it because of common sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who could argue w/ common sense? Of course, I have occasionally noticed that the 'common' is not always so sensible, but certainly we can rely upon it in this case.

Seriously now: Do I want to trust the Iranians? No, I do NOT want to trust the Iranians.

The rest of your reply is what makes the world go 'round. I'll leave it alone.

[Woolygimp]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, im well aware Israel is much closer and smaller, but i dont really live there and picked up on the missiles hitting Europe point.

But yeah, Israel could be hit, but then they do have a nuclear deterrent themselves - and if that didnt help either before or after such a hyperthetical attack, the US would undoubtedly step in a nuke Iran in retalliation.

And again, which wrong hands would this nuke end up in? Are we going back to the old all muslims = Al Quaeda argument here?

[/ QUOTE ]

Death is the ultimate deterrent, and even it does not stop people from furthering their goals. Suicide bombers?

Mutually Assured Destruction can NOT be considered an infallible deterrent to extremist types like the current President. Are you willing to risk hundreds of millions of lives on your theory, the theory that he's not crazy enough to do it?

Trust me. People are not always rational, and assuming national leaders always act in concord with their nations best interest is naive.

[[Phill]]

Ive yet to hear of any Iranian suicide bombers. Please enlighten me.