I don't know about that. My guess is that they have had half a century to hide everything deep underground where bombs can't reach it. After all, there is only one industry there - military.
But you would if you figured you could get the jump on them.

Yes, Iran has options. However, given the on-going diplomatic efforts with North Korea - which, unlike Iran, actually possesses nuclear weapons - it's very clear that the West, too, has options.

Yes, I suppose the West has options in dealing with Iran. Israel, on the other hand, is between a rock and a hard place. If Iran successfully gets nuclear weapons they will immediately start bullying Israel, what with Iran's president spouting off about Israel. They might just have to take away that threat if no one else does.

I mean, at least North Korea made the right noises in the mid 90's when Jimmy Carter invited himself over there as some kind of emmisary of peace. They signed the treaty, got billions of aid, and promptly showed how bad Jimmy and Clinton's judgement could be. But this cuckoo in Iran is not making the least effort to try and fool the Americans about his intentions, he's even more rabid than Saddam was. Things could get very bad.

I don't see how Iran's eventual/possible/unconfirmed development of untested nuclear weapons can be viewed, particularly in the immediate future, as a great threat by Israel, which has a well-developed nuclear arsenal estimated at 100-200, even as many as 400, bombs. Kind of like a guy whose never even held a gun in his hand getting a hold of a rifle and deciding he'll wave it around in the face of a veteran soldier holding a fully automatic weapon: no contest.

IF Iran actually develops nuclear weapons, then negotiate with them just as with North Korea. Otherwise, using the argument that "a threat equals the right to pre-emptive self-defence", a non-nuclear Iran has just as much right to a defensive attack on Israel as Israel has to a similar attack on Iran. (And if the "selling of secrets" is an issue, then there's even more reason to deal with North Korea/Pakistan/China/India/etc. than with a non-nuclear Iran.)

Meanwhile, Iran says it wants nuclear energy and they're as entitled as anyone else to have it. So let them have it.

And as for the Iranian president's posturing, it can't be taken seriously. The point has been made that he is not the true wielder of power in Iran, and I strongly suspect that if he isn't aware of how easily Iran could be destroyed by the combined might of Israel and the U.S., his puppeteers are.

eljay,
I tend to disagree about the comparison used. Instead of a rifle in the hand of an inexperienced guy trying to shoot a veteran soldier, I think it's more like a bag of hand grenades on a patient in a mental instituition. Sure he doesn't stand much chance against security and police, but I'd fully understand if the personnel and other patients in the instituition preferred a preemptive strike.

As for the right to a preemptive strike of non-nuclear Iran against nuclear Israel, I see it like the right to a preemptive strike of an unarmed heroin junkie against an armed policeman. Quite moot, in other words.

Yeah, I agree, you can tell from my comparisons I don't have high regard for the current regime in Iran, but I'm willing to live with the prejudice. :)

What about a pre-emptive strike against a country that have nuclear weapons,that say they would use them and are the only country that has ever ever used them before.Would you understand that?

What about a pre-emptive strike against a country that have nuclear weapons,that say they would use them and are the only country that has ever ever used them before.Would you understand that?

Are you talking about 9/11?

I think it's more like a bag of hand grenades on a patient in a mental instituition.An interesting analogy but, for the sake of argument, I'll disagree for two reasons:
- It's unlikely that Iran will all of a sudden go from having no nukes to a "bag full" of perfectly functional weapons, leaving no one any time to bring pressure to bear.
- Having nukes is a deterrent, but using them is suicide. I don't believe that the real leadership in Iran is that crazy.

As for the right to a preemptive strike of non-nuclear Iran against nuclear Israel, I see it like the right to a preemptive strike of an unarmed heroin junkie against an armed policeman. Quite moot, in other words.Wow, so I guess it just sucks to be the underdog then, eh? ;)

Yeah, I agree, you can tell from my comparisons I don't have high regard for the current regime in Iran..., but I'm willing to live with the prejudice. :)I'd have to say that I don't have high regard for the current regime, either (or for any secular or religious dictatorship, for that matter), but neither do I have high regard for Western "Do as I say, not as I do, or I'll smite your @ss" foreign policy.

I'm all about peace and love, man. Peace and love... :D

Are you talking about 9/11?
I'm talking about your understanding of a military strike made so as to gain the advantage when an enemy strike is believed to be imminent:

- It's unlikely that Iran will all of a sudden go from having no nukes to a "bag full" of perfectly functional weapons, leaving no one any time to bring pressure to bear.

They don't have to have a "bag full" of nukes, or even use any. The danger of having even one nuke smuggled somehow to the newly elected Palestinian government justifies weekly preemptive strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities :)

Wow, so I guess it just sucks to be the underdog then, eh? ;)
Sure sucks. If the Middle East had such a problem with someone else calling the shots, while at the same time so much disliking the way of life of the US and the West, (Russia is an example of a refusal to be an underdog), they better developed some science and gained respect instead of living in the good ole middle ages and focusing mostly on killing infidels.

"Do as I say, not as I do, or I'll smite your @ss"

That actually is an OK statement when it comes to nuclear weapons. The non-proliferation treaty signed by all nuclear powers long time ago essentially says exactly that.

They don't have to have a "bag full" of nukes, or even use any. The danger of having even one nuke smuggled somehow...Yeah, I saw that scenario in "True Lies"... :p

Of course, that point again raises the issue of inaction (i.e., no strikes) against North Korea, Pakistan, etc.

If the Middle East had such a problem with someone else calling the shots ... they better developed some science and gained respectBut...that's what the nukes are for! ;)

That actually is an OK statement when it comes to nuclear weapons. The non-proliferation treaty signed by all nuclear powers long time ago essentially says exactly that.Not exactly: In Article I, the Nuclear Weapon States declare not to "induce any non-nuclear-weapon State to ... acquire nuclear weapons." A preemptive-strike doctrine and otherwise threatening postures can be viewed as induction by non-NWS parties.

I'm talking about your understanding of a military strike made so as to gain the advantage when an enemy strike is believed to be imminent:

Well, however you put it, I will not understand a preemptive strike of Iran against USA, just like I did not and do not understand Al Qaeda's preemptive strike against New York. The fact that you are not as powerful as somenone else and wanting to kill him because of that is somewhat not understandable to me.
Then again, the mind of a madman is a mystery. :)

Well, however you put it, I will not understand a preemptive strike of Iran against USA, just like I did not and do not understand Al Qaeda's preemptive strike against New York. The fact that you are not as powerful as somenone else and wanting to kill him because of that is somewhat not understandable to me.
Then again, the mind of a madman is a mystery. :)
I'll take from that it's ok as long as its the good guys.

Forgive me, obviously I'm not the brightest bulb here, but the 2 posts after mine made absolutely no sense to me. I failed to make any logical connection between them and my statement they were responding to.

...just like I did not and do not understand Al Qaeda's preemptive strike against New York.
I wouldn't call it a preemptive strike. In their minds it was retaliatory.

Then again, the mind of a madman is a mystery. :)
Yes, we'll never know what makes ol' Dubya tick...

This thread reminds me of a poem by Robert Frost called "King's X" (The expression king's X is an exclamation used among children during fights and games to call a temporary truce or an exemption from being tagged):

Having invented a new Holocaust,
And been the first with it to win a war,
How they make haste to cry with fingers crossed,
King's X--no fairs to use it anymore!

Forgive me, obviously I'm not the brightest bulb here, but the 2 posts after mine made absolutely no sense to me. I failed to make any logical connection between them and my statement they were responding to.One of those was a lighthearted post of mine, which I deleted in order to reduce confusion, so your bulb just got one brighter... ;)

I'll take from that it's ok as long as its the good guys.
If this is one of the post that made no sense to you its ok,I understood what you said.

I wouldn't call it a preemptive strike. In their minds it was retaliatory.


Yes, we'll never know what makes ol' Dubya tick...


:p In comparing the Iranian prez and the American one, you actually think Dubya's the crazier? LOL! Well Arthur, it just goes to show you how some peoples' haterd of Bush can so badly cloud their judgement they can't see the nose on their faces.

It was a joke, I actually think Dubya is DUMBER than Ahmadinejad, not crazier. And if you think there is one valid argument for supporting a miserable failure like Bush as leader of the most powerful country on the planet, please share it since you are so obviously a fan of the kick-ass Texan (from Connecticut).

Let's list the positive things he has done:

(dead silence)
(crickets chirp)
(dry tumbleweed blows by)

Gee, even as a business man and Governor he sucked. Worst. President. Ever.

Everyone here will pin this on the US and not bother to realize that pretty much every sinlge western nation with any ties to the mideast is pulling for the bombs to be dropped. These countries talk of peace but they know when the lines have been crossed which make a peaceful solution all but die away.

If you want your energy security from now until 2020 you'll have to sit by and watch the bombs drop one more time.

It was a joke, I actually think Dubya is DUMBER than Ahmadinejad, not crazier. And if you think there is one valid argument for supporting a miserable failure like Bush as leader of the most powerful country on the planet, please share it since you are so obviously a fan of the kick-ass Texan (from Connecticut).

Let's list the positive things he has done:

(dead silence)
(crickets chirp)
(dry tumbleweed blows by)

Gee, even as a business man and Governor he sucked. Worst. President. Ever.

So now you're an expert on every single president that has ever sat in the U.S. Your sweeping comments betray you! But I'll leave you to your opinions, Bush can do fine without me.