Israel will be 'wiped off map,' Iranian leader says

[blixa442]

...and that's the reason why the French & the Germans are getting nervous about Iran. It's worth noting though that both, Russia & China, have significant interests in Iran and aren't too conducive toward the idea of military intervention from the West. As for Israel, they don't have much choice. They'll have to attack Iran the second they confirm Iran has nukes ala Hussein in 1982. They can't afford to sit idly and debate this at the UN with the kind of rhetoric that's coming from Iran.

 

[Canuck 36]

I think everyone should have nukes - everyone would be afraid to use them thus ushering in the Age of Aquarius.

 

[EnviroTO]

Except some nutballs don't care about consequences of death. When death is deliverance the threat of nuclear retaliation doesn't work.

 

[cassiusa]

because the only way the war machine makes money is through war and the rebuilding contracts that follow.

And this makes it the sole responsibility of the USA to be the peace makers/keepers? I fail to see why it shouldn't be an multi-national/world responsibility.

 

[Fighting Madd]

Muslims always, always, always lose every war they've ever tried to fight against Israel. The Israeli people will not be pushed out. Iranian nukes? They're more than likely to blow themselves up. Even if an Iranian nuke was smuggled into Israel and detonated, it would kill a few hundred thousand Israelis, and with more vigour than before they would rebuild and then seek a Mosad'ish revenge.

 

[allabootmatt]

Stupid, stupid, stupid on the part of Ahmeninjad. At the very top of my list of Organizations Not To **** With is the Israeli government. Those are NOT people you want to feel threatened or a even slightly twitchy. Israel's national security strategy is predicated on being able to respond with overwhelming force to any attack from a Muslim state, and you'd better believe that right now a whole bunch of IAF generals are dusting off their no-doubt highly effective plans for airstrikes against Iran to remind them who is boss. If the Iranians want to bluster, they may soon find out that "wiping Israel off the map" is a virtually impossible thing, and thank god for that.

 

[Antiloop33rpm]

Israel is an American client state and if you attack Israel, you not only deal directly with the Israelies, but the Americans are but a few steps behind.

 

[1Voltaire1]

Notwithstanding Ahmadinejad's comments, Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons demonstrates a certain rationality, given the current realities in the region. If 'Iran' is rational then a lot of this discussion is redundant: first, Iran does not possess a first strike capacity (the ability to annihilate); second, they do not possess a second strike capacity (mutually assured destruction). Therefore, they do not have the ability to use nuclear weapons even if they possess, or could possess, the capacity. The only utility that nuclear weapons have for Iran is as a deterrent. The current war in Iraq has given Iran significant incentive to attain nuclear weapons for the purposes of having a deterrent.

 

[Antiloop33rpm]

Voltaire: Well said. This is also one of the reasons why the United States will never leave the Middle East under anything but extrordinary circumstances. Even if it turns out (which most of the evidence indicates) that they lied about every rationale they used to justify the war in Iraq, its a self fufilling endevour for them. Their continued presence creates massive unrest in the region. Terrorist activities increase and countries such as Iran, start to assemble nuclear capabilities as a deterrent. 5 years after they invaded, and the public has 'forgotten' all the lies that lead them there inthe first place, suddenly the region has become the place that they first claimed it to be. They can bring back tangible proof to American people and the congress, reprove their case, and military action continues and possibley intensifies.

Israel is little more than a pawn in the game. Middle East countries can use it as a way of indirectly threatening agression against the United States, while the US uses it as a military outpost. If something catastrophic did happen to Israel, it would be safe to assume that large scale global conflict would be just a few short hours behind it.

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

The current war in Iraq has given Iran significant incentive to attain nuclear weapons for the purposes of having a deterrent.

Their nuclear program has been active since the first war with Iraq in the 1980's. You know, the one where they used chemical weapons. They don't want a deterrent, they want a better form of poison gas.

Kevin

 

[1Voltaire1]

Their nuclear program has been active since the first war with Iraq in the 1980's.

This doesn't negate the fact that the current war in Iraq has given them a significant incentive to attain nuclear weapons. If countries that don't have nuclear weapons get invaded (Iraq), and countries that do (North Korea) don't get invaded, then nuclear weapons sure look attractive.

You know, the one where they used chemical weapons. They don't want a deterrent, they want a better form of poison gas.

So let me get this straight, Iran used chemical weapons in their Iraq war, therefore they'll use nuclear weapons should they attain them? I hate to understate it but there's just a bit of a difference, in terms of the order of magnitude, between chemical weapons and nuclear weapons. Furthermore, that they used chemical weapons in a war 20 years ago doesn't, in itself, indicate that they'll use nuclear weapons today.

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

This doesn't negate the fact that the current war in Iraq has given them a significant incentive to attain nuclear weapons.

The current situation in Iraq is irrelevant to their nuclear weapons program. From the Iranian point of view, they're either surrounded by unbelievers or heretics. They've been invaded several times for their oil, and have what amounts to a blood feud with the Sunnis (ie all of the other Muslim nations surrounding them). The Sunnis had chemical weapons, and used them on Iran. They now have nuclear weapons. The Iranians want them too, and I'm not entirely surprised.

If countries that don't have nuclear weapons get invaded (Iraq), and countries that do (North Korea) don't get invaded, then nuclear weapons sure look attractive.

Possession of nuclear weapons is irrelevant in the examples you've used. The US didn't invade in the fifty years between the Korean War truce and the start of the North Korean weapons program.

So let me get this straight, Iran used chemical weapons in their Iraq war, therefore they'll use nuclear weapons should they attain them?

It's not a given, but it's highly indicative of their thinking patterns.

I hate to understate it but there's just a bit of a difference, in terms of the order of magnitude, between chemical weapons and nuclear weapons.

Only in the programs used to create them. They're both WMD, and both represent an extreme escalation of force. Why do you think countries so rarely escalate to chemical weapons use?

Furthermore, that they used chemical weapons in a war 20 years ago doesn't, in itself, indicate that they'll use nuclear weapons today.

It's strongly indicative that they would. The same crowd is still in control. If they'd had nuclear weapons during the Iran-Iraq war, do you think that they wouldn't have used them?

Kevin

 

[1Voltaire1]

I originally stated: "The current war in Iraq has given Iran a significant incentive to attain nuclear weapons for the purposes of having a deterrent." To which druknsubmrnr has responded, essentially, a couple of times...

The current situation in Iraq is irrelevant to their nuclear weapons program.

I'm not exactly sure what the disagreement is. Are you suggesting that the war in Iraq has been a disincentive for Iran's nuclear weapons program?

They now have nuclear weapons.

Who has nuclear weapons?

Possession of nuclear weapons is irrelevant in the examples you've used.

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. There were three countries in George Bush's axis of evil speech: Iran, Iraq, and North Korea. North Korea has nuclear weapons and they have not been invaded. Iraq did not, does not, nor likely ever will have nuclear weapons. Guess what happened to Iraq? That's right, Iraq was invaded. What message does this transmit to Iran? That if they have nuclear weapons they'll be invaded?

Only in the programs used to create them. They're both WMD, and both represent an extreme escalation of force. Why do you think countries so rarely escalate to chemical weapons use?

Are you suggesting that the destructive capacity of a hydrogen bomb is equivalent to that of a mustard or sarin gas shell? Chemical weapons are not even remotely similar to nuclear weapons in the scale of their destructive capacity. Therefore, the usage of nuclear weapons isn't analogous to the usage of chemical weapons. In spite of the fact that they're both considered weapons of mass destruction. In fact, if I recollect correctly, the U.S. currently possesses conventional weapons that have the potential to be more destructive than a lot of chemical weapons.

If they'd had nuclear weapons during the Iran-Iraq war, do you think that they wouldn't have used them?

Yes. We can start with the issue of nuclear fallout. Nuclear weapons have next to no practical utility.

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

Are you suggesting that the war in Iraq has been a disincentive for Iran's nuclear weapons program?

I'm stating that the current situation in Iraq is irrelevant to the Iranian nuclear program ie neither an incentive nor a disincentive.

Who has nuclear weapons?

Pakistan, who are Sunni Muslims. Their program was also closely linked with Saudi Arabia, who are also Sunni Muslims, and are currently armed with Pakistani nuclear-capable ballistic missiles.

What message does this transmit to Iran? That if they have nuclear weapons they'll be invaded?

Not at all. Your arguments linchpin is that North Korea hasn't been invaded because it has nuclear weapons. It ignores the fact that the US didn't invade North Korea when they didn't have nuclear weapons, while it did invade Iraq when Iraq didn't have nuclear weapons. This suggests that nuclear weapons possession is irrelevant to being invaded by the US.

Your argument also overlooks the fact that the Iranian nuclear program was started long before the US invaded Iraq.

Are you suggesting that the destructive capacity of a hydrogen bomb is equivalent to that of a mustard or sarin gas shell?

No, I'm suggesting that the escalation path is non-linear. The use of any WMD is considered to be provocation for use of all other WMD. Using chemical weapons on US forces for example, is considered to be sufficient provocation for nuclear retaliation.

In fact, if I recollect correctly, the U.S. currently possesses conventional weapons that have the potential to be more destructive than a lot of chemical weapons.

Such as?

We can start with the issue of nuclear fallout.

Nuclear fallout is a short-lived problem ie less than a month. All of the really nasty products have decayed by then. The products with long half-lives aren't a problem, because the reason they have long half-lives is that they're not terribly radioactive.

Persistent chemical weapons OTOH will kill for years. VX in particular is extremely difficult to decontaminate.

Nuclear weapons have next to no practical utility.

To a nation lead by rational people, they lead to strategic paralysis. To a nation lead by religious fanatics, surrounded by what they view as heretics? Maybe they'd see it differently.

Kevin

 

[Fighting Madd]

IMO Israel, being the only true democracy in the region (even Israeli-Arabs get to vote - not Palestinians of course) deserves our protection from the arab hordes, not our contempt or blame for destabilizing the region.