• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Nuke expert: Time to attack Iran

Mr. Invisible said:
Personally, I seriously doubt that Iran will attack Israel for the very reason that if it does, Iran will be destroyed by Israel, America, and co. It would effectively become the first country in history to willingly destroy itself just for the sake of destroying another country. While Imanutjob may be crazy, Iran is a rational actor on the world stage.
Click to expand...
Everyone seems to think that Iran is being irrational right now. Its funny that you think that Iran is an rational actor. What are some of those rational decisions that Iran has made?
 
FreedomFromAll said:
Everyone seems to think that Iran is being irrational right now. Its funny that you think that Iran is an rational actor. What are some of those rational decisions that Iran has made?
Click to expand...

Let's do a little comparison. How many country's has Iran militarily invaded in the last 50 years? And how many country's has the US militarily invaded in the last 50 years?

Which county has thousands of nuclear weapons and is the only country to have used them on civilian populations?

Which country has greater debt due to military spending?

Which country is giving tax breaks to their companies to outsource jobs?

Now which country are you claiming is the most irrational?
 
Last edited:
Mr. Invisible said:
Personally, I seriously doubt that Iran will attack Israel for the very reason that if it does, Iran will be destroyed by Israel, America, and co. It would effectively become the first country in history to willingly destroy itself just for the sake of destroying another country. While Imanutjob may be crazy, Iran is a rational actor on the world stage.
Click to expand...

If Iran were a rational actor and it knew it couldn't use the nukes it is trying to develop, it wouldn't suffer the sanctions and probable attacks in order to acquire them.
 
toomuchtime_ said:
If Iran were a rational actor and it knew it couldn't use the nukes it is trying to develop, it wouldn't suffer the sanctions and probable attacks in order to acquire them.
Click to expand...

Why is Iran wanting nukes as a deterrent any more irrational than Israel having nukes as a deterrent?
 
Catawba said:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/middle-east/115466-nuke-expert-time-attack-iran-13.html#post1060093765

http://www.debatepolitics.com/middle-east/69366-israel-could-use-tactical-nukes-iran-thinktank-4.html#post1058660613
Click to expand...
One is utter Nonsense, the other I already answered, yet you cite as 'debate'.
So since you want to play silly, let's see how YOU do on specifics/the gist.

Iran is a Radical Theocracy ultimately ruled by Mullahs, and more proximately by a deluded 'Mahdi-is-coming', Jew/Israel hating, President who probably stole the last election.
His hostility to Israel is infamous and Not in dispute.
Iran supports Hamas and Hezbollah in a Proxy war against Israel.
Israel, otoh, has had nukes for 40 years and at least 1 war, probably 2, and Not used them.
Israel is a stable secular democracy.

Israel has 1/60th of the population of it's hostile neighbors on 1/500th the Land mass.
Israel could be wiped out by even a Conventional missile attack in under half an hour. (possibly 1/3rd that time if New Egypt gets as hostile as Syria).
No country in History is a better candidate for needing Nukes/MAD. Certainly not the large and well populated USA/USSR during the cold war.

Iran is surrounded by no natural enemies except the rich Gulf States who want nothing to do with ruining their opulent life styles.
Though because OF Iran, Not Israel, they too are considering Nukes.

It's [only] Israel's Nukes/MAD that have kept the peace for 40 years, and the prospect of Iran's that's Destabilizing the area and Planet.

the two countries are in Utterly different Geo-strategic situations.
So your "if they have em, Iran should have em..." post is simplistic/Nonsensical tripe and is Ignorant (intentionally or otherwise) of all on the ground facts. It just makes an empty claim of equivalence.
I showed why.

So sad I had to repeat what was in those posts I linked to because you cannot debate what was presented in them.
Now you'll have to... or withdraw.
You're up!
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
Why is Iran wanting nukes as a deterrent any more irrational than Israel having nukes as a deterrent?
Click to expand...

Israel's nukes obviously do not act as a deterrent. Egypt and Syria launched full scale attacks on Israel in 1973 knowing full well that Israel had nukes, and Saddam was not deterred from launching missiles at Israel during the Gulf War.
 
Catawba said:
Let's do a little comparison. How many country's has Iran militarily invaded in the last 50 years? And how many country's has the US militarily invaded in the last 50 years?

Which county has thousands of nuclear weapons and is the only country to have used them on civilian populations?

Which country has greater debt due to military spending?

Which country is giving tax breaks to their companies to outsource jobs?

Now which country are you claiming is the most irrational?
Click to expand...
So when are you moving to Iran?
 
toomuchtime_ said:
In fact, Israel is the perfect case to prove nuclear weapons provide no deterrence against conventional attacks. In 1973, Egypt and Syria launched full scale attacks against Israel knowing full well Israel already possessed nuclear weapons. Israel's enemies are deterred from attack it because of the effectiveness of its conventional forces, not because of it nuclear weapons.
Click to expand...

Two nations with nukes would be unlikely to engage in full scale war as the likelihood is it would turn nuclear very quickly. Because of this discourse or at worse a 'cold war' is what can be expected.

Israel is known to have considered using nukes in 1973. Her choice it appears may well have been to use them had the US not immediately made available to her massive conventional arms.

Hence this shows that a country with nuclear weapons when meeting a stronger military may well use their nukes - if we are to take Israel as an example as to how most would act.

Hence, even if one has a stronger conventional military it is madness to attack a country with nukes - that is what 1973 showed. Nuclear weapons are only a deterrent against aggression. Would Libya or Iraq have been invaded if they had had them? Of course not.
 
Last edited:
Iran has every right to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
Moreover, I didn't argue for overkill - we did that during the Cold War and it served no purpose - so I have no idea why you're talking about hundreds of thousands of nukes and spreading nuclear weapons all over the world like candy. That would be both irresponsible and just plain excessive.
Click to expand...

Well to be fair he has a point here as that would be the inevitable effect of allowing Iran to have nuclear weapons. Mohammed El Baredi (former head of the IAEA) argued that 16 states are 'virtual proliferates' i.e states that could become nuclear weapons states within a year if they decided to. If Iran proliferated then so would Saudi and countless others once it was clear that the non proliferation regime was off the cards. We are thus left with three options

1 Allow widespread nuclear proliferation and hope that we dont see any exceptions to the rule of Mutually Assured Destruction (which we very nearly saw during the Cold War and the Kargil war between India and Pakistan)

2 Simply prevent those we like from proliferating while allowing ourselves and our allies to keep our nuclear weapons, which will inevitably lead to many more situations like the one we currently face in Iran

3 Create a non-proliferation regime that is actually universal and enforceable and push towards universal disarmerment.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
So when are you moving to Iran?
Click to expand...

iran's regime is not an excuse to attack that country ,in spite of its being islamist......................................
 
Last edited:
RDS said:
Iran has every right to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.
Click to expand...

And there is a system of checks and inspections for them to comply with if they wish to do so, they have chosen not to, hence the concern.
 
Medusa said:
iran's regime is not an excuse to attack that country ,in spite of its being islamist......................................
Click to expand...
Do you always jump to conclusions that are unfounded? I never asserted that anyone should attack Iran. It is my opinion that in lieu of the way that the US entered Iraq that it would be wise to be a little more vigilant. Sanctions seem to be working well plus sooner or latter Iran will do something irrational and there is a good possibility that Iran's neighbors would do something or even Europe since at this point the two areas are within Iran's reach. In other words give Iran enough rope and they will hang themselves. Iran has their own internal problems that add desperation to Iran's actions. A desperate animal is unpredictable except in the aspect of they will probably attempt something stupid and not thought out.


And religion is never a reason to attack anyone especially a country.
 
Last edited:
alexa said:
Hence, even if one has a stronger conventional military it is madness to attack a country with nukes - that is what 1973 showed. Nuclear weapons are only a deterrent against aggression. Would Libya or Iraq have been invaded if they had had them? Of course not.
Click to expand...

How can you say this, after quoting toomuchtime when he wrote the following?
In fact, Israel is the perfect case to prove nuclear weapons provide no deterrence against conventional attacks. In 1973, Egypt and Syria launched full scale attacks against Israel knowing full well Israel already possessed nuclear weapons.
Click to expand...
 
alexa said:
Two nations with nukes would be unlikely to engage in full scale war as the likelihood is it would turn nuclear very quickly. Because of this discourse or at worse a 'cold war' is what can be expected.

Israel is known to have considered using nukes in 1973. Her choice it appears may well have been to use them had the US not immediately made available to her massive conventional arms.

Hence this shows that a country with nuclear weapons when meeting a stronger military may well use their nukes - if we are to take Israel as an example as to how most would act.

Hence, even if one has a stronger conventional military it is madness to attack a country with nukes - that is what 1973 showed. Nuclear weapons are only a deterrent against aggression. Would Libya or Iraq have been invaded if they had had them? Of course not.
Click to expand...

The lesson to be drawn from the Egyptian and Syrian invasion in 1973 is that the possession of nuclear weapons provides no deterrence against an attack by conventional forces.

Reportedly, after initial Arab successes, Moshe Dayan panicked, predicting the fall of the "Third Temple" and imploring Golda Meir to authorized the use of Israeli nuclear weapons and Meir did authorized the assembly of 13 nukes to be used only as a last resort if Israel was being overrun, however, within four days of the war's beginning, the Syrian forces in Golan had already been decisively defeated and forced to withdraw and the next day, Oct. 11, Israeli forces crossed the purple line into Syria and began moving towards Damascus, all the while bombing Syrian military targets throughout the country, and by Oct. 10 the Egyptian advance into Sinai had been stopped just a few km from the canal, and by Oct. 15 the Egyptian invading force had suffered such devastating losses that it was unable to prevent the IDF from crossing the canal and invading Egypt. After the war, both Dayan and Meir were forced to resign, partly because of their stupidity in raising the possibility of using nuclear weapons, so no serious consideration was ever given to using nuclear weapons.

The US resupply of weapons and munitions to Israel, which was dwarfed by the USSR's resupply to Syria and Egypt, did not begin until Oct. 14 when Israel had already defeated the Syrian force in Golan and was about to cross the canal into Egypt, so while it was important, it was not critical to Israel's victory in the war and played no part in the decision not to use nuclear weapons.

Again, the fact that Israel, which already had a considerable nuclear arsenal, was attacked by Egypt and Syria, later to be joined by Iraq, Jordan and other Arab countries, shows that the possession of nuclear weapons provides no deterrent to attacks by conventional forces.
 
Last edited:
Red_Dave said:
And there is a system of checks and inspections for them to comply with if they wish to do so, they have chosen not to, hence the concern.
Click to expand...

Why so concerned abt Iran. The IAEA should have checked throughly the nuclear plants in Japan.
 
EagleAye said:
How can you say this, after quoting toomuchtime when he wrote the following?
Click to expand...

When both sides have nuclear weapons, no war because nuclear war almost inevitable.

If the weaker side has nukes and the stronger does not, if we go by Israel 1973, the likelihood of nuclear retaliation by the conventionally weaker side makes war suicidal. That clearly was not known before 1973.

The only point of having nuclear bombs is for a 'balance of terror' and you know what, I think the world, certainly the UK was a heck of a lot more peaceful when we were living under a balance of terror. It had it's advantages.
 
Last edited:
The US has admitted it knows Iran is NOT building nukes so lets quit all this farce.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Defense Secretary Leon Panetta says Iran is laying the groundwork for making nuclear weapons someday, but is not yet building a bomb and called for continued diplomatic and economic pressure to persuade Tehran not to take that step.

As he has previously, Panetta cautioned against a unilateral strike by Israel against Iran's nuclear facilities, saying the action could trigger Iranian retaliation against U.S. forces in the region.

-snip-

The comments suggest the White House's assessment of Iran's nuclear strategy has not changed in recent months, despite warnings from advocates of military action that time is running out to prevent Tehran from becoming a nuclear-armed state.
Click to expand...

The Associated Press: US: Iran has not yet decided to build nuclear bomb

Looks like the White House must have got hold of the same information I did about that report - nothing new and just old stuff which had already been disproved being rehashed.

May people wish peace.
 
alexa said:
The US has admitted it knows Iran is NOT building nukes so lets quit all this farce.



The Associated Press: US: Iran has not yet decided to build nuclear bomb

Looks like the White House must have got hold of the same information I did about that report - nothing new and just old stuff which had already been disproved being rehashed.

May people wish peace.
Click to expand...

It's looking more and more like Israel is going to have to save the US and Europe from being targeted by Iranian nukes, just as it once saved them from being targeted by Iraqi nukes.
 
alexa said:
When both sides have nuclear weapons, no war because nuclear war almost inevitable.

If the weaker side has nukes and the stronger does not, if we go by Israel 1973, the likelihood of nuclear retaliation by the conventionally weaker side makes war suicidal. That clearly was not known before 1973.
Click to expand...

Egypt knew about Israel's nukes and went after them anyway:

Israel's Nuclear Weapons
President Nasser received from the Soviet Union a questionable nuclear guarantee instead and declared that Egypt would develop its own nuclear program.43 His rhetoric of 1965 and 1966 about preventive war and Israeli nuclear weapons coupled with overflights of the Dimona rector contributed to the tensions that led to war. The Egyptian Air Force claims to have first overflown Dimona and recognized the existence of a nuclear reactor in 1965.44 Of the 50 American HAWK antiaircraft missiles in Israeli hands, half ringed Dimona by 1965.45 Israel considered the Egyptian overflights of May 16, 1967 as possible pre-strike reconnaissance. One source lists such Egyptian overflights, along with United Nations peacekeeper withdrawal and Egyptian troop movements into the Sinai, as one of the three “tripwires” which would drive Israel to war.46 There was an Egyptian military plan to attack Dimona at the start of any war but Nasser vetoed it.47 He believed Israel would have the bomb in 1968.
Click to expand...

Nuclear weapons and Israel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The first public revelation of Israel's nuclear capability (as opposed to development program) came from NBC News, which reported in January 1969 that Israel decided "to embark on a crash course program to produce a nuclear weapon" two years previously, and that they possessed or would soon be in possession of such a device.[69] This was initially dismissed by Israeli and US officials, as well as in an article in The New York Times. Just one year later on July 18, The New York Times made public for the first time that the US government believed Israel to possess nuclear weapons or to have the "capacity to assemble atomic bombs on short notice."
Click to expand...
 
ThePlayDrive said:
How did Egypt "go after" Israel with knowledge of Israeli nukes?

Your article clearly states that Egypt didn't know that Israel had nukes.
Click to expand...

If they didn't know, they must have been the dumbest people on earth.
 
Wiggen said:
If they didn't know, they must have been the dumbest people on earth.
Click to expand...

I don't see any reason for that assumption

The first public revelation of Israel's nuclear capability (as opposed to development program) came from NBC News, which reported in January 1969 that Israel decided "to embark on a crash course program to produce a nuclear weapon" two years previously, and that they possessed or would soon be in possession of such a device.[69] This was initially dismissed by Israeli and US officials, as well as in an article in The New York Times. Just one year later on July 18, The New York Times made public for the first time that the US government believed Israel to possess nuclear weapons or to have the "capacity to assemble atomic bombs on short notice."[70] Israel reportedly assembled 13 bombs during the Yom Kippur War as a last defense against total defeat, and kept them usable after the war.[42]

The first extensive details of the weapons program came in the London based Sunday Times on 5 October 1986, which printed information provided by Mordechai Vanunu, a technician formerly employed at the Negev Nuclear Research Center near Dimona. For publication of state secrets Vanunu was kidnapped by the Mossad in Rome, brought back to Israel, and sentenced to 18 years in prison for treason and espionage. Although there had been much speculation prior to Vanunu's revelations that the Dimona site was creating nuclear weapons, Vanunu's information indicated that Israel had also built thermonuclear weapons.[52]
Click to expand...

Nuclear weapons and Israel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Further if I remember correctly the perceived wisdom at the time was that they would only be used against those who also had them. People were aware of what they had done in Japan and war did not have such a gleeful gun hoe attitude. People had understood their destructiveness.

This Haaretz article suggests Israel considered using them even prior to then

Did Israel ever consider using nuclear weapons? - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News

and also that she knows

Media outlets around the world have reported that state archive documents declassified this week showed that Israel's leadership considered using "drastic means" during the 1973 Yom Kippur War.

-snip-
In another meeting - according to Hanna Zemer, the one-time editor of the newspaper Davar - Dayan spoke of the possibility that "the Third Temple," meaning the state, would be destroyed. Foreign news outlets have reported that Israel readied its nuclear weapons and even considered using them as a last resort.

The Dimona nuclear facility was completed in 1960. Those same foreign reports say Israel had several dozen nuclear weapons in October 1973, as well as the means to deliver them: French-made Mirage and U.S.-made Phantom aircraft and the Jericho missile, an Israeli improvement on a French model. All of these, the reports said, were at full readiness.

-snip-

Investigative journalist Seymour Hersh called his book on Israel's nuclear program "The Samson Option." The implication is that Israel would use atomic weapons if it viewed itself as facing certain, imminent destruction.

If these reports are accurate - and the documents released this week do not confirm them, but possibly only hint at them through portions blacked out by the military censor - this would be neither the first nor the last time Israel's leaders have discussed their so-called "doomsday weapons."
Click to expand...

My hair stands on end that she did consider using them. The only reason for anyone now to have nuclear weapons is as a deterrent. A nuclear country will usually only use conventional weapons if their opponent has no nukes, Like it or not the best deterrent against war is for both to have the nukes or to come to our senses and start resolving issues.

If I was an enemy of Israel I would think it sensible to have nukes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom