If the US decided to fight Iran, would Iran's military have a chance?

2012-02-25 14:21:03

#376

Macbeth: Banned; +2,444|5843

While our position is somewhat hypocritical and Iran has a good argument in favor of owning some, more nuclear armed nations is a very bad thing. As the amount of countries with nuclear weapons increases the likelihood of an nuclear accident or warfare too increases. While you can attack the U.S. and allies for hypocrisy, you have to admit they are on the right side of the debate. A nuclear Iran is not a good thing for anyone on the planet.

Also it is wise to have a bit of perspective when talking about U.S. hypocrisy in this case. All of the nuclear powers, especially the other big two (China, Russia), will do everything in their power to make sure a neighbor doesn't get nuclear weapons. Russia would case a shitstorm is Poland was building some. China would flip the fuck out if Vietnam was building some. The international system is chaotic and self interested. Nothing new or American specific here.

2012-02-25 15:39:10

#377

cl4u53w1t2: Salon-Bolschewist; +269|6730|Kakanien

what about north korea? it's china's neighbour and possesses nukes

most of the analysts say that the iranian government (e.g. the people really in charge) is actually pretty reasonable and would not risk getting annihilated for attacking another country with nukes and that the real maniacs are the ones running pakistan

Last edited by cl4u53w1t2 (2012-02-25 15:41:33)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2oh3h3DvY0

2012-02-25 15:42:23

#378

FatherTed: xD; +3,936|6758|so randum

its not just about the one country having nukes though - there's also the risk factions within the country could give nukes out, the country could go libya and the nukes become 'lost' or some general could go postal and push the button. think of all the scares just america, the UK and france have had in the transportation of nukes, and these are guys with strong everything, and imagine all the things that could go wrong with a less stable/wealthy/whatever country having them. from a moral standpoint, no it isn't fair to say we can have nukes and you can't, but the cats already out of the bag, and the less new nukes or nuke states introduced the better, from the point of view of the whole fucking world, and not xyz country who wants to shake his dick on the international stage.

Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella

2012-02-25 16:01:32

#379

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6410|what

FatherTed wrote:
its not just about the one country having nukes though - there's also the risk factions within the country could give nukes out, the country could go libya and the nukes become 'lost'

Dunno how up to date you are with world events, but the collapse of the Soviet Union saw just that.

2012-02-25 16:06:36

#380

FatherTed: xD; +3,936|6758|so randum

yeh and more would be worse yes? pakistan is already looking a bit bad on this front

Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella

2012-02-25 17:04:39

#381

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6932|Canberra, AUS

eleven bravo wrote:
cl4u53w1t2 wrote:
has been said over and over again but i will say it again:

- it's pretty ridiculous to say your country is allowed to have atomic weapons but most of the other countries are not

- if i was iran and two of my neighbouring countries had been invaded, i would want to have nukes, too
N
P
T

is useless

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2012-02-25 17:22:36

#382

Macbeth: Banned; +2,444|5843

Spark wrote:
eleven bravo wrote:
cl4u53w1t2 wrote:
has been said over and over again but i will say it again:

- it's pretty ridiculous to say your country is allowed to have atomic weapons but most of the other countries are not

- if i was iran and two of my neighbouring countries had been invaded, i would want to have nukes, too
N
P
T
is useless

Yes. Even if it was totally 100% enforced by a higher power you still have a 3 month withdrawal option.

2012-02-25 18:04:58

#383

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6974

cl4u53w1t2 wrote:
has been said over and over again but i will say it again:

- it's pretty ridiculous to say your country is allowed to have atomic weapons but most of the other countries are not

- if i was iran and two of my neighbouring countries had been invaded, i would want to have nukes, too

You mean the same neighboring country that Iran had a giant war with

https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png

2012-02-25 18:16:41

#384

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6932|Canberra, AUS

Macbeth wrote:
Spark wrote:
eleven bravo wrote:

N
P
T
is useless
Yes. Even if it was totally 100% enforced by a higher power you still have a 3 month withdrawal option.

Precisely. The NPT has done fuckall to stop a nation-state that wanted a nuclear weapon from getting one.

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2012-02-25 18:28:51

#385

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6974

Spark wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
Spark wrote:

is useless
Yes. Even if it was totally 100% enforced by a higher power you still have a 3 month withdrawal option.
Precisely. The NPT has done fuckall to stop a nation-state that wanted a nuclear weapon from getting one.

they shouldn't have signed it in the first place.

2012-02-25 19:46:13

#386

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6363|eXtreme to the maX

It seems Iran's only error has been to sign up to the IAEA and the NPT and try to play by the rules in developing a civil nuclear industry.

No country is going to make that mistake again - which in the long run is very bad for non-proliferation.

Fuck Israel

2012-02-26 09:32:52

#387

RAIMIUS: You with the face!; +244|6972|US

I recommend Bomb Scare. Oddly enough, non-proliferation is one of the stronger international norms out there, and there are several factors that keep many countries from going nuclear. That said, other factors sway some (Iran, NK, etc) to develop nukes.

2012-02-26 10:16:10

#388

rdx-fx: ...; +955|6849

cl4u53w1t2 wrote:
[...] the real maniacs are the ones running pakistan

More specifically, the Pakistani ISA.
Pocketing 90% of the US money intended to fight the Soviets in the Soviet Afghan war,
general fuckery in regards to intelligence activities,
"If the Pakistani ISA knows about it, it may as well be on e-Bay" in regards to western intel,
bankrolling AQ Khan's espionage to develop nukes for the middle east,
then sheltering AQ Khan inside Pakistan,
then sheltering Osama Bin Laden inside Pakistan.

Seriously, if the US intelligence community ever had a frenemy, it's the Paki ISA.

2012-02-26 19:53:45

#389

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6668|'Murka

Macbeth wrote:
Spark wrote:
eleven bravo wrote:

N
P
T
is useless
Yes. Even if it was totally 100% enforced by a higher power you still have a 3 month withdrawal option.

Which North Korea invoked (see clausewitz's post ref nK).

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2012-02-26 19:55:19

#390

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6668|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:
It seems Iran's only error has been to sign up to the IAEA and the NPT and try to play by the rules in developing a civil nuclear industry.

So the IAEA, GCC, EU, Russia and Satan...erm, I mean the US...got it all wrong then?

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2012-02-26 19:57:19

#391

eleven bravo: Member; +1,399|5517|foggy bottom

1 nation dropping out of the NPT in 50 years of existence sounds pretty useful

Tu Stultus Es

2012-02-26 20:03:15

#392

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6668|'Murka

eleven bravo wrote:
1 nation dropping out of the NPT in 50 years of existence sounds pretty useful

Nah. Totally worthless. I mean, countries that weren't a part of the thing got nukes.

It's a terrible treaty if people who aren't bound by it don't follow its tenets. C'mon, eb...

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2012-02-26 20:10:56

#393

Macbeth: Banned; +2,444|5843

The only reason many states haven't nuked up is because of a lack of need. If the U.S. disappeared tomorrow a bunch more countries would nuke up in order to fill the defense void. International treaties are only as good as power there is to enforce them.

2012-02-26 20:12:42

#394

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6668|'Murka

Why would you enforce a treaty on someone who isn't a signatory of it?

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2012-02-26 20:23:37

#395

-Sh1fty-: plundering yee booty; +510|5731|Ventura, California

rdx-fx wrote:
cl4u53w1t2 wrote:
[...] the real maniacs are the ones running pakistan
More specifically, the Pakistani ISA.
Pocketing 90% of the US money intended to fight the Soviets in the Soviet Afghan war,
general fuckery in regards to intelligence activities,
"If the Pakistani ISA knows about it, it may as well be on e-Bay" in regards to western intel,
bankrolling AQ Khan's espionage to develop nukes for the middle east,
then sheltering AQ Khan inside Pakistan,
then sheltering Osama Bin Laden inside Pakistan.

Seriously, if the US intelligence community ever had a frenemy, it's the Paki ISA.

Sometimes I wonder if we shouldn't have invaded Pakistan instead of Afghanistan. They're harboring AQ better than Saddam did.

And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.

2012-02-26 20:29:21

#396

13urnzz: Banned; +5,830|6755

-Sh1fty- wrote:
Sometimes I wonder if we shouldn't have invaded Pakistan instead of Afghanistan. They're harboring AQ better than Saddam did.

|_()|_!

2012-02-26 20:37:06

#397

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6932|Canberra, AUS

Yes, I can see so many good things about invading a highly militarised state that has been on a high level of war readiness for the entirety of its existence as a nation-state, and has dozens of nuclear weapons and delivery systems to boot.

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2012-02-26 20:40:18

#398

13urnzz: Banned; +5,830|6755

Spark, bradt3hleader is obviously drunk on kool-aid. do not fault his critical thinking, he is the runt at the GW Bush trough of American foreign affairs, because he came from switzerland and lapped up the time magazine pablum on the flight over here.

2012-02-26 21:25:15

#399

-Sh1fty-: plundering yee booty; +510|5731|Ventura, California

Spark wrote:
Yes, I can see so many good things about invading a highly militarised state that has been on a high level of war readiness for the entirety of its existence as a nation-state, and has dozens of nuclear weapons and delivery systems to boot.

Yes yes, because Pakistan stands a better chance than Iraq did. Back in '03 before the March invasion the Iraqi military was among the largest in the world, and it also was back in the early 90s. Look how well they did.

If you think Pakistan stood a (much) better chance than Afghanistan you might want to check a few similarities with history. Iraq had a huge conventional army, but got slaughtered quickly, and they also had thousands of insurgents killed. Pakistan has a huge military, and even nukes, but our military would make short work of their conventional military and I'm sure they can come up with something for the nukes. As for an insurgency, they'd have one too, but the military could just GTFO when the government and military have been dealt with.

And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.

2012-02-26 21:29:47

#400

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6932|Canberra, AUS

someone else deal with this moron, i don't have the patience.

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

BF2S Forums If the US decided to fight Iran, would Iran's military have a chance?

FatherTed wrote:

eleven bravo wrote:

cl4u53w1t2 wrote:

Spark wrote:

eleven bravo wrote:

cl4u53w1t2 wrote:

cl4u53w1t2 wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Spark wrote:

eleven bravo wrote:

Spark wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Spark wrote:

cl4u53w1t2 wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Spark wrote:

eleven bravo wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

eleven bravo wrote:

rdx-fx wrote:

cl4u53w1t2 wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

Spark wrote:

Board footer