What's new

Featured IRANIAN NUCLEAR SCIENTIST ASSASSINATED: STATE TV NEWS

TheImmortal

SENIOR MEMBER
Mar 11, 2017
3,112
-10
5,163
Country
United States
Location
United States
People Involved in Iranian Scientist’s Assassination Identified: Spokesman
TEHRAN (Tasnim) – The spokesperson for the Iranian administration said the Intelligence Ministry has identified individuals in connection with the assassination of distinguished scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh.
Ali Rabiee on Wednesday said the Intelligence Ministry launched efforts after the assassination of Fakhrizadeh, detected a series of movements, and managed to take control of the situation in the region.
The Intelligence Ministry has identified individuals in connection with the assassination attack, he said, adding that all aspects of the incident are under investigation.
The retaliatory reaction will be devised as soon as definite results are obtained, Rabiee added.

Bunch of BS lies. They haven’t found ****. Just like after Natanz they immed said they know who did it. Oh yeah if you know who did it so quickly why wasn’t that person apprehend prior to the attack?

Ministry of Intelligence is a corrupt entity that is at war with IRGC Intelligence. 95% of their words is lies the other 5% is hot air.
 

Dalit

BANNED
Mar 16, 2012
11,206
-16
19,485
Country
Pakistan
Location
Netherlands
Iran will surely retaliate. No country allows an enemy to blatantly kill its citizens let alone nuclear scientists.
 

thetutle

FULL MEMBER
Oct 4, 2020
533
0
1,058
Country
Bosnia And Herzegovina
Location
Australia
Iran will surely retaliate. No country allows an enemy to blatantly kill its citizens let alone nuclear scientists.
Iran does.

But millions of people nonetheless. Not to mention native Muslim and Christian Palestinians, as well as Masjid ul-Aqsa.

Between this and the conventional counter-force option, which has proven its worth for the past decades, the latter is the more correct solution.
Yes it would be very sad to lose any innocent lives. But the stance of US and Russia and France shoud be copied with respect tot this. Its only a theoretical possibility. All out nuclear war is currently remote and more likely to occur if one side is unarmed. Look at Pakistan.

It seems you misunderstood my question. You appeared to be blaming Iran for resisting the zio-American empire, because you believe that may lead to Iran being invaded and your sons having to participate as conscripted soldiers. To which I replied that if you're worried about this, then your complaints would logically have to be directed first and foremost at the government whose military your sons are serving and which would decide to take part in such an aggression.
As I said, My governments don't care about my opinions, and will gladly conscript my children of needed. or even more likely brainwash them into going into this adventure.

It's not as if lashing out at Iranian officials on an internet forum for not develeping nuclear weapons is going to have any effect in encouraging the latter to revise their policies.

In fact, the zionist-led anti-IR chorus is designed to incite Iranians to rebel against their political system. And I hope you know as much as I do that if the Islamic Republic is seriously destabilized from within, then Iran's enemies will not hesitate to destroy that country like they destroyed so many others in the region. So let's not feed the zio-American propagada against the Iranian leadership, which is baseless and relies on drivel anyway.

Wishing that one's children are spared conscription into a war is a sound motivation, but this should not lead one to be indifferent to millions of lives being taken or destroyed somewhere else.

But either way, they are not going to invade Iran since that would generate costs they know they cannot bear, so I wouldn't worry too much if I were you.
If millions of Iranians do die because of this destabilisation carried out from outside, its really their own fault for not listening to sound logical advice being given by me right now. so please prevent this if you can. tell your government to protect you. demand it. I can't force you governemtm to commit haram and produce the anti-islamic nukes.

National-socialist Germany didn't simply go after the zionists (I'm not saying that's the reason for their defeat but it's a difference that should be noted) and committed certain major strategic errors.

To those saying that zionism should not be resisted because they consider it too powerful I reply:

1) You can choose not to resist zionism, but zionism and associated oligarchies (the bankster mob, masonry etc) will come for you anyway.
Germany and all the people of Europe who fought with them, tens of millions of europeans, more French were in the SS than the resistance until 1944, lost because the other side was just too strong. nothing could have need done to win except ironically, the development of nukes by Germany. but they had the same mindset as Iranians thinking that a knife is good enough for a gun fight.

The notion that by leaving the zionist regime alone, zionist oligarchs are going to return the favor to your people and nation and let them live without interference is a flawed expectation.
well Germany is not fighting zionsim and is doing pretty good now. UAE is doing pretty good. Turkey is doing quite well. There is no need for Iran to fight this fist whist it has tied its own hands behind its bank. its just idiotic.

There's a contradiction here: if one believes non-nuclear states can easily be invaded by the zio-American empire, then there's no reason to suppose that the latter is going to let its non-nuclear adversaries develop such weapons instead of preventing them through military aggression.
no-one lets you do anything. they have to develop it quickly and secretly and devote everything to do it regardless of the cost. Pakistan is a great example of what is possible. Pakistan gave you the blueprints of this unisalmic weapon.

The fact of the matter is that Iran has nicely managed to deter military aggression for several decades, and has not needed nuclear arms to do so. This is simply proven by recent history. The enemy's threats reached extreme levels under Bush jr. already, yet they did not dare to strike Iran, despite the fact that Iran's deterrence power back then was a fraction of what it is today. And this is not going to change, inshallah.
Iranians are being killed at will and without consequence. Iran is on the verge of being destroyed. its where syria was in 2007. facilities taken out and there is no response. it has impressive conventional weapons, but its not enough. you will be liberated soon of this continues. most likely the Syrian scenario. but you can stop this and bring peace to the Middle East. all you need it to master 1940's technology.
 

SalarHaqq

FULL MEMBER
Dec 29, 2019
487
2
917
Country
Belgium
Location
Pakistan
will gladly conscript my children of needed. or even more likely brainwash them into going into this adventure.
When you're done contradicting yourself, we can discuss.

If millions of Iranians do die because of this destabilisation carried out from outside, its really their own fault for not listening to sound logical advice being given by me right now.
Ordinary civilians build nuclear weapons, or deserve to die for failing to convince their government about the urgency of a policy prescribed by internet users?

Germany and all the people of Europe who fought with them, tens of millions of europeans, more French were in the SS than the resistance until 1944, lost because the other side was just too strong. nothing could have need done to win except ironically, the development of nukes by Germany. but they had the same mindset as Iranians thinking that a knife is good enough for a gun fight.
This is akin to comparing apples and oranges. The WW2 period and contemporary times are entirely different periods. Now the Vietnamese were not tens of millions either, and they beat the US.

The insinuation that Germany neglected the development of the most powerful weapons possible, in particular nuclear ones is historically inaccurate. According to historians, the Germans did not have the means to build nuclear bombs at that time. A more recent thesis proposed by Manfred Popp goes even further, by arguing that they didn't come close to possessing the required knowledge in the first place, let alone lacking the technical means.

well Germany is not fighting zionsim and is doing pretty good now. UAE is doing pretty good. Turkey is doing quite well. There is no need for Iran to fight this fist whist it has tied its own hands behind its bank. its just idiotic.
Germany and Germans will soon be no more if current trends aren't reversed. They are ready to be gobbled up by the planned zionist- / bankster- / corporatist- / masonic-controlled "world government". Germans are already enslaved by the cited oligarchy. So are others that submit to the zio-American empire. Now if this fate, combined with some superficial material wealth (increasingly concentrated in fewer hands) as well as glitzy appearances equals doing good to you, then I would say do your thing and let the Iranians do theirs.

no-one lets you do anything. they have to develop it quickly and secretly and devote everything to do it regardless of the cost. Pakistan is a great example of what is possible. Pakistan gave you the blueprints of this unisalmic weapon.
Pakistan did not provide Iran with blueprints for a nuclear weapon, but for uranium centrifuges.

Unlike Iran, Pakistan was and is no enemy to the US regime, nor does it challenge the zionists as much as Iran is doing. So there's no real analogy to be made here.

At any rate my point stands: if invading Iran was such a walk through the park for the US, then it would be just as easy for them to detect and prevent Iranian efforts to manufacture nuclear weapons regardless of dissimulation efforts and speed.

Iranians are being killed at will and without consequence.
Two targeted assassinations in a year is not the same as killing at will.

Iran is on the verge of being destroyed. its where syria was in 2007.
it has impressive conventional weapons, but its not enough. you will be liberated soon of this continues. most likely the Syrian scenario.
I've been hearing similar doomsday assessments for 40 years now, but none turned out true. And Iran's situation during the 1980's war was dire, more so than today.

facilities taken out
One centrifuge assembly hall was damaged and is already being rebuilt underground. No irreversible damage was done, nor is this anywhere close to a significant setback for Iran's nuclear program.

all you need it to master 1940's technology.
Iran is way beyond that in terms of nuclear technology. It has mastered procedures such as laser enrichment as confirmed by the IAEA, so let's not suggest nuclear weapons are on a technological level that Iran is yet to reach.


_____

Bunch of BS lies. They haven’t found ****. Just like after Natanz they immed said they know who did it. Oh yeah if you know who did it so quickly why wasn’t that person apprehend prior to the attack?

Ministry of Intelligence is a corrupt entity that is at war with IRGC Intelligence. 95% of their words is lies the other 5% is hot air.
Not remotely as much as the lying, cheating, murdering intelligence agencies of the US and zionist regimes.

 
Last edited:

SalarHaqq

FULL MEMBER
Dec 29, 2019
487
2
917
Country
Belgium
Location
Pakistan
i Will respond in detail in the coming hours. But what can I say, although your language suggests an anti Israeli position, I’d say you’ve certainly earned your shekels today advocating for an Iran with no nuclear weapons. Mazel Tov (Hebrew for congratulations) the children of Israel can sleep another night, safe knowing that nukes are un-Islamic and knowing that the only regime that hates them in the region with not get nukes.
Yeah, and the entire Iranian leadership "are zionist agents" too, given that my view is in line with theirs.

And rather than demeaning the Iranian leadersip and trying to turn Iranian users against the Islamic Republic in conformity with zio-American propaganda goals, in addition to claiming it's "idiotic" to resist zionism, a zionist shill would instead defend the positions taken by the Iranian leadership... Sure!

And I guess PeeD, probably the most respected Iranian user here, and whose expertise in military affairs is surpassing yours by magnitudes, is a "zionist Jew" paid to argue in favor of conventional counter-force as well. By the way, you failed to address the reasoning of the blog post I linked to. I'm hardly surprised you would skip that.

It's clear that you will now resort to cheap ad hominems because your drivel was succesfully debunked with logic and facts. And please stop pretending you care about Iran.

If I was Israeli. I would make you defence minister of Iran and pray that the ayatollahs have long and prosperous life.
Says the person who earlier exposed himself by claiming he will gladly brainwash his children to participate in a war against Iran... The shameless gall some people have.

I must truly have struck a nerve trashing your mumbo jumbo. But keep it up, can't wait to report some more of your ad hominems.
 
Last edited:

Dalit

BANNED
Mar 16, 2012
11,206
-16
19,485
Country
Pakistan
Location
Netherlands
Iran does.



Yes it would be very sad to lose any innocent lives. But the stance of US and Russia and France shoud be copied with respect tot this. Its only a theoretical possibility. All out nuclear war is currently remote and more likely to occur if one side is unarmed. Look at Pakistan.



As I said, My governments don't care about my opinions, and will gladly conscript my children of needed. or even more likely brainwash them into going into this adventure.



If millions of Iranians do die because of this destabilisation carried out from outside, its really their own fault for not listening to sound logical advice being given by me right now. so please prevent this if you can. tell your government to protect you. demand it. I can't force you governemtm to commit haram and produce the anti-islamic nukes.



Germany and all the people of Europe who fought with them, tens of millions of europeans, more French were in the SS than the resistance until 1944, lost because the other side was just too strong. nothing could have need done to win except ironically, the development of nukes by Germany. but they had the same mindset as Iranians thinking that a knife is good enough for a gun fight.



well Germany is not fighting zionsim and is doing pretty good now. UAE is doing pretty good. Turkey is doing quite well. There is no need for Iran to fight this fist whist it has tied its own hands behind its bank. its just idiotic.



no-one lets you do anything. they have to develop it quickly and secretly and devote everything to do it regardless of the cost. Pakistan is a great example of what is possible. Pakistan gave you the blueprints of this unisalmic weapon.



Iranians are being killed at will and without consequence. Iran is on the verge of being destroyed. its where syria was in 2007. facilities taken out and there is no response. it has impressive conventional weapons, but its not enough. you will be liberated soon of this continues. most likely the Syrian scenario. but you can stop this and bring peace to the Middle East. all you need it to master 1940's technology.
We will see.
 

Beny Karachun

SENIOR MEMBER
May 30, 2016
2,889
-33
1,182
Country
Israel
Location
Israel
What gas canister? Why are you making things up? lol
Any and every computer in a nuclear facility are air-gapped and isolated from the internet. Not only that, many of them are not connected to any network at all. Not even a LAN. You can't hack into a computer that is not connected to a network, unless you have physical access to the computer.

Placing some explosives near inflammable places seems like the most realistic scenario. It doesn't have to be a gas canister necessarily. Maybe a tanker for emergency electricity or something? The fact remains that nobody knows what happened there. And we know nothing about the extent of damage either.
Of course we know about the extent of the damage.
1606978711649.png

You wanna tell me an Israeli spy planted a bomb big enough to cause an explosion this size, without some heavy *** equipment dragging it, and you didn't caught him?

Only 2 possible ways it happened: Israel hacked something in this site (Maybe someone planted a virus, knowingly or unknowingly, or maybe it is not as air gapped as you think), or a spy planted a small charge near something that could blow up/manipulated something to blow up.

Both are equally embarassing to Iran.
 

thetutle

FULL MEMBER
Oct 4, 2020
533
0
1,058
Country
Bosnia And Herzegovina
Location
Australia
Yeah, and the entire Iranian leadership "are zionist agents" too, given that my view is in line with theirs.

And rather than demeaning the Iranian leadersip and trying to turn Iranian users against the Islamic Republic in conformity with zio-American propaganda goals, in addition to claiming it's "idiotic" to resist zionism, a zionist shill would instead defend the positions taken by the Iranian leadership... Sure!

And I guess PeeD, probably the most respected Iranian user here, and whose expertise in military affairs is surpassing yours by magnitudes, is a "zionist Jew" paid to argue in favor of conventional counter-force as well. By the way, you failed to address the reasoning of the blog post I linked to. I'm hardly surprised you would skip that.

It's clear that you will now resort to cheap ad hominems because your drivel was succesfully debunked with logic and facts. And please stop pretending you care about Iran.



Says the person who earlier exposed himself by claiming he will gladly brainwash his children to participate in a war against Iran... The shameless gall some people have.

I must truly have struck a nerve trashing your mumbo jumbo. But keep it up, can't wait to report some more of your ad hominems.
fine, argue against nukes. Convince the whole Iranian nation they don’t need nukes.

obviously you and The ayatollahs know more than Americans, British, French, Chinese, Indians and Pakistanis, who thought that nukes could come in handy one day abs keep their countries safe.

so Israel does not need Zionist stooges in Tehran when it has these guys running the show.

and I didn’t say I want my kids brainwashed, I said I am afraid that THE government will brainwash them.

anyway, this whole discussion is only academic to me. To you it could be life and death. I hope for your sake you are right and that nukes are not necessary and that the most powerful countries in the world are all wrong on the value of nukes
 

SalarHaqq

FULL MEMBER
Dec 29, 2019
487
2
917
Country
Belgium
Location
Pakistan
fine, argue against nukes. Convince the whole Iranian nation they don’t need nukes.

obviously you and The ayatollahs know more than Americans, British, French, Chinese, Indians and Pakistanis, who thought that nukes could come in handy one day abs keep their countries safe.

so Israel does not need Zionist stooges in Tehran when it has these guys running the show.

and I didn’t say I want my kids brainwashed, I said I am afraid that THE government will brainwash them.

anyway, this whole discussion is only academic to me. To you it could be life and death. I hope for your sake you are right and that nukes are not necessary and that the most powerful countries in the world are all wrong on the value of nukes
I said elsewhere that it's perfectly okay to argue for nuclear weapons, afterall everybody is entitled to their opinion and I respect that. I didn't call anyone a moron or zionist shill only because they advocate nuclear weapons for Iran, since it is in fact perfectly understandable that they would do so and since their point is not entirely far fetched either.

In fact whenever I participate in a discussion on this topic, it's only to show that just as there are many arguments for nukes, there are also solid arguments for conventional deterrence, at least in Iran's specific case (considering the tiny size and fragility of Iran's main foe, to whom Iran's larger foes are all subservient), and that this doesn't mean Iranian leaders are completely stupid or even traitorous. I only take issue with the notion that Iranian decision makers are either the most braindead people on earth, or as some other user had once claimed, zionist infiltrators. Because I'm sure they aren't.

Other than that, I will gladly agree to disagree. Have a good day.
 

Blue In Green

FULL MEMBER
Nov 30, 2016
1,508
0
2,724
Country
United States
Location
United States
fine, argue against nukes. Convince the whole Iranian nation they don’t need nukes.

obviously you and The ayatollahs know more than Americans, British, French, Chinese, Indians and Pakistanis, who thought that nukes could come in handy one day abs keep their countries safe.

so Israel does not need Zionist stooges in Tehran when it has these guys running the show.

and I didn’t say I want my kids brainwashed, I said I am afraid that THE government will brainwash them.

anyway, this whole discussion is only academic to me. To you it could be life and death. I hope for your sake you are right and that nukes are not necessary and that the most powerful countries in the world are all wrong on the value of nukes
There's a issue of practicality when it comes to Iran acquiring nuclear weaponry, this much needs to be understood in order to fully ascertain why Iran has chosen to build a nation-wide conventional missile production and fielding apparatus which has, thus far, kept Iran's enemies at bay at least from launching overt military operations against Iranian soil, clandestine and covert operations will always be a thing no matter how militarily strong a country is, take into account e.g. The Cold War.

If Iran builds a nuke(s), then their ENTIRE conventional Ballistic Missile arsenal/fleet becomes useless since any conventional missile barrage going to Israel will be met with a nuclear counter-attack of some sort (strong chance). The IRGC Aerospace Missile force plans on using Ballistic Missiles, Quasi-BMs, suicide/loitering drones and cruise missiles as a sort of "stand-in" for their lack of traditional air-power. You could imagine just how utterly disastrous it would be for Iran's defense equation if that capability is all of a sudden taken away or severely hampered due to the new inclusion of nuclear warheads.

Iran has opted to establish a nation-wide nuclear hardened series of megastructures housing thousands of Ballistic Missiles aimed at creating some level of deterrence as well as providing a credible threat to hostile nations.
 
Last edited:

PDF

STAFF
May 1, 2015
2,750
10
3,788
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Iranian scientist’s killing violation of world law: FO



ISLAMABAD: Pakistan said on Thursday the recent assassination of a top Iranian nuclear scientist violated international law.
“Such acts not only run contrary to all norms of interstate relations and International Law but also threaten the peace and stability of an already fragile region,” Foreign Office spokesman Zahid Chaudhri said at his weekly media briefing.
He was reacting to the assassination of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, head of the Research and Innovation Organisation of Iran’s Defence Minister, near Tehran last Friday. The assassination is being blamed on Israel.
A number of Iranian scientists have been assassinated in the past. Earlier this year senior Iranian general Qassem Soleimani was assassinated in a US drone attack on his arrival in Baghdad.
Says Pakistan urges all sides to exercise maximum restraint
Pakistan’s official reaction on Thursday was the most categorical one about the setbacks suffered by Iran.
“We extend sincere condolences to the family members of Fakhrizadeh and to the Iranian people,” the FO spokesman said.

He urged all sides to exercise maximum restraint and avoid further escalation of tensions in the region.
“We believe that reduction in tensions is essential for regional peace and security,” he added.
Recalling Pakistan’s role for reducing tensions in the Middle East in the past, Mr Chaudhri said that Islamabad will continue to play any role that leads to de-escalation of tensions in the region.
He reiterated Pakistan’s support for the Iran Deal, more commonly known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), saying the accord represented a good example of mutually agreed and negotiated settlement of complex issues through diplomatic engagement at the international level.
Mr Chaudhri urged all parties to the JCPOA to adhere to their respective commitments.
ISRAEL: Replying to a question about new Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian territories, the FO spokesman said Pakistan is concerned over the initiation of the bidding process for construction of new settlements.
“Pakistan condemns the Israeli decision which is illegal under international law and the relevant UN resolutions,” he maintained.
The Israel Land Authority had nearly three weeks ago called bids for construction of about 1,200 homes in East Jerusalem. The new settlement, it is feared, can disconnect a Palestinian town from West Bank.
“Pakistan steadfastly supports the Palestinian people’s inalienable right to self-determination and reiterates its consistent, clear and unambiguous position — for just and lasting peace in the Middle East,” Mr Chaudhri said while reaffirming Pakistan’s position on the Palestine dispute.
“It is imperative to have a two-state solution in accordance with the relevant United Nations and OIC resolutions, with the pre-1967 borders, and Al-Quds Al-Sharif as the capital of a viable, independent and contiguous Palestinian State,” he added.

UNITED STATES: The spokesman said Pakistan wants to see activities under its structured dialogue with US resumed after Biden administration takes office on Jan 20.
Pakistan, he said, was working with the new administration to further strengthen the bilateral ties and continue the partnership to achieve peace, stability and prosperity in the region.
“We expect that the new US administration would also take notice of the ongoing grave humanitarian situation and willful defiance of international law, democratic norms and human rights obligations by India in IIOJK,” he further said.
Published in Dawn, December 4th, 2020
 

thetutle

FULL MEMBER
Oct 4, 2020
533
0
1,058
Country
Bosnia And Herzegovina
Location
Australia
There's a issue of practicality when it comes to Iran acquiring nuclear weaponry, this much needs to be understood in order to fully ascertain why Iran has chosen to build a nation-wide conventional missile production and fielding apparatus which has, thus far, kept Iran's enemies at bay at least from launching overt military operations against Iranian soil, clandestine and covert operations will always be a thing no matter how militarily strong a country is, take into account e.g. The Cold War.

If Iran builds a nuke(s), then their ENTIRE conventional Ballistic Missile arsenal/fleet becomes useless since any conventional missile barrage going to Israel will be met with a nuclear counter-attack of some sort (strong chance). The IRGC Aerospace Missile force plans on using Ballistic Missiles, Quasi-BMs, suicide/loitering drones and cruise missiles as a sort of "stand-in" for their lack of traditional air-power. You could imagine just how utterly disastrous it would be for Iran's defense equation if that capability is all of a sudden taken away or severely hampered due to the new inclusion of nuclear warheads.

Iran has opted to establish a nation-wide nuclear hardened series of megastructures housing thousands of Ballistic Missiles aimed at creating some level of deterrence as well as providing a credible threat to hostile nations.
hmmmm. Conventionally tipped ballistic missiles become obsolete of Iran becomes a nuclear power? Interesting. Does That mean that Russia does not have conventionally tipped ballistic missiles? Or USA? There goes that argument.
 

thetutle

FULL MEMBER
Oct 4, 2020
533
0
1,058
Country
Bosnia And Herzegovina
Location
Australia
I said elsewhere that it's perfectly okay to argue for nuclear weapons, afterall everybody is entitled to their opinion and I respect that. I didn't call anyone a moron or zionist shill only because they advocate nuclear weapons for Iran, since it is in fact perfectly understandable that they would do so and since their point is not entirely far fetched either.

In fact whenever I participate in a discussion on this topic, it's only to show that just as there are many arguments for nukes, there are also solid arguments for conventional deterrence, at least in Iran's specific case (considering the tiny size and fragility of Iran's main foe, to whom Iran's larger foes are all subservient), and that this doesn't mean Iranian leaders are completely stupid or even traitorous. I only take issue with the notion that Iranian decision makers are either the most braindead people on earth, or as some other user had once claimed, zionist infiltrators. Because I'm sure they aren't.

Other than that, I will gladly agree to disagree. Have a good day.
Yeah for sure, its ok to agree to disagree. I just think its taking a massive logical leap of faith to say that nukes don't make Iran more secure or powerful. its almost disingenuous.

Knowing what lengths some western powers are willing to go in order to prevent Iran going nuclear is the only and best argument anyone could ever make.

A nuclear Iran can never be attacked openly, or covertly, and if it is, the Iranian response can be unrestrained.

Once there are nukes that can destroy the Middle East, no-one will assassinate any scientist as it achieves nothing. And the retaliation can be unlimited by Iran.

Lets game out some scenarios. Iran vs its regional rivals. Israel or maybe Saudi.

Iran has nukes:
Let stay you are Israel. and you decide to secretly attack Iran by some covert means. and Iran fins out. What can happen. Iran would not bother responding covertly, they can just fire a conventional missile at the equivalent Israeli facility. Now an Iranian missile is in the air. Somebody suggested this would make Israel assume it s nuclear first strike. so Israel has two choices to the incoming unknown missile. 1) full nuclear retaliatory strike against Iran, which would kill lets say 50 million people. knowing Iran would respond with a full nuclear retaliatory strike killing lets say 7 million in Israel. OR 2) wait to see what sort of a missile explodes.

hmmmm I say the Israelis choose option 2 and not end the existence of their people upon an assumption.

or it's even more likely that Israel and Iran don't strike each other at all and live at peace for the next 200 years. Why gamble with a nuclear holocaust of their own people?

Iran has nukes scenario vs Saudi:
Now to Saudi Arabia. Lets say Saudi send some terrorists to blow up an Iranian facility. And Iran responds with 30 conventional missiles to destroy every facility owned by the Saudi secret service. After sorting through he rubble, what does Saudi do? 1) pick up the phone Pashinyan style and complain to America that Iran is evil, 2) write a strongly worded letter to Iran 3) promise retaliation in due time when it is good and ready 4) kindly ask Iran not to bomb them anymore?

So nukes give Iran total freedom to do basically whatever it wants for the next 1000 years. How can they not?
And freedom from invasion. freedom to not have to devote so much energy to stopping an invasion that will never come.

Sure they will be some sanctions, but if they hurt Iran, they can just allow the unemployed to come to Europe. Maybe start by sending 20 million refugees to Europe and see how quickly those cantons are lifted. Iran already has sanctions. so it has nothing to lose.

the only thing a nuclear free Iran does is allow its rivals to sleep safe and sound at night. For that they should be eternally grateful to Irans leaders. And I'm sure they are.

So now i'd like to hear someones arguments why Iran is more powerful without the "anti islamic" nukes.
 

Blue In Green

FULL MEMBER
Nov 30, 2016
1,508
0
2,724
Country
United States
Location
United States
hmmmm. Conventionally tipped ballistic missiles become obsolete of Iran becomes a nuclear power? Interesting. Does That mean that Russia does not have conventionally tipped ballistic missiles? Or USA? There goes that argument.
Both Russia and the United States are nuclear equipped states that have avoided direct military engagement with each-other, thus mitigating the possibility of a nuclear exchange between the two great powers. Nuclear nations (as you know) tend to not get into conflagrations with one another for obvious reasons, MAD and all that jazz...

Russian use of conventional Ballistic Missiles such as the Iskander (conventionally armed) would be limited against non-nuclear armed nations making the implementation of such weapons viable in a tactical use case, the same way Iran wants to use their arsenal of ballistic missiles. In the argument I made for Iran I was specifically talking about Israel and how Iran's conventional arsenal would become useless because any coordinated large-scale missile attack by Iran will be (most probably) met with a nuclear counter-attack due to Iran's newly acquired nuclear weapons status. The policy of MAD applies from that point moving forward, there's little arguing against this as Israel already views Iran's conventional missile arsenal as an existential threat of sorts, so Iran putting into service nuclear weaponry will only solidify Israeli's immediate use of nuclear weapons against Iran proper as a first option when an exchange of fire happens. We've already had rather concerning rhetoric come from Netanyahu's mouth himself, insinuating the use of nuclear weapons in any future conflict, granted that is up for interpretation though lol.

There's a good reason why Iran has opted to go with a massive conventionally armed Ballistic Missile fleet instead of a nuclear tipped one and that's so that they can actively use BMs (whatever shape or form they come in) in a tactical manner as to not push their aggressor (Israel) to use nuclear weapons in return. The real crux of this issue lies not within the weapons themselves but escalatory options both sides choose to use when responding.

Simply put, The Israelis aren't going to risk not responding to a potential nuclear attack, by launching just a conventional attack of their own.
 
Last edited:

aryobarzan

FULL MEMBER
Feb 17, 2019
826
1
2,687
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
Canada
I jump in this "Nuke" vs "Conventional" discussion. First of all the last time I checked I was not a Zionist agent so relax..lol

The size matters!!!... open the map and look at the size of Iran vs Israel. The only way I can buy the "Non_nuclear" Iran going against "Nuclear" Israel is the size difference.

In all other cases "Pakistan vs India" or "US vs Russia" "US vs China" that "size" element does not exist.

So I can buy "reluctantly!!!" the SalarHaqq view that Iran for the moment feels they have created the "terror" parity with Israel.

The case of "North Korea vs US"..is almost similar but in reverse..so due to the small size our friend Kim yum yum had no other way but going nuclear to maintain deterrence.

Also keep in mind we do not have the same info that lets say SL has. so their decision making will be way ahead of any of us.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Top Bottom