Did Trump Scare Iran: Tehran Reportedly Pulls Missile From Launchpad Following Launch Prep

[gambit]

If we are talking about Nuclear then why mention the others?

I did not bring up other versions of WMD, you guys did.

As I said playing with words is a brilliant maneuvering to avoid the main Q ... even if we consider that the possibility that I have no knowledge regarding definition of WMD or what type of weapons it includes , it was irrelevant to my point ... to dodge a discussion you gotta find better ways than bringing "limited knowledge" ....

Because when it comes to defending Iran's nuclear state status, people always brought up 'no WMD in Iraq', which is wrong on many fronts.

And when exactly I charged you about 'lying about WMD' in Iraq?

Charge me ? No, you did not. I said 'those who charged...' Big difference. But generally, people will bring up Iraq nevertheless.

By the way, As you said:

The initials 'WMD' does not mean ONLY functional nuclear explosive devices.
​

And could you please tell me which part of my post contradicts your statement?

Contradict ? No.

If you say nothing about a subject, that does not mean you know the subject. I could listen to a brain surgeon going on and on about what he does and say I did not contradict him.

Right now Iran program is under control of IAEA as it was for the past 4 decades and still nothing has been found to indicate any deviation from its peaceful purposes and still you as an American have audacity to come here and tell us Iran must "open up everything for inspection"?

People often bring up the UN whenever they want US to do something. No different for Iran. It is the UN that demands Iran be more transparent.

Looky here...There is nothing wrong with defending your country. But regarding the nuclear weapons issue, do not deny that Iran does not want to be a nuclear weapons state, do not bring up WW II out of context, and do not bring up 'no WMD in Iraq'. Certainly you can bring them up, but the moment you do, be prepare to be challenged.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Why did the microwave oven not came from Iran ?

Maybe after giving world 'civilization' the Iranians thought "hey let us leave something for American's to do".

@mohsen Sorz. I just could not help serving that volley on your behalf. Too tempting by half.

 

[gambit]

Maybe after giving world 'civilization' the Iranians thought let us leave something for American's to do.

You sure about that ?

 

[Indus Pakistan]

You sure about that ?

Well it's slightly few degrees west (Tigris/Euphrates ~ modern Iraq) of Iran and few degrees east (Indus Valley ~modern Pakistan) but does that matter?

To you Yanks anything across the Atlantic is 'Europe' and anything east of Greece is well ..... just whole bunch Mooo-zees ! So do the few degrees matter?

 

[AmirPatriot]

I did not bring up other versions of WMD

But you were the one who tries to restrict it then teach try to people in this section, some of whom may know family or friends to be victims of WMD, what a non-nuclear WMD is.

To my knowledge, Iran is the only country ever attacked with WMDs which didn't use it's own even though it could.

But regarding the nuclear weapons issue, do not deny that Iran does not want to be a nuclear weapons state

OK I won't deny it. Iran does not want to be a nuclear weapon state. This won't be challenged at least. Case closed.

 

[gambit]

But you were the one who tries to restrict it then teach try to people in this section, some of whom may know family or friends to be victims of WMD, what a non-nuclear WMD is.

Since the discussion is about missile, let us not be coy about which version of WMD, shall we ?

OK I won't deny it. Iran does not want to be a nuclear weapon state. This won't be challenged at least. Case closed.

Good, while you stick with the official denial of that, we should follow what Raygun advised a long time ago: Trust, but verify.

 

[Rustam]

Since the discussion is about missile, let us not be coy about which version of WMD, shall we ?


Good, while you stick with the official denial of that, we should follow what Raygun advised a long time ago: Trust, but verify.

Don't Trust us, We don't trust you.

Don't call us, We wont call you.

 

[AmirPatriot]

Since the discussion is about missile, let us not be coy about which version of WMD, shall we ?

Yes, the discussion should be about missiles, not WMDs. One does not require the other.

 

[gambit]

Yes, the discussion should be about missiles, not WMDs. One does not require the other.

No one is THAT naive...

 

[AmirPatriot]

No one is THAT naive...

So you are saying that nuclear weapons can only be delivered by ballistic missiles, and ballistic missiles can only be fitted with nuclear warheads. Yet you are trying to come across as technically informed.

 

[OldTwilight]

Make nuke , make ICBM , test those and point some at USA .... And American like gambit will get shout

 

[gambit]

So you are saying that nuclear weapons can only be delivered by ballistic missiles, and ballistic missiles can only be fitted with nuclear warheads.

I said nothing of the kind. Not even an insinuation. Considering the fact that I was in the USAF for 10 yrs, half of that time on the F-111E where we had B61 free fall nuclear bombs on some jets readied to go, how can I believe that nuclear warheads can only be delivered by missiles ?

Yet you are trying to come across as technically informed.

Yes.

No one is naive enough to believe that Iran's missile program is ONLY for conventional warheads. You can try that line on Iranian forums, but not here.

 

[AmirPatriot]

I said nothing of the kind. Not even an insinuation. Considering the fact that I was in the USAF for 10 yrs, half of that time on the F-111E where we had B61 free fall nuclear bombs on some jets readied to go, how can I believe that nuclear warheads can only be delivered by missiles ?

When you make your reply, you should carefully read what you are replying to. One does not require the other includes the question of nuclear delivery methods that do are not ballistic missiles. It goes both ways.

No one is naive enough to believe that Iran's missile program is ONLY for conventional warheads.

Really?

And why do you think that. Why do you think that Iran, which has unique challenges, doctrine and requirements would not find benefit in a conventional ballistic arsenal.

 

[Asghar1234]

In a war that saved Asia against an enemy that was truly atrocious.

Yes killing 0.5 million civilians is called Saving Asia or whatever bullshit only if Yankees want to think so !

You guys will pay by Russians or Chinese.

 

[gambit]

When you make your reply, you should carefully read what you are replying to. One does not require the other includes the question of nuclear delivery methods that do are not ballistic missiles. It goes both ways.

The fact that I have military experience that directly involved nuclear weapons means that I do think carefully when talking about the subject.

Really?

And why do you think that. Why do you think that Iran, which has unique challenges, doctrine and requirements would not find benefit in a conventional ballistic arsenal.

When I was stationed at RAF Upper Heyford, the US and the British governments never said anything about the base holding nuclear weapons, but everyone knew. People knew, not because they had any proof, official or otherwise, but because the logic was so strong that only a fool would believe otherwise. Kinda like how long it took to actually proved gravity waves (2016), even though everyone knew such existed thru effects.

Iran is working on an indigenous ballistic missile and nuclear weapons programs, and ruled by religious fanatics. Not hard to finger out the target is Tel Aviv.

Killing 0.5 million civilians is called saving Asia only if yankees think so.

Nope. Asians, including many Japanese, thinks so as well.