Imran Khan
PDF VETERAN
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2007
- Messages
- 68,815
- Reaction score
- 5
- Country
- Location
iran is doing this since ages they dont make nukes and they never let it go . seems they passing time
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Only problem with this bro is that Russia, China and other global powers will align with US pressure and position against Iran since some of them also dont want Iran to have a nuclear bomb...A better strategy is to build the bomb and then negotiate from position of strength......
They're learning the science and preparing for a breakout...IF NEEDED. Plus, i think they do it for defiance- the more the west hates Iran doing nuclear work, the more Iranians do i , kind of like a "taboo effect"iran is doing this since ages they dont make nukes and they never let it go . seems they passing time
The first detonation of a US nuclear device over the unpopulated iranian desert will place iran in a check mate position..
No amount of advanced drones or advanced airforce or even a latent iranian nuclear device will stop the US from following up with an unconditional capitulation demand before a second nulear device detonation over an iranian population center...
Having the ownership of the airwaves they can justify their action just the way they did with Japan or killing of gen Sulaimani....
Wake up Iran....smell the coffee and make that bomb...tomorrow may be too late.
Note: Sheldon Adelson the largest trump donor actually asked for such an action.
The first detonation of a US nuclear device over the unpopulated iranian desert will place iran in a check mate position..
No amount of advanced drones or advanced airforce or even a latent iranian nuclear device will stop the US from following up with an unconditional capitulation demand before a second nulear device detonation over an iranian population center...
Having the ownership of the airwaves they can justify their action just the way they did with Japan or killing of gen Sulaimani....
Wake up Iran....smell the coffee and make that bomb...tomorrow may be too late.
Note: Sheldon Adelson the largest trump donor actually asked for such an action.
My dear friend "salarHaqq"...i love your posts..i also appreciate the time you take to write your points of view in an impeccable English.. I have tried many times to convince myself that what you replied about the Iran's nuclear posture against US is indeed sound ...but here is the thought that I can not dismiss.1000 ballistic missile impacting on strategic points inside Isra"el", with an average destructive power of one ton of HE + kinetic energy,
= definitive loss of legitimacy of the zionist project, mass exodus of eastern European and western settlers out of Occupied Palestine, end of the zionist regime,
= same effect as 1 nuclear weapon hitting Isra"el" minus the mass killing of cvilians, the lasting radiation fallout, potential damage to Al-Quds and Masjid ul-Aqsa, casualties among indigeneous Palestinians communities. Which would furthermore single out Iran as the morally commendable side.
To the US regime and to the oligarchy ruling America, the political survival of the zionist entity is many times more important than the physical existence of New York metropolis + Los Angeles metropolis + Chicago metropolis and the lives of the 45 million or so American citizens living there.
In other words, Iran's ballistic missile arsenal has a greater deterrent power than 50 nuclear warheads mounted on ICBM's capable of obliterating the above mentioned urban agglomerations, thanks to the fact that Iran's most powerful enemy, the US, happens to be deeply controlled by and entirely beholden to international zionism.
This is what Iran can do if they drop a nuclear bomb in some Iranian desert. Of course it must be made clear to them that this is what will happen in case they use nuclear weapons on Iran.
To successfully hit Isra"el" with 1000 BM's, Iran would need to fire - in a pessimistic scenario - some 5000 at them. This is while the number of ballistic missiles at Iran's disposal is most probably in the tens of thousands. The launches should be spread over 4 to 10 joint salvos maximum.
Let's say 2000 would get destroyed on the ground by enemy air power and long range missiles, notwithstanding huge efforts put by Iran into making her BM arsenal extra survivable (like hardened underground mountain bases, mobile unmarked launchers looking like civilian trucks, massive use of decoys and so on) - which is certainly an overestimation but let's just assume. Let's then suppose that of the 3000 missiles taking off, some 1000 will succumb to technical malfunction along their journey (again, likely an overestimate). Of the 2000 remaining missiles, let's assume the enemy's anti-ballistic missile shield, which would be extremely saturated and probably does not possess enough interceptors to begin with, nonetheless manages to intercept no less than 50%.
That's still 1000 BM's hitting and largely knocking out strategic targets, such as air force bases, IDF ground force bases, military headquarters and C&C centers, radar stations, anti-missile and air defence batteries, arms industrial complexes, the Dimona nuclear weapons plant, the prime minister's office, key infrastructures like power plants, high tech factories etc.
That's while Iran retains a less than 6-month (to be hopefully reduced to a few weeks in the near future, after Trump gets reelected) nuclear break-out option.
As for Iran's neighbours acquiring nuclear weapons in case Iran does, it is highly unlikely that the US/Isra"el" would allow them to (nor would the prospect be any more frightening for Iran than the actual fact that criminal regimes such as the USA and Isra"el" already possess such weapons).
Unless such hypothetical, so-called "Turkish" or "Saudi" nukes are in fact placed under full American and Isra"el"i control, and would thus be Turkish or Saudi in name only - which, in turn, would represent an extremely dangerous scenario, because then, Washington and Tel Aviv could conduct nuclear first strikes against Iran, or simply threaten such strikes, while at the same time benefitting from a veil of plausible deniability and redirecting potential retaliation onto their regional clients rather than themselves.
The US and Isra"el" would thus hold hostage Iran's neighbours. That can be seen as a motivating factor for Iran not to develop nuclear weapons as of yet.
My dear friend "salarHaqq"...i love your posts..i also appreciate the time you take to write your points of view in an impeccable English.. I have tried many times to convince myself that what you replied about the Iran's nuclear posture against US is indeed sound ...but here is the thought that I can not dismiss.
Imagine you are the Supreme Leader ....reports arriving that a nuclear device has been detonated over lut desert..no damage no casualty....now are you going to lunch those 5000 BM towards Israhel knowing well that by doing so cities of Tehran, Isfahan, Tabrize and Mashhad will be wipped out ..estimated toll at 10 million ..iran as a country non exsiting for thousand of years...
Zionisem will survive..may be not in current day Israhel but somewhere else....Iran as a nation will disappear...
Is the price of removing Israhel from middle east justify lives of 10million people and disapperanc of iranian nation...
My conclusion: if you have the bomb and the taxi to deliver it to even one US mainland city then no nuclear exchange will occur between US and Iran....TheNorth Korean kid came up to the same conclusion..
Thanks for these words, friend.
Well, in the hypothetical scenario you describe, you can also turn your statement around and say they will nuke empty desert knowing well that by doing so, 5000 BM's will be fired against Isra"el". Is the price of destroying Iran worth the collapse of Isra"el"? Their answer to that will be resoundingly negative.
It needn't be 5000, by the way, if there is no damage as you say - although radiation would always cause considerable damage to Iranian civilians. But Iran can always calibrate its response and launch fewer missiles, hitting empty desert in Negev if you will, or landing a few meters from the Dimona reactor if needed.
Another problem with detonating a nuclear device in more or less empty Iranian deserts is that the US will not get away completely unscathed from this. Not just in terms of image, but also in terms of how its Russian and Chinese competitors would react to Washington setting such a dangerous precedent.
Iran could also warn them that the 5000 BM's will be launched in case of nuclear strikes against Iranian cities. Iran will say: if you use nukes against any of our population centers in a first strike, we will proceed with that massive decapitating bombardment of the zionist entity.
This very much has deterrent value.
Believe it or not, Isra"el" matters more to the ruling US oligarchy than any mainland American city.
And Isra"el" needs no nukes to be rendered dysfunctional and emptied of its settler population: it is simply too small and therefore inherently fragile.
I'm not against Iran acquiring nuclear weapons if absolutely needed for her survival. At a minimum, keeping intact a more or less short term break out option is a must in my opinion. All I'm saying is, we have not arrived at that point of absolute necessity. So long as we haven't, and considering the effective deterrence might of Iran's BM's, cost/benefit analysis favors the status quo in terms of nukes.
However, even if Iran develops nukes: ICMB's are not absolutely indispensable, in reality. Of course, they would represent a bonus. But I guarantee you that in order to deter the US, the capability to nuke Isra"el" would be worth every single bit as much as the capability to nuke any major US city or even several of them.
You may be sceptical about the deterrence power of Iran's asymmetric BM arsenal and might argue for nuclear armament. However, please don't doubt for a minute that even with nukes, the prospect of Isra"el"'s downfall is enough to deter the US regime.
The North Korean leader doesn't have the tiny entity whose oligarchy controls the US right next door to him. If he had, his calculations would strongly differ too. Washington doesn't care one bit about whether Tokyo, Nagoya, Osaka, Seoul or Busan go up in flames and all their inhabitants are massacred.
It is, however, absolute anathema to the entire American ruling class to even remotely consider in their wildest dreams (or rather, nightmares) that something might happen to their beloved zionist entity. Their attachment to Isra"el" is of a religious and/or metaphysical nature. They would easily trade every American city for Tel Aviv and Haifa.
This might change someday, and Iran would then need to adapt accordingly. But outside of system-changing upheavals, we are far from that day.
[/Qsrahelli'Lol.....israhelli's would be happy to know how much value IR is bestowing on their lives.Thanks for these words, friend.
Well, in the hypothetical scenario you describe, you can also turn your statement around and say they will nuke empty desert knowing well that by doing so, 5000 BM's will be fired against Isra"el". Is the price of destroying Iran worth the collapse of Isra"el"? Their answer to that will be resoundingly negative.
It needn't be 5000, by the way, if there is no damage as you say - although radiation would always cause considerable damage to Iranian civilians. But Iran can always calibrate its response and launch fewer missiles, hitting empty desert in Negev if you will, or landing a few meters from the Dimona reactor if needed.
Another problem with detonating a nuclear device in more or less empty Iranian deserts is that the US will not get away completely unscathed from this. Not just in terms of image, but also in terms of how its Russian and Chinese competitors would react to Washington setting such a dangerous precedent.
Iran could also warn them that the 5000 BM's will be launched in case of nuclear strikes against Iranian cities. Iran will say: if you use nukes against any of our population centers in a first strike, we will proceed with that massive decapitating bombardment of the zionist entity.
This very much has deterrent value.
Believe it or not, Isra"el" matters more to the ruling US oligarchy than any mainland American city.
And Isra"el" needs no nukes to be rendered dysfunctional and emptied of its settler population: it is simply too small and therefore inherently fragile.
I'm not against Iran acquiring nuclear weapons if absolutely needed for her survival. At a minimum, keeping intact a more or less short term break out option is a must in my opinion. All I'm saying is, we have not arrived at that point of absolute necessity. So long as we haven't, and considering the effective deterrence might of Iran's BM's, cost/benefit analysis favors the status quo in terms of nukes.
However, even if Iran develops nukes: ICMB's are not absolutely indispensable, in reality. Of course, they would represent a bonus. But I guarantee you that in order to deter the US, the capability to nuke Isra"el" would be worth every single bit as much as the capability to nuke any major US city or even several of them.
You may be sceptical about the deterrence power of Iran's asymmetric BM arsenal and might argue for nuclear armament. However, please don't doubt for a minute that even with nukes, the prospect of Isra"el"'s downfall is enough to deter the US regime.
The North Korean leader doesn't have the tiny entity whose oligarchy controls the US right next door to him. If he had, his calculations would strongly differ too. Washington doesn't care one bit about whether Tokyo, Nagoya, Osaka, Seoul or Busan go up in flames and all their inhabitants are massacred.
It is, however, absolute anathema to the entire American ruling class to even remotely consider in their wildest dreams (or rather, nightmares) that something might happen to their beloved zionist entity. Their attachment to Isra"el" is of a religious and/or metaphysical nature. They would easily trade every American city for Tel Aviv and Haifa.
This might change someday, and Iran would then need to adapt accordingly. But outside of system-changing upheavals, we are far from that day.
The first detonation of a US nuclear device over the unpopulated iranian desert will place iran in a check mate position..
No amount of advanced drones or advanced airforce or even a latent iranian nuclear device will stop the US from following up with an unconditional capitulation demand before a second nulear device detonation over an iranian population center...
Having the ownership of the airwaves they can justify their action just the way they did with Japan or killing of gen Sulaimani....
Wake up Iran....smell the coffee and make that bomb...tomorrow may be too late.
Note: Sheldon Adelson the largest trump donor actually asked for such an action.
That's what i believe will happen too. While Khamenei's stance is commendable against American,Israeli aggression his logic towards nuclear weapons is simply incomprehensible and the only reason why Iran suffered so many damage during all of these years. Had Iran built the bomb in early 90's or 2000's it wouldn't have had the problem like nowadays. Such a large nation like Iran with extremely important geostrategic positioning not only needs nuclear weapons, it needs to MASS produce them to keep the country's independence and stability safe for a very long time to come.I think Iran will get nukes when Khameini dies and is replaced by a new successor who understands that the situation and ground realities have changed.
That's what i believe will happen too. While Khamenei's stance is commendable against American,Israeli aggression his logic towards nuclear weapons is simply incomprehensible and the only reason why Iran suffered so many damage during all of these years. Had Iran built the bomb in early 90's or 2000's it wouldn't have had the problem like nowadays. Such a large nation like Iran with extremely important geostrategic positioning not only needs nuclear weapons, it needs to MASS produce them to keep the country's independence and stability safe for a very long time to come.
The supreme leader needs to do the right thing and keep Iran safe and independent by acquiring these weapons. A lot of instability and political infighting will happen very soon after his death with serious risk of conservatives getting sidelined, perhaps forever. This is why it is more important than ever for high ranking IRGC command to come forward and do the right thing.
I doubt that Khamenei himself is very much against nuclear weapons although the statements he made in the past shows that he is kinda against it. I am sure he can be convinced though, with solid arguments of why and how this will benefit Iran in the long term he can be convinced but i doubt the IRGC high ranking command made a effort for that and the blame is on them too. In any way, the IRGC also has failed to convince Khamenei or the lack of effort, the end result is the same. IRGC has also failed.I wonder what would happen if IRGC decided to go for a nuclear test even if Khameini forbids it. For all we know, maybe IRGC already has a few nukes ready to test, that are just waiting for political approval from leadership if hardliners win 2021. Maybe IRGC decides to take matters into their own hands and stop waiting for Khameini to die or for politicians to come to realization in 2050 that Iran needed nukes in 2020. Khameini will hate IRGC for doing it, but after some point, maybe IRGC will decide they don't care what Khameini thinks because Khameini is just a person and that nukes are worth it no matter what for the future security of Iran as a sovereign country. After taking losses left, right, and center with first Soleimani and now this, maybe IRGC decides its not worth it to to listen to Khameini anymore as not having a nuke has done more damage to Iran than anything else and that having a nuke cannot be worse than not having it. Khameini will die in a few years but nukes are forever. If IRGC really wants nukes, there's not much Khameni can do to stop it. So really the question is where does Iran draw the line. In my opinion Soleimani should have been the red line as it was a big wake up call that should have convinced anybody who wasn't already convinced instead of waiting for the next assassination. I hope IRGC has already started the process of building nukes for real this time and not the pretend threats like before. In short term, IRGC would suck it up and endure backlash from reformists. Maybe a few high ranking IRGC people will be executed for allowing a nuclear test, who knows. In long term, such a move may benefit IRGC because while Khameini will hate IRGC for last few years until he dies, Khameini's successor will thank IRGC for doing nuclear test before his death so that the new leader can start on a clean slate and focus on other issues like economy.