Iran to take action if US aircraft carrier returns

[Chogy]

Nukes are wildly overrated as a military tool. They have some value as a vengeance weapon, but vengeance rings hollow when your own nation is in ashes.

Additionally, nukes do not prevent wars. North Korea, North Vietnam, and China were engaged in heavy conventional combat with a nuclear nation, armed to the teeth with advanced weapons and the means to deliver them. Yet they forced a stalemate, and/or won. What does that say about nukes, the United States, and conflict in general?

The notion that "If Iran had a nuke or three, the USA wouldn't dare threaten us" is silly. If, by whatever means, Iran delivered a fission bomb to some U.S. coastal city, the retaliation would be 100 fold. Rational people don't think that way, and Iranians are rational.

The expatriate Shahis living abroad bemoan what could have been if the 1979 revolution had not taken place. I think they have a point. The Shah was no angel, but neither was he like "Dear Leader" in North Korea. The Shah was ready to build, with U.S. approval and assistance, advanced industrial facilities, electric plants, and other important facilities that would have made Iran by now, far more advanced in terms of her economy. His plan was to get away from oil as a primary economic engine and use oil money to kick start these advanced industries... aerospace, semiconductor, mechanical.

Some Iranians are now going to say, "You're full of s--t" and they have that right to their opinion, but the indications were there in 1979. Of course, from 1979 onward, we had hostages, huge death to america rallies that go on to this day, and extreme bitterness. At military parades, "Death to America" banners flow by. And more recently, we had the Green Protest brutally suppressed, Neda butchered by a Basiji sniper, and the storming of the British embassy. What are people supposed to think?

 

[IranZamin]

^^ Indeed, war is fun for people who sit thousand of miles away and watch it on their television with popcorn and soda in their hands. For people on the scene it is a nightmare

 

[RazPaK]

Nukes are wildly overrated as a military tool. They have some value as a vengeance weapon, but vengeance rings hollow when your own nation is in ashes.

Additionally, nukes do not prevent wars. North Korea, North Vietnam, and China were engaged in heavy conventional combat with a nuclear nation, armed to the teeth with advanced weapons and the means to deliver them. Yet they forced a stalemate, and/or won. What does that say about nukes, the United States, and conflict in general?

The notion that "If Iran had a nuke or three, the USA wouldn't dare threaten us" is silly. If, by whatever means, Iran delivered a fission bomb to some U.S. coastal city, the retaliation would be 100 fold. Rational people don't think that way, and Iranians are rational.

The expatriate Shahis living abroad bemoan what could have been if the 1979 revolution had not taken place. I think they have a point. The Shah was no angel, but neither was he like "Dear Leader" in North Korea. The Shah was ready to build, with U.S. approval and assistance, advanced industrial facilities, electric plants, and other important facilities that would have made Iran by now, far more advanced in terms of her economy. His plan was to get away from oil as a primary economic engine and use oil money to kick start these advanced industries... aerospace, semiconductor, mechanical.

Some Iranians are now going to say, "You're full of s--t" and they have that right to their opinion, but the indications were there in 1979. Of course, from 1979 onward, we had hostages, huge death to america rallies that go on to this day, and extreme bitterness. At military parades, "Death to America" banners flow by. And more recently, we had the Green Protest brutally suppressed, Neda butchered by a Basiji sniper, and the storming of the British embassy. What are people supposed to think?

I agree with most of your points, but don't you think Nuclear weapons were what kept US and Soviet Union from fighting a very bloody war?

 

[Chogy]

I agree with most of your points, but don't you think Nuclear weapons were what kept US and Soviet Union from fighting a very bloody war?

It is SO difficult to say. I personally think yes, they prevented an all-out mechanized war, but there were plenty of smaller proxy wars with immense human suffering.

Interestingly, both sides are now openly acknowledging that A) The USSR had no real intention of invading Europe, and B) The USA had no intention of attacking the USSR. In other words, it was all a misunderstanding of cosmic and catastrophic proportions. However, "having no plans to physically attack" is not the same is "exporting ideology" , and the latter was the basis for many of the proxy wars.

 

[Hello_10]

^^ Indeed, war is fun for people who sit thousand of miles away and watch it on their television with popcorn and soda in their hands. For people on the scene it is a nightmare

Its beer right now, thanks anyway

 

[untitled]

I agree with most of your points, but don't you think Nuclear weapons were what kept US and Soviet Union from fighting a very bloody war?

Pakistan and India did fight the Kargil war when both had openly declared themselves to be nuclear

 

[Gold1010]

Look we're all freinds who misunderstand each other.

I agree with Chogy US and USSR was both having mass paranoia both had nukes and both thought if 1 of them didnt have nukes pointed at each other they would get obliterated.

NO COMMUNICATION PEOPLE.

Jwing Chogy hypothetically speaking Irans goal would be to close to straight not attack the US carrier group could the Iranians not just base its ships in the Straight with anti aircraft weapons on the nearby land?

Would the US still be able to break the blockade?

 

[longbrained]

Nukes are wildly overrated as a military tool. They have some value as a vengeance weapon, but vengeance rings hollow when your own nation is in ashes.

Additionally, nukes do not prevent wars. North Korea, North Vietnam, and China were engaged in heavy conventional combat with a nuclear nation, armed to the teeth with advanced weapons and the means to deliver them. Yet they forced a stalemate, and/or won. What does that say about nukes, the United States, and conflict in general?

The notion that "If Iran had a nuke or three, the USA wouldn't dare threaten us" is silly. If, by whatever means, Iran delivered a fission bomb to some U.S. coastal city, the retaliation would be 100 fold. Rational people don't think that way, and Iranians are rational.

The expatriate Shahis living abroad bemoan what could have been if the 1979 revolution had not taken place. I think they have a point. The Shah was no angel, but neither was he like "Dear Leader" in North Korea. The Shah was ready to build, with U.S. approval and assistance, advanced industrial facilities, electric plants, and other important facilities that would have made Iran by now, far more advanced in terms of her economy. His plan was to get away from oil as a primary economic engine and use oil money to kick start these advanced industries... aerospace, semiconductor, mechanical.

Some Iranians are now going to say, "You're full of s--t" and they have that right to their opinion, but the indications were there in 1979. Of course, from 1979 onward, we had hostages, huge death to america rallies that go on to this day, and extreme bitterness. At military parades, "Death to America" banners flow by. And more recently, we had the Green Protest brutally suppressed, Neda butchered by a Basiji sniper, and the storming of the British embassy. What are people supposed to think?

The things you said are relative and speculative. Iran in 1979 was producing just 0.0003% of world's science with no growth. Today they are producing some 1% and have the world's fastest growth rate in science production. In 1979, total Iranian electric power generation capacity the only reliable measure of a country's industrialization was less than 7000 MW, today it is 65000 MW. In 1979 Iran's maternal and child mortality rate was on par with countries in sub-Saharan Africa, today it is close to Eastern Europe. Also in Vietnam, North Korea etc, those people had powerful backers who were nuclear armed. Iran has no such options. If Iran ever produces nukes, of course they are not going to stop at number three and most probably they would go to produce hundreds of them as all nuclear weapon states have done. The ashes are going to be both ways so yeah, they are weapons of vengeance but they are extremely effective at preventing psychotic nations with colonialist attitude to attack and occupy another weaker nation. Nuclear weapons are extremely effective at preventing a war. Iranians should decide between these two pictures which one they want, and they better decide fast:

OR:

More gruesome pictures of how Iran will end up without nukes are here: *Fallujah war crimes — white phosphorus chemical, depleted uranium, thermobaric bombs — graphic images fuel-air weapons********* Bush U.S. military and War Crimes*in Iraq*********The WE News Archives*

Also here, lets not forget how American Basijis killed university students who were protesting against United States government: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings

 

[regular]

^^ Indeed, war is fun for people who sit thousand of miles away and watch it on their television with popcorn and soda in their hands. For people on the scene it is a nightmare

War is never an option for any problem....God forbid if any situation arises like that......pplz fight when they loose their temper...and to kill innocent humans is absolute craziness......God/Allah may save us from that evil habbit/action/thinking.......

 

[IranZamin]

Horrible pictures. But longbrained, there is high chance that Iran already has a nuke or it will test one if the US (and its dogs) start something stupid against it.

 

[regular]

thats good if Iran gets threatened from US it shold test Nuke if they can, to guarantee their safety and integrity from the bullies of US......

 

[IranZamin]

thats good if Iran gets threatened from US it shold test Nuke if they can, to guarantee their safety and integrity from the bullies of US......

There is also a possibility of a nuke test in response to oil embargo

 

[RazPaK]

Pakistan and India did fight the Kargil war when both had openly declared themselves to be nuclear

I think it's impossible for neighboring countries to actually ever use nuclear weapons against each-other, especially after seeing the catastrophic effects it had in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Apparently the little boy and fat man were no where near as powerful as the Nuclear weapons in the world's arsenal today.

 

[Chogy]

More gruesome pictures of how Iran will end up without nukes are here: *Fallujah war crimes — white phosphorus chemical, depleted uranium, thermobaric bombs — graphic images fuel-air weapons********* Bush U.S. military and War Crimes*in Iraq*********The WE News Archives*

Also here, lets not forget how American Basijis killed university students who were protesting against United States government: Kent State shootings - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ah yes, we must never let a discussion of anything geopolitical pass by without taking cheap shots at the USA.

Tell me please, what Abu Graib has to do with the straights of Hormuz and hypothetical military confrontations there?

If I showed a picture of an Iranian Adulterer swinging by the neck in public from a crane, does that contribute to the thread?

Back on topic - the Persian Gulf and the straights are international waters. Iran has no inherent right to declare them closed. That would be as if the USA declares the Gulf of Mexico closed to international traffic.

 

[IranZamin]

If I showed a picture of an Iranian Adulterer swinging by the neck in public from a crane, does that contribute to the thread?
.

That is Iranian law and internal matters.
same as US executing people with electric chair