hypothetical - What should Obama do if Iran produced Nuke used on Israel

[Bonestorm]

And you need to read my posts more carefully. I said nothing about them being able to 'produce' a bomb, just the IAEA says they have enough to do so.

Enough what? And in the context of a thread about Iran producing a bomb in one year, the statement that "the IAEA says they have enough" strongly implies that the IAEA says they have enough material to produce a bomb in one year.

Maybe you should write more clearly so that these misunderstandings are less frequent. For example, state what the IAEA says Iran has enough of.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Since its now a sure thing that Iran will have nukes in 09 and is a sure thing they want to destroy Israel.

My question is if a nuke thats made in Iran is dropped on Israel how should Obama respond.

I would imagine that scenario is unlikely to occur. If Israel believes Iran is close to getting a nuke, they will most likely strike first.

That said, if it were to happen, then the West would have to respond. I would prefer Obama not respond with a nuke, but rather just bomb the hell out of wherever the Iranian Mullahs are at... and take extra special care to find Khamenei.... as they will be the ones that authorize the nuke.... assuming one is used per your scenario.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

The trouble with Iran is that their leaders don't really want to attack Israel anymore than Israel wants to be attacked, but the Supreme Leaders of today and the past since the fall of the Shaq have worked the Iranian public into a bloodlust toward America.

Most of the time, their words against America or Israel are simply words. Playing to their base, so to speak.

lol....

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Since we're engaging is ridiculous hypotheticals let's pretend that Iran decides that it was just kidding and is abandoning all of its nuclear development.

you really are an ignorant petulent child. If you don't wish to comment on his hypothetical situation. Don't. What exactly are you going to gain with your idiotic behavior?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Why do you discount the Times and the Brookings Institute and the Council of Foreign Relations who did the study?

because someone quite obviously pissed in his cherrios this morning.

 

[uscitizen]

OMG! Mushroom clouds...45 minutes... Run, hide, buy guns!

 

[Bonestorm]

you really are an ignorant petulent child. If you don't wish to comment on his hypothetical situation. Don't. What exactly are you going to gain with your idiotic behavior?

Petulant. That is how it is spelled. You've misspelled it twice today. I'm just trying to help out.

And why all the name calling? I was merely pointing out that the premise on which the hypothetical is based is flawed. The premise is actually part of the hypothetical in the present case.

A more appropriate hypothetical would read something like this: Say Iran breaks is treaty obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Agreement by creating weapons-grade uranium, kicks IAEA inspectors out of the country, runs all of its centrifuges non-stop for a year without any technical set backs, develops sufficient weapons-grade uranium during that year to create a warhead, obtains the know-how and expertise to actually create a warhead and then uses that warhead against Israel directly or through a proxy, what would Obama do then?

The answer is that Obama would not let it get to that end stage before acting. That's why the hypothetical is nonsense.

Sorry to ruin your war game fun.

 

[a11n]

Most cognitive scientists, whether they are neuroscientists or psychologists or artificial intelligence researchers, tend to avoid questions about consciousness by focusing mainly on peripheral and subordinate systems of the mind/brain, which are thought to assist a mysterious center where consciousness and subjective experience happen[

 

[a11n]

Btw I was at school today my Enlgish teacher spit on my eye and dint apologize.

 

[Epicurus]

lol....

Haha nice catch. Damn.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

would you include our nuclear missile submarines in the 'islamofascist' preemptive strike - one sub has enough nuclear tipped missiles to destroy all of iran's cities

but let us assume that a 'stolen' bomb is used, would this muddy the waters enough so that we would not retaliate

this is not to say that whoever is in charge in iran is not insane enough to think that such an attack would not be suicide

perhaps the question should be, how long until a terrorist group gets its hands on a nuke and detonates it and can we trace the bomb back to its source nation

perhaps we should let any nuclear capable nation know that if one or more of their bombs goes astray we would retaliate against that nation should one be detonated in a nation friendly to us

however, the most likely terrorist attack will be biological or a dirty bomb

we have always lived in an unsure world, the reality of that is just intruding more and more into our consciousness

nature is still the biggest killer of all

oh well

As I said, they don't care about it being "suicide" they are on a mission from their God, it is his will this be done, according to their very teachings. You can learn about this on the Internet, I don't have time or patience to educate you, or you can be like Epi and think the leaders with families don't think this way. Akmandenijhad has said as much in his speeches, so they most certainly do think this way, and are planning for this.

Again, applying western logic and rationale is foolish, the men who flew planes into buildings on 9/11, died as a result! They didn't care that they were going to die, it didn't matter to them, they knew they would die. That doesn't equate to logic we can understand in a civilized world, but that is nevertheless the way radical Islamics have been programmed to think.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

As for "retaliation," not that it would matter to them, but I can certainly see a liberal leftist anti-war faction in this country, saying... well, two wrongs don't make a right! I'm not completely convinced there would be a retaliation, given the anti-war sentiment we've seen in recent years.

 

[Don Quixote]

As for "retaliation," not that it would matter to them, but I can certainly see a liberal leftist anti-war faction in this country, saying... well, two wrongs don't make a right! I'm not completely convinced there would be a retaliation, given the anti-war sentiment we've seen in recent years.

1 - i am quite aware of the excesses of religious fanaticism

2 - even anti-war zealots would find themselves in a tight corner since the use of nuclear force would be throughly denounced - perhaps invading and capturing the leaders of the nation would be sufficient or non-nuclear bombing would be sufficient

as for the use of WMD, it is not a matter of if, but of when and where

as for anti-war sentiment, viet nam was a mistake and iraq was a mistake or do you claim that they were not

 

[Annie]

Enough what? And in the context of a thread about Iran producing a bomb in one year, the statement that "the IAEA says they have enough" strongly implies that the IAEA says they have enough material to produce a bomb in one year.

Maybe you should write more clearly so that these misunderstandings are less frequent. For example, state what the IAEA says Iran has enough of.

with that post you prove yourself unqualified to post.

 

[Good Luck]

To answer the hypothetical, why should the U.S. do anything? Israel has the same policy any nuclear capable country has: if attacked with a WMD they will respond in kind. If nucs start being tossed around, the best thing for the U.S. is to stand off and wait for the fall out to settle.

Oh, and develop alternatives to oil based energy FAST.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

1 - i am quite aware of the excesses of religious fanaticism

2 - even anti-war zealots would find themselves in a tight corner since the use of nuclear force would be throughly denounced - perhaps invading and capturing the leaders of the nation would be sufficient or non-nuclear bombing would be sufficient

as for the use of WMD, it is not a matter of if, but of when and where

as for anti-war sentiment, viet nam was a mistake and iraq was a mistake or do you claim that they were not

I don't think either was a "mistake."

I think in the case of Vietnam, the 'mistake' was not winning decisively, as we could have done. In the case of Iraq, I think the post-invasion planning could have been better, and the administration could have done a better job articulating the importance of what we were doing.

Your comments lead me to believe I am correct, we would have an abundance of left-wingers who would protest any use of nuclear retaliation against Iran, in the event of a nuclear strike on Israel. Whether Obama would have the balls to actually pull the trigger on such a retaliation or not, is anybodies guess... my guess is, he wouldn't. Which means, Iran would essentially get away with nuking Israel, with little more than a slap on the wrist and some international chastising.

 

[Chapdog]

destabilization of the world is the goal of the fanatics.

 

[Cancel7]

1- Iran isn't going to nuke Israel.

2 - Are there any Israelis worrying over how Israel will respond if America is nuked?

3 - If a nuclear bomb goes off anywhere in the world, we should respond like everyone else will. Send medical and humanitarian relief, and work to ensure that the culprits are brought before the world court.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

1- Iran isn't going to nuke Israel.

2 - Are there any Israelis worrying over how Israel will respond if America is nuked?

3 - If a nuclear bomb goes off anywhere in the world, we should respond like everyone else will. Send medical and humanitarian relief, and work to ensure that the culprits are brought before the world court.

1) IF they build a bomb, you are right, they will not likely attack directly. If anything, they would more than likely do it covertly through a terrorist network. But as I said earlier, if they are close to getting a bomb, I would bet Israel doesn't wait to see what the Iranians plan to do with it.

2) My guess would be... hell no

3) not bad

 

[Chapdog]

1- Iran isn't going to nuke Israel.

2 - Are there any Israelis worrying over how Israel will respond if America is nuked?

3 - If a nuclear bomb goes off anywhere in the world, we should respond like everyone else will. Send medical and humanitarian relief, and work to ensure that the culprits are brought before the world court.

what if the culprits are inside of IRAN?