The True Reason US Fears Iranian Nukes: They Can Deter US Attacks

In the Washington Post today, Richard Cohen expresses surprise that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is "starting to make some sense" and "wax rationally". Cohen specifically cites this statement from the Iranian president last week: "Let's even imagine that we have an atomic weapon, a nuclear weapon.

[Kenhunt]

In a rational environment there might be a particle of sense to this article. But the world of Ahmadinijad is not rational. A single nuclear weapon used just so could precipitate the Armageddon featuring the 12th Imam, exactly what Ahmadinijad believes in and feels compelled to expedite.

So, in effect, having that weapon just paints a huge red target on Iran, rending inevitable the end of Iran forever.

If Iran wants to be bullet proof, spend its money and brains on becoming a world center of learning and research in, say, medicine or desalinization, a place the world would recognize as a beacon of peace.

[Onion]

Kenhunt wrote:

In a rational environment there might be a particle of sense to this article. But the world of Ahmadinijad is not rational. A single nuclear weapon used just so could precipitate the Armageddon featuring the 12th Imam, exactly what Ahmadinijad believes in and feels compelled to expedite.
So, in effect, having that weapon just paints a huge red target on Iran, rending inevitable the end of Iran forever.
If Iran wants to be bullet proof, spend its money and brains on becoming a world center of learning and research in, say, medicine or desalinization, a place the world would recognize as a beacon of peace.

K I am f job does not ny decision wake up please stop posting garbage on TOPIX.

[Onion]

Kenhunt wrote:

In a rational environment there might be a particle of sense to this article. But the world of Ahmadinijad is not rational. A single nuclear weapon used just so could precipitate the Armageddon featuring the 12th Imam, exactly what Ahmadinijad believes in and feels compelled to expedite.
So, in effect, having that weapon just paints a huge red target on Iran, rending inevitable the end of Iran forever.
If Iran wants to be bullet proof, spend its money and brains on becoming a world center of learning and research in, say, medicine or desalinization, a place the world would recognize as a beacon of peace.

Bad typing K . Make any.

[CitizenX]

Kenhunt wrote:

In a rational environment there might be a particle of sense to this article. But the world of Ahmadinijad is not rational. A single nuclear weapon used just so could precipitate the Armageddon featuring the 12th Imam, exactly what Ahmadinijad believes in and feels compelled to expedite.
So, in effect, having that weapon just paints a huge red target on Iran, rending inevitable the end of Iran forever.
If Iran wants to be bullet proof, spend its money and brains on becoming a world center of learning and research in, say, medicine or desalinization, a place the world would recognize as a beacon of peace.

Iran hasn't started a war in hundreds of years. Iran was formerly a "beacon of peace" until the US overthrew their Democratically elected government and they ended up with our boy the Shah.

The article makes perfect sense.

[ana]

CitizenX wrote:

<quoted text>Iran hasn't started a war in hundreds of years. Iran was formerly a "beacon of peace" until the US overthrew their Democratically elected government and they ended up with our boy the Shah.

The article makes perfect sense.

Iran performs the most nose jobs in the Middle East, they are the only Islamic country in the Middle East who recognises and endorses sex change operations ...

Iran is civilised, Iranians are very cultured and intelligent

[Sheik Yerbouti]

If Iran develops nuclear weapons the biggest threat to the US is an EMP attack which would do more damage and kill more people than a direct nuclear strike! They are already experimenting with missiles in the Caspian sea. An EMP attack would put the US back to 19th century technology in seconds. It will take years to recover from such an attack and the death toll will be high.

[Kenhunt]

CitizenX wrote:

<quoted text>
Iran hasn't started a war in hundreds of years. Iran was formerly a "beacon of peace" until the US overthrew their Democratically elected government and they ended up with our boy the Shah.
The article makes perfect sense.

The British coup is irrelevant to the subject. The PM was not democratically elected. Moreover, how many years of incompetence can Iran write off to something that happened 60 years ago?

Iran and only Iran is responsible for Iran. Nobody forced them to squander their wealth on a weapon that will only guarantee their destruction

[ana]

Sheik Yerbouti wrote:

If Iran develops nuclear weapons the biggest threat to the US is an EMP attack which would do more damage and kill more people than a direct nuclear strike! They are already experimenting with missiles in the Caspian sea. An EMP attack would put the US back to 19th century technology in seconds. It will take years to recover from such an attack and the death toll will be high.

An emp attack from Iran to the USA is fairly unlikely.... That's just propaganda speak...

Why do you think the USA had feverishly been planting anti missile shields all over the place????

North Korea is more of a threat and hold more of a wild card than Iran ..... And that says a lot

[Kenhunt]

Sheik Yerbouti wrote:

If Iran develops nuclear weapons the biggest threat to the US is an EMP attack which would do more damage and kill more people than a direct nuclear strike! They are already experimenting with missiles in the Caspian sea. An EMP attack would put the US back to 19th century technology in seconds. It will take years to recover from such an attack and the death toll will be high.

That is over-sold. Not a good thing, but not the end as advertised. For one thing, almost all US military electronics is EMP protected, so a response would be inevitable and disproportional. It would take thousands of EMP weapons to saturate the USA. The sky is not falling.

[Kenhunt]

Onion wrote:

<quoted text>
K I am f job does not ny decision wake up please stop posting garbage on TOPIX.

Globy farquhart nabobbensnarf snarkflap.

[ana]

Kenhunt wrote:

In a rational environment there might be a particle of sense to this article. But the world of Ahmadinijad is not rational. A single nuclear weapon used just so could precipitate the Armageddon featuring the 12th Imam, exactly what Ahmadinijad believes in and feels compelled to expedite.

So, in effect, having that weapon just paints a huge red target on Iran, rending inevitable the end of Iran forever.

If Iran wants to be bullet proof, spend its money and brains on becoming a world center of learning and research in, say, medicine or desalinization, a place the world would recognize as a beacon of peace.

And the bush administration was rational?? He turned americans into gungho wanna be vigilantes

Iran isn't attacking anyone, but if attacked Iran will retaliate, suggestion USA dnt get involved in Israels spats America can't afford it

[CitizenX]

Kenhunt wrote:

<quoted text>
The British coup is irrelevant to the subject. The PM was not democratically elected. Moreover, how many years of incompetence can Iran write off to something that happened 60 years ago?
Iran and only Iran is responsible for Iran. Nobody forced them to squander their wealth on a weapon that will only guarantee their destruction

Sanctions do not allow Iran to be responsible for Iran. They are not actually squandering their wealth as you claim. IF Iran chooses to build nuclear weapons isn't the ultimate example of Iran being responsible for Iran?

Which is it?

[3OHA]

Sheik Yerbouti wrote:

If Iran develops nuclear weapons the biggest threat to the US is an EMP attack which would do more damage and kill more people than a direct nuclear strike! They are already experimenting with missiles in the Caspian sea. An EMP attack would put the US back to 19th century technology in seconds. It will take years to recover from such an attack and the death toll will be high.

EMP effects are theory. Muslim idiots have consistently relied upon very real terror as their main weapon for sixteen hundred years.

[Kenhunt]

CitizenX wrote:

<quoted text>
Sanctions do not allow Iran to be responsible for Iran. They are not actually squandering their wealth as you claim. IF Iran chooses to build nuclear weapons isn't the ultimate example of Iran being responsible for Iran?
Which is it?

Do you think that Iran is lying when it says its nuclear work is entirely for peaceful purposes? Do you think the IAEA is off base?

Sanctions are not the cause, they are the result. And yes they are squandering their wealth and their future for no good outcome. Yes, if Iran builds nukes it will indeed be responsible for Iran and Iran's fate. If Iran took a different tack and became a bastion of science, would that not be wiser?

The USA ought to be the worst example for Iran to follow, as we surely have squandered much of our wealth on weapons. We do need a substantial military, but we passed that point some time back.

[Kenhunt]

ana wrote:

<quoted text>
And the bush administration was rational?? He turned americans into gungho wanna be vigilantes
Iran isn't attacking anyone, but if attacked Iran will retaliate, suggestion USA dnt get involved in Israels spats America can't afford it

LOL. For the First Gulf War, yes. Iran is attacking others. Surely you are not that naive! You are right we cannot afford another lengthy war, and Israel is not our friend in that regard.

[ana]

Kenhunt wrote:

<quoted text>LOL. For the First Gulf War, yes. Iran is attacking others. Surely you are not that naive! You are right we cannot afford another lengthy war, and Israel is not our friend in that regard.

You mean when Iraq -saddam - invaded Iran in the 1980s??? Saddam backed by the west who sold him chemical weapons to attack Iran?????

Was Iran meant to just sit there and let iraq attack them or so they retaliate???

Where have you been ????

[ana]

ana wrote:

<quoted text>You mean when Iraq -saddam - invaded Iran in the 1980s??? Saddam backed by the west who sold him chemical weapons to attack Iran?????

Was Iran meant to just sit there and let iraq attack them or so they retaliate???

Where have you been ????

I get so annoyed when yanks rewrite history

[3OHA]

ana wrote:

<quoted text>
You mean when Iraq -saddam - invaded Iran in the 1980s??? Saddam backed by the west who sold him chemical weapons to attack Iran?????
Was Iran meant to just sit there and let iraq attack them or so they retaliate???
Where have you been ????

The incredibly obnoxious lie about anyone at anytime selling chemical weapons to Iraq totally wastes you as relevant input and makes you look Islamic batshit crazy.

[Faith]

Really? Porkistan has nukes and we violate their sovereignty and airspace and bomb them anytime we feel the urge. America should incinerate Iran in a nuclear conflagration...for the good of humanity.

[Faith]

ana wrote:

<quoted text>
You mean when Iraq -saddam - invaded Iran in the 1980s??? Saddam backed by the west who sold him chemical weapons to attack Iran?????
Was Iran meant to just sit there and let iraq attack them or so they retaliate???
Where have you been ????

Who cares? Saddam outlived his usefulness to America. Him, his government, his cronies and his sons had to be offed.