Iran test fires missile capable of reaching US bases or Israel

[Alatriste]

Why are you surprised they haven't attacked Iran yet?

Once Iran gets the bomb, they're done for.

What do you think is the risk that Iran nukes Israel once they have enough warheads and delivery systems to do so thoroughly? Gimme a number.

Thanks, but no thanks. Numbers are for science.

I would say the risk is indeed low, specially so since Israel has subs (German subs) with the capacity to retaliate and the Iranians probably aren't interested in wiping out themselves and Israel, leaving Jerusalem converted in a glass sheet, half the Middle East contaminated by fallout... and the Sunnies pretty much the only surviving Islam branch..

Still I think we should try to dissuade them, but IMHO a military solution won't work without a full scale invasion. Air strikes alone will delay the Iranians but won't stop them. An oil embargo _could_ work, tough, but only if Russia and China are 100% willing to participate.   

[Martinus]

Pakistan isn't ruled by Islamic fanatics... yet.

Iran isn't really ruled by Islamic fanatics either, at least not on the international scene. If it were, they would have invaded Iraq already and threw themselves at American tanks. Iran wants to be a regional power and they are pretty methodical and rational in this.

[Queequeg]

Pakistan isn't ruled by Islamic fanatics... yet.

Iran isn't really ruled by Islamic fanatics either, at least not on the international scene. If it were, they would have invaded Iraq already and threw themselves at American tanks. Iran wants to be a regional power and they are pretty methodical and rational in this.

Last time I checked it wasn't the Iranians setting up colonies in foreign countries to pacify ultra-right religious fanatics who think they have a right to another country's land.   

[The Brain]

Nuclear war isn't funny. 

Oh FFS.

[Darth Wagtaros]

Nuclear war isn't funny. 

Oh FFS.

Spies Like Us made us all aware of just how funny it could be. 

[Ed Anger]

I hope all Byzantine and Persian historians are nuked.

[Neil]

The loss of Israel and Iran in a nuclear war would be a tragedy greater than all of the wars in recent history combined.

Not really.  The only tragedy would be that no Chinese were killed.

[Berkut]

Once again we hear the rational and reasonable arguments for why Iran would never ever do something like nuke another Israel - why that would not make any sense!

Just like there would never be a war in Europe in 1914, why that would not make any sense! And germany would never invade Russia, heck, they are their largest trade partner! Makes no sense!

A country run by a guy who stands up on the international stage a regularly swears that Israel should be "wiped from the map", nah, nothing to worry about there, give them some nukes.

What is really sad is that people seem to think the only negative to a nuclear Iran would be if they actually nuked Israel, rather than the real danger - the impunity they will feel when it comes to their own political interference. The enxt time they decide to close the straits, and threaten to go nuclear if anyone interferes, or threatens Iraq with a nuclear strike if they aren't allowed to de facto control Basra, or a long list of trouble they will make once they get nukes.

Iran becoming nuclear, which is probably inevitable given the current lack of balls in the west to do *anything* about it, is going to be a disaster.

[Tamas]

Berkut is right.

[Alatriste]

Oh, please, save us the rant, Berk...

First of all, we are saying the risk is very low. Not nil, low.

Second, are you seriously saying that just because X was wrong in 1914, then Iran is going to attack Israel? Oddly enough, I seem to remember people saying the USSR wouldn't launch a massive nuclear attack on the West, even while some Nikita was shouting "We will bury you!". And guess what? They were completely wrong... not!

An third, the question is not about balls, but means. Just look to the cost of Iraq and Afghanistan in every sense of the word. Iran is bigger, has a lot more population, its territory is far more rugged, and its armed forces are in far better shape. Plus Iraq and Afghanistan can't be left devoid of troops.

Iran is IMHO developing nuclear weapons. Solid fuel long range rockets alone are serious evidence at the respect, but we are not having to choose between risk and security, that would be easy indeed. We are going to have two sets of risks, and invading Iran while occupied in Iraq and Afghanistan would be a risk quite high. For starters, successful occupation would probably require at least 500,000 soldiers in addition to those deployed in neighbouring countries... We are talking of a military effort far superior to the First Gulf War, Vietnam or Korea; the world hasn't seen anything like that since 1945.

Myself, I would prefer trying other ways, like an oil embargo, before going to a great war in the Middle East during a deep recession.

[DisturbedPervert]

The leading general of the Iranian military forces has announced that they will need 11 days to destroy Israel.  That is PLENTY of time to send a strongly worded resolution.

[Berkut]

Oh, please, save us the rant, Berk...

Way to go straight to the heart of the argument with the ad hom. A nice start to your position.

and then proceed to rant yourself, of course.

First of all, we are saying the risk is very low. Not nil, low.

How low? I think the risk of Iran using its status as a nuclear power to further its interests to the detriment of the West is actually somewhere around 100%. What would you rate it as?

Second, are you seriously saying that just because X was wrong in 1914, then Iran is going to attack Israel?

No, I am saying that arguments of the form "Y cannot possibly happen because country Z is much to rational to do such a thing!" have been made time and time again, and been wrong time and time again. I simply provided a couple of examples.

Oddly enough, I seem to remember people saying the USSR wouldn't launch a massive nuclear attack on the West, even while some Nikita was shouting "We will bury you!". And guess what? They were completely wrong... not!

Ahh, so as long as nobody has ever nuked anyone, then we can reasonaly not worry about anyone having a nuke, no matter how erratic and irrational they are? Your ONE example of the USSR not nuking anyone is sufficient data to risk giving a regime like Iran nuclear weapons?

An third, the question is not about balls, but means. Just look to the cost of Iraq and Afghanistan in every sense of the word. Iran is bigger, has a lot more population, its territory is far more rugged, and its armed forces are in far better shape. Plus Iraq and Afghanistan can't be left devoid of troops.

Yeah, balls. That is all it is. The West has none, and the fact that we don't have enough troops to deal with a couple regional skirmishes while handling a third rate power like Iran is pretty convincing evidence of just that. We have less than 100,000 combat troops in Iraq, and what, 40,000 in Afghanistan? The Europeans cannot muster up a force a quarter that size that can deploy and fight.

But you cannot have MY point. I said Iran will get the bomb, because the West lacks the balls to do anything about that. We do not lack that capability - we could easily expand our militaries to be able to credibly deal with a power like Iran, but that would mean the French might need to work more than 32 hours a week, or the Germans might have to quit feeling all verklempt about Nazis and the Americans would have to take a break from who will be the Next American Idol, etc., etc., etc.

So we will do nothing. We will bitch and moan and gnash our teeth and wring our hands and do nothing until some nuke goes off somewhere. Maybe it will be Israel, maybe Pakistan, maybe Syria, who knows? but it will happen, and then we will all sit back and come up with the reason why it was so obviously inevitable, and why didn't we see this coming?

Iran is IMHO developing nuclear weapons. Solid fuel long range rockets alone are serious evidence at the respect, but we are not having to choose between risk and security, that would be easy indeed. We are going to have two sets of risks, and invading Iran while occupied in Iraq and Afghanistan would be a risk quite high. For starters, successful occupation would probably require at least 500,000 soldiers in addition to those deployed in neighbouring countries... We are talking of a military effort far superior to the First Gulf War, Vietnam or Korea; the world hasn't seen anything like that since 1945.

Myself, I would prefer trying other ways, like an oil embargo, before going to a great war in the Middle East during a deep recession.

Meh, now you are debating capabilities. I don't think it is at all necessary to invade Iran to crush their nuclear ambitions.

Actually, I suspect all it would really take would be a real and honest threat to strike their infrastructure and capability to run their country (including their nuclear development program) and they would back down. But we lack that credible threat, because we all sit around telling each other how impotent we are, and we cannot possibly do anything anyway.

The West could shut down Iran in a week, without ever putting a single foot in the country.

[Berkut]

The leading general of the Iranian military forces has announced that they will need 11 days to destroy Israel.  That is PLENTY of time to send a strongly worded resolution.

I bet if the UN Security Council really worked hard, they might even be able to send one and have another one drafted in that time.

Of course Russia would veto them both, but still.

[Faeelin]

Iran becoming nuclear, which is probably inevitable given the current lack of balls in the west to do *anything* about it, is going to be a disaster.

How do you propose to stop Iran?

[Berkut]

Iran becoming nuclear, which is probably inevitable given the current lack of balls in the west to do *anything* about it, is going to be a disaster.

How do you propose to stop Iran?

I have no proposal - they are clearly much too strong for us to do anything about, given current attitudes.