The Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, wishes Iran to be recognized as an equal to the world's superpowers. He feels that Iran can have nuclear weapons because other nations have nuclear weapons. He feels that Iran is not being treated with equal rights and should have the freedom to pursue research that other nations have enjoyed.
Iran should not be treated equally because Iran poses a threat that our equals (Russia, China) do not pose. We can trust our equals with nuclear weapons because they grew alongside us in the last 60 years of nuclear weapons and the cold war. We have the hindsight that Iran doesn't posess.
The United States felt it was justified to drop the bomb on Japan but didn't have to worry about a nuclear counter-attack in 1945. The technology was new. The cold war ensured mutual destruction. 60 years have passed and the world is a different place. Nuclear technology isn't new and any attack today will be met harshly.
There's one problem. You can't make a nuclear counter-attack on an enemy who holds no ground. A sovereign nation like Iran would not fly their flag on a nuclear strike against Israel or Iraq but would instead hide behind the face of terrorism. We cannot counter-attack terrorists with nuclear weapons. It's difficult enough to counter-attack terrorists with air strikes, without civilian casualties, as the recent attack in Pakistan demonstrates.
Development of new nuclear weapons in today's world provides absolutely no advantage to that nation's defence in the 1945 or cold war sense. A nation, especially a small one, who uses a nuclear weapon today would be condemned by the world. Iran and every other nation with a nuclear program has to stand down and accept that they are 60 years too late for this thinking.
I've heard a lot of talk about economic sanctions on Iran. I suppose we've forgotten the result of economic sanctions on Japan leading up to December 7th, 1941. There is no simple answer.
The only problem with that line of thinking is that Nuclear Weapons are the be-all, end-all of humanity's war machine. There is nothing greater than a hydrogen bomb in any stockpile of any nation.
Russia, China, England, France, The US, India and Pakistan all have declared that they have, and (more importantly) tested the weapons. The idea behind that is not to see what extent of damage it will do, it's the debutante's ball.
Anyhow, I don't think Iran would be THAT foolhardy to use a weapon... no state would now, because it would be suicide.. Mutually assured destruction
An atomic bomb (even one the size of the original Trinity weapon) is far too large to smuggle in to the US, Tactical "briefcase" or "backpack" bombs are still huge... they're about the size of an air conditioner and they usually throw off enough EM radiation to make them more or less a big red flare. I don't think that any nation or terrorist group will detonate a nuclear weapon (even a so-called dirty bomb) in the west. It's not a high-enough yield weapon to take out a building, and it's not very compact (usually requires a large transport).
Economic sanctions don't do anything but cement a dictator into power, and drive their economy underground (see: Iraq). The other thing is that Iran hasn't been a beligerent in their area, or the world in general. Probably the better way to deal with them is the same way you dealt with China, and try to at least normalise relations.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
I was talking with my dad about this last night...and I think they want nukes for the same reason that the Soviets and the US went into the Cold War...they just want a detterient from being pushed around.
I'm thinking they just want to be taken seriously on the world stage. I mean if you were trying to become a 1st world nation instead of some backwater country, the quickest way to do that is too develop nuclear arms. I know that Iran, along with North Korea, is crazy, but their not stupid.
I totally agree that Iran's final goal is to be taken seriously on the world stage. Becoming a nuclear power can certainly raise one's standing. That said, there are better ways to be recognized and respected in the world than who has the biggest stick. Denying the nation of Israel is not one of them.
What would it take to assist Iran in establishing nuclear power infrastructure under a US-Russia-China-Iran partnership? That would satisfy Iran's stated goals for their nuclear program without allowing them the ability to produce new nuclear material beyond what we furnish them. They would, of course, see through this plan for what it is, a chance to control Iran's nuclear progress but it would avoid military action and they would acheive their stated goals at the end of the day.
What
can the major powers do to welcome Iran to their table as a friend? (if Iran agrees to end their nuclear program)
John Wilken wrote:Iran has nukes? Don't tell Dubya, he'll start another war!
Yeah But Bush wouldn't invade Iran, he would invade the REAL threat - Iceland.
While Bush was focused on his hard-on for Saddam, N. Korea was REALLY developing nuclear tech(maybe still is I haven't paid attention to them in a while but I should). When we should have been (at least planning on) taking them out - Bush instead decided to invade a country that (finally) was allowing inspectors to do their job and prove there where no WMD in Iraq(of course they only allowed it to hopefully prevent invasion - but still they where). North Korea meanwhile was openly flaunting their nuclear program. Don't tell me their nukes would never fall into terrorist hands. And IIRC they do have ICBMs capable of hitting California already.
But at the end of the day N. Korea just didn't have enough oil to be a "threat to the American way of life."
I've never heard of this "part throttle" before. Does it just bolt on?
BK3K: N. Korea has Medium range ICBMs but they cant hit Washington... at a stretch, they may hit the west coast or Alaska, but Hawaii is more likely.
I'm more worried about the viral/chem Warfare groups. They're more likely to fall into the hands of terrorists that are going to want to start to use them... In the case of Small pox, there's no way to contain even a SMALL outbreak.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
think you guys are thinking too big i.e. N. Korea, Iran Iraq, etc and missiles think 10 guys with a plan from what ever country and a bio waste bomb dirt bomb, and ten citys to hit funded by some a hole the bad guy from a james bond movie ..sounds far fetched eh well so was bonds gadgets in the 60's oh wait we do have lasers now but cars shooting missiles naaa oh wait i think we call them hummers there well be another dr no to replace bin fagen i think wars should be fought with the perz or king of that country in a ring and have pay per view on it ...p.s. Clint Eastwood for perz!!!! someone wrote that the u.s. had all the best weapons in ww 2 yes and no the Japanese zero was faster and better then the u.s. corsair gull winged fighter odds were 3 to 1 till the u.s came up with the p-51 mustang before the mustang the best was the British spitfire (carb) and the German me 109 night-fighter (fuel injected and had n.o.s.!!) in the tank classes Russia's t-34's and Germany's tiger tanks out gunned in the Sherman tank in cannon sizes . i learned alot of this from my grandfather which was a pilot for the R.A.F. and flew spitfires and was there over the English channel in 1944 i have the pics! no b.s. war story's
http://img86.imageshack.us/img86/4235/jim25ek.jpg
sorry one more thing the u.s. did over come with bigger and better weapons each time in some cases but i think had the war gone on much longer it would of changed hands gremany was work on V.2 rockets with atomic tech in the work at the end of 45' how do you think russia and the u.s. came up with the bomb? at the same time ....japan was work on a massive sub that had a cockpit on top that opened up and a runway to launch bombers from we call it a nuke sub now and the launch is up not across now
http://img86.imageshack.us/img86/4235/jim25ek.jpg
Yes the zero was a more able aircraft than the Corsair, of course the US also had the thunderbolt and a couple other OK aircraft in theatre before the P51.
The P51 was a British design, built by "American" aircraft.
The Spitfire had a supercharger, but yes it was carb'd. I just thought simply saying carbed was unfair, it made tons of power out of that Merlin.
The Hawker Hurricane was arguably the best WW2 fighter in the air. Not the fastest, but could out climb just about anything, and it could still fly after being shot up. It could handle almost as well as the spitfire and went almost as fast. More kills were scored by Hurricanes than any other (single) aircraft. The short winged, night fighter version used in Africa was truely amazing for the time.
The Mustang was a fantastic bomber escort, but not such a great interceptor.
The Spit was a fatastic interceptor but lacked range and had trouble engaging on long flights because of the fuel limits.
The Hurricane was a great all round aircraft, but master of none.
Who had the best could be argued for some time, so I guess my point is, they were fairly evenly matched,
The German aircraft were great as well, but required a greater amount of skill because of their tendancy to have a "gyro" effect on takeoff and landing, especially the 109. More 109s crashed on landing or takeoff than were shot down, if I remember correctly.
PAX
The primary reason that the Zero was faster was becuase it had ablsoutly no armor. It would only take a few shots to take one down. And then Grumann make the Hellcat to help against the Zero.
And yes the German Tiger was a lot better than the Sherman. But the US was going purely for numbers. Not to mention that one of the later models of the tiger the fuel tankes were totaly exposed on the rear of it. But it doesn't matter. Becuase we had all the air power. Even during the Blitz, the RAF held them off becuase they finally invented radar. It doesn't matter who was better equiped or trained. It just matters who won.
For starters, punctuation helps.
And for the best "fighter" of the war, i would give that to the German ME262. If only Hitler was smart and used them as such.
Ditto on submarine warefare. the only thing our subs had over theirs was radar capabilities, and radar didn't work well for keeping subs undetected.
Goodbye Callisto & Skaši, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
I would argue that the ME262 was the COOLEST fighter of the war, but not the best. It was unstable, and too fast to engage other fighters. Should have been very good at bomber intercept, fire and dash type missions, but actually dogfighting in one would be next to impossible. Try in a simulator sometime.. Have one person in a piston engine aircraft and one in a jet... See how often you even see each other. The jet can't fly slow enough to dogfight the piston plane, and the piston plane can never get a good bead on a jet. Kinda fun to try though, I've done it with my Dad. We had a lot of flybys, but it would take a lucky shot to be effective. Stuffing a non-guided rocket up their tail is an otion, but still difficult to actually do.
Kudos to the ME262 though. It could have been a great Air to Ground attack fighter or bomber interceptor. It came too late and was not embraced though.. Alas it fades in history like so many others.
PAX
What worries me the most about the war on terrorism, is what are we going to do next?
If bin Laden manages to hit the US again soemthing to the extent of 9/11, what are we going to do? Before, we went after Iraq and took them apart. So does that mean we are going to blow up Cairo? Pakistan? Iran? It's a tough decision, and no matter what we do, no one is going to like it.
I have a feeling it may take a turn for the worst.
Vice President - NEJBody
2007 Cobalt SS
2001 Sunfire (retired)
Iran is starting to seem very hitler like.
the problem with the ww2 planes..spitfire: gun mm's were to small of cal, the engine would cut out are bog upside down. me109 heavy armor behind the pliot would block the view of seeing behind him me262 too fast was used for defence aganist bomers and had no long time fuel 15 mins and was made too later in the war . zero was made of toilet paper just like cars every car has its recalls lol
http://img86.imageshack.us/img86/4235/jim25ek.jpg
Saw the j/k ash, but it's not *just* the middle east where all the problems of the world are located.
In fact, here's a comprehensive list of places that contain the places needed to be Neutron-bombed to wipe out the people causing most of the problems:
Kabul
Tirana
Algiers
Andorra la Vella
St John's
Buenos Aires
Yerevan
Canberra
Vienna
Baku
Nassau
Manama
Dhaka
Bridgetown
Minsk
Brussels
Belmopan
Porto-Novo
Thimphu
La Paz
Sucre
Sarajevo
Baborone
Brasilia
Bandar Seri Begawan
Sofia
Ouagadougou
Yangon
Bujumbura
Phnom Penh
Yaounde
Ottawa
Praia
Bangui
N'Djamena
Santiago
Beijing
Bogota
Moroni
Kinshasa
Brazzaville
San Jose
Yamoussoukro
Zagreb
Havana
Nicosia
Prague
Copenhagen
Djibouti
Roseau
Santo Domingo
Dili
Quito
Cairo
San Salvador
Malabo
Asmara
Tallinn
Addis Ababa
Suva
Helsinki
Paris
Libreville
Banjul
T'bilisi
Berlin
Accra
Athens
Saint George's
Guatemala
Conakry
Bissau
Georgetown
Port-au-Prince
Vatican City
Tegucigalpa
Budapest
Reykjavik
New Delhi
Jakarta
Tehran
Baghdad
Dublin
Jerusalem
Tel Aviv
Rome
Kingston
Tokyo
Amman
Astana
Nairobi
Tarawa
Pyongyang
Seoul
Kuwait City
Bishkek
Vientiane
Riga
Beirut
Maseru
Monrovia
Tripoli
Vaduz
Vilnius
Luxembourg
Skopje
Antananarivo
Lilongwe
Kuala Lumpur
Male
Bamako
Valletta
Majuro
Nouakchott
Port Louis
Mexico City
Palikir
Kishinev
Monaco
Ulan Bator
Rabat
Maputo
Windhoek
Yaren District
Kathmandu
Amsterdam
The Hague
Wellington
Managua
Niamey
Abuja
Oslo
Muscat
Islamabad
Koror
Panama City
Port Moresby
Asuncion
Lima
Manila
Warsaw
Lisbon
Doha
Saint-Denis
Bucharest
Moscow
Kigali
Basseterre
Castries
Kingstown
Apia
San Marino
Sao Tome
Riyadh
Dakar
Belgrade
Victoria
Freetown
Singapore
Bratislava
Ljubljana
Honiara
Mogadishu
Pretoria
Cape Town
Madrid
Colombo
Khartoum
Paramaribo
Mbabane
Stockholm
Bern
Damascus
Taipei
Dushanbe
Dodoma
Bangkok
Lome
Nuku'alofa
Port-of-Spain
Tunis
Ankara
Ashgabat
Fongafale
Kampala
Kiev
Abu Dhabi
London
Washington DC
Montevideo
Tashkent
Port-Vila
Caracas
Hanoi
El Aaiun
Sanaa
Lusaka
Harare
I no way is this list all-inclusinve, and if we neutron bomb the place, we can at least keep the architecture while wiping out the political scum that seems to infest these cities.
And yes, i know there are poeple living in all those cities that don't deserve that treatment, but at least they can try to get out of there, and if they don't, it's war, you're going to have civilian casualties.
Goodbye Callisto & Skaši, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
Man, and I thought I was totalitarian...
I was just going to have the Canuckistani Gestapo root out all political heads and summarily treat them to a thermite exfoliation.
Then, I'd start with all malcontents and agitators, and then individuals that have used the word Spork in the last 2 years.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
wow a list of places and the words need to be bombed so how are you any diffrent from another hittler (he was spanked by his jewish nanny at 10) she die before the genacide but it all started with a thought and race so your saying that 500,000 cilvilians killed for every political set thats in that city? and if they don't like it to leave? do you live in a city?what do you do open a window and wait for a boom? i live in a house i hate the guy that lives next door but i'm not moving and i'm not going to kill him and his whole family? are bomb poland cause he's polish if you see the whole pic with bush and iraq he said where there to stop saddam and bring him to justice ...well they gott 'em but there's still troops there why cause the u.s. wants to put a figure in power that bush controls under the table ...hey give us the oil at a better price now . but go back to 1981 and afganastan reagan was giving them weapons to help them with the war on russia but was it free ???? no oil was given at a cheper price when u.s. troops when in to get bin fagit the afgans were useing m-16's and ak-47 the m-16 where from the us in 81' and the ak-47 from dead russian troops and some where new. it not the people of a race are everyone that lives in that city hell i live in toronto and i'm a fan of the leafs (hockey) i hate montreal canadians but i love going to montreal for that matter anywhere in the world ...........so don't cut off a arm to fix a brokin finger!!!!
http://img86.imageshack.us/img86/4235/jim25ek.jpg
The only problem we have to worry about is that the irans president is doing this all over religion. he is so messed up in the head nothing can help. His religion the extremist of the Muslim religion is that all infidels should be killed and that you will go to heaven with however many virgins waiting on you. in their own book the word infidel means NON-believer into their religion he has already stated that he hates Israel and the united states. its been known that for the past couple of years are so called good friends the Russians have been giving them the technology for long range ballistic missiles. the latest i have heard was the Iraqi war was to one get Saddam out of the way but two to have a closer striking point into Iran when the sh!@ hits the fan. we have known that Iran has been trying to get nuclear power for about 4years now being told that it would take up to 8 years for them to get it. now some Intel is saying they could have it by the end of April. all i have to say is if your under 28 and ww3 starts pack your bas cause your probably going. you could always pull a bill Clinton though and run to Canada. but now with Canada with a conservative president that wants to improve Canadian and American relations you might not be so safe their either.
So the US invaded Iraq so we could be closer to Iran, should Iran finish developing it's nuclear weapons and decide to start a war.
Why didn't we invade Isreal and set up a good defense line there? Or maybe we could take over Spain just in case the French decide to get "uppity"... How about taking over Lybia to keep those Egyptians in line?
John Wilken
2002 Cavalier
2.2 Vin code 4
Auto
x2 there's alot of countrys the us has peeeee'd off it usally takes 50 are 60 years for that people to clam down after a fight are war with the u.s. iran in 81/82 there still pissed north korea,vietnam 50/50 they won. cuba well castro but he's leaving soon 10 years tops but islamic peeps have there own way of life and seeing a stealth fighter bombing a house across the street is like a plane hitting a tower here its unheard of till now. the way i see it is that we cut them off before they kill everyone ...i said it before just like james bond someone will have a nuke hidden some where even if theres satscan up in the sky dr no will be a little drunk and sore and hit the button and really i think the us will respond with everthing they have back to the country that sent it (orcho por orcho denta por denta) ~> eye for eye tooth for tooth.
http://img86.imageshack.us/img86/4235/jim25ek.jpg
