because they were around first? and they give us TV and hollywood. Does Iran give us TV and hollywood?

> Einstein wrote:

> Tell me FIREWING....

How much power in Iran does the Ayatollah have?

He has nearly absolute Power. But he is not the president of Iran, who is always referred to in the media. Ayatollah (his name is: Seyyed Alī Chāmene'ī) is a religious position (in a theocarcy like Iran a political position too), but he is not the president who is telling the world to nuke israel etc., that man is Mahmūd Ahmadī-Ne

where is the sence in this?
I made a useless comment about a useless comment.. I dont think it was worth any further comments...

And only because dutchies are known to have a shitload of windmills it does not mean they invented it..
Us germans eat shitloads of potatoes.. we did not invent it though...

If there would be no briks today u americans could not shit briks about iran having nukes soon all the time. so YES you should be happy.

The thing is BW. Who decides who can have nukes. The US? Why?

If germany today would say we start to develop nukes.. would u complain? or canada.. or any other nation that is not middle east, persian, arab or islamic.

Why can the US keep all their nukes?

Why can Israel as only country in mid east have nukes?
Why no one is saying "No.. Iran shall not have nukes.. but neither shall Israel"

In the end no country should have nukes.
But since some allready have and those are not willing to get rid of them.. yes also Iran should have the right to develop nukes.
But i would prefer if all others would disarm their nukes instead of iran building nukes.

Why does a suicide bomber blow himself up, he knows the result will kill himself.

Why does a rogue nation desire nukes, they know it will result in their deaths when they use it.

See any parallels here?

you re implaying the president wants all of his countrymen with him in heaven?

pff america is long overdue for a good nuking.

To much incest

"Now, what do you think of IRAN having a Nuclear Program ?"

Good for them, kudos, welcome to the wonderful world of MAD.

> sKoE )= wrote:

> > Um... this decade.  The decade in which Russia is making a huge pile
> of military investments in response to the Poland missile shield.

That wont be relevant until next decade...lol.

Answered below. 

> Trusting them to do what?  You really think France would use nuclear
> weapons when it still has a conventional arsenal, and other nations,
> especially ones in the EU, that would help it if need be?

Under war with the Russians, the first thing the French will do is use nukes.

Based on what?  France has a capable military, and has NATO on its side, so the US, UK, German, Spanish, Italian, Canadian, and other military forces are all there to back them up.  Diplomacy needs to also be calculated here.

> If Iran were to fight the US, there would need to be some way the nation
> believed it could win the war.  If it resorted to conventional warfare, as my
> argument suggests, it would get its ass kicked by the US.  Remember, a
> military is only effective if it could adequately defend itself against its enemies. 
> Otherwise, it's useless.  Iran's conventional weapons, when brought up against
> its enemy, is useless.  Therefore, they'll resort to nukes.

Iran wouldn't initiate a war against any major power. That'd be stupid.

If the U.S. were to (attempt to) bomb Iran they would simply covertly move a nuclear
device onto U.S. land and detonate it.

That's exactly my argument.  If in a defensive war, Iran's gut reaction WOULD be to use its nuclear weapons because its conventional weapons are useless.

As for Iran initiating a war against a major power, um... there have been lots of stupid nations that initiated wars against major powers.

Example: Iraq.  No, not talking about the current war.  I'm talking about the 92 war.  Saddam was warned by the international community that if they stayed in Kuwait, we would kick their asses.  They said "bullshit."  The rest is history.

But I don't need to say that X nation will go to war with Y nation.  Rather, it's an issue of preparation for war.

I want to use a video game as an example: Have you ever played C&C Generals: Zero Hour?

Alright, so each playable nation has 3 different sub-factions, each enhancing different weapons for benefits.  This, in turn, changes the way you play the game.

When I play as the US subfaction with laser-armed tanks, I'm pretty much plotting to overrun the enemy with my new shiny tanks.
But when I play as the subfaction with air force bonuses and weak tanks... my opponent had better have lots of anti-air units.

Now, in just the same way, when I play against an enemy, I ask myself what that nation's "bonuses" are, and work to counter them.

So when I play as the China group with a bonus to its nuclear capabilities (moderate bonuses to tanks and aircraft) against the US laser-armed tank group... I'm using a slow siege with artillery-launched nukes.  A tank rush is too risky.

But when I play as that same group against the US air force group... I'm tank rushing them.  Screw it, there won't be any opposition.

It's just the same way with real warfare.  Here's a couple examples:
Toward the end of World War 2: The US military strategy for island hopping required the ability to transport large forces overseas, requiring large navies to go across the Pacific.  Japan's resources were dwindling, but it still had the devotion of its people.  Thus, the kamikaze air strategy was planned, as it was theorized that one plane crashing in the right spot could take down a US warship.

World War 1: The Western Front saw both sides dig massive trenches as defensive barriers.  Each side thus had to modify their strategy to get around the other side's defenses, namely trenches.  Both sides tried massive, yet unsuccessful, infantry assaults.  Overwhelming artillery was attempted.  The tank was created specifically for this task (but it went 2 miles per hour... seriously, they were taken down by direct hits from artillery.  That's bad).

Now, let's bring it into context of Iran.  If Iran were to fight the US, it would have some deterrence.  But a number of American tools give it an overwhelming advantage against Iran.  Considering Iran's political enemies are Israel and the US, those are who you weigh its power against.  A direct assault would be like if, playing a game of C&C Generals, the US air force player decided to tank rush China nuke.  Bad idea. 

Here's the important thing, though: Iran knows this, and they know it right now.  They don't have to fight a war against the US to know that a conventional war is a bad idea.  However, there is the possibility for victory using unconventional methods, such as terrorism.  Knowing this, the logical national leader would redraw their military strategy to enhance their capabilities in the areas that enhance their chance of success most effectively.

As a result, since terrorism would become Iran's strategy for stopping the US and Israel, it will spend the pre-war period preparing that force, at the expense of the other forces, since those forces are useless (In the case of Iran... its conventional deterrence may be enough to stop a small-scale Israeli or US assault, but not a massive campaign.  Consider it the difference between someone taking a planet in IC using their entire fleet vs. a one-trannie, 2 infantry attack force).  Thus, Iran becomes dependent on its nuclear and terrorist weapons as its defensive weapon, and a war with Iran is infinitely more likely to see these forces come into play.

> Iran's conventional weapons, when brought up against
> its enemy, is useless.  Therefore, they'll resort to nukes.

No, actually. Russia is helping to arm Iran.

1: You argue that Iran's conventional weaponry against the US is not useless because it is being assisted by Russia.  That means Russia DOES have the military strength to use conventional force as an adequate deterrent.
2: However, I can still argue it the other way due to simple numbers: Russia is NOT giving Iran more weapons than it has itself.

DPS,

It's true that Iran would have to be stupid to launch a nuclear strike, and I'll give them the benefit of the doubt that their fanaticism is exaggerated. But America will do what is in its best interest as all countries will, and it's not in America's best interest for Iran to have nuclear weapons because it would shift the balance of power in the world. America's ability (and the Western world for that matter) would have less ability to project power in the middle east to the benefit of Russia and China, and we can't let that happen at a practical view point.

Ofc, it's not like the n00bs in Washington didn't have a part to play in the mess. Extending a military presence in Russia's periphery in Eastern Europe is just plain dumb. Now they are extending their influence in America's periphery in both the Middle East and South America, lol.

Americans used the ATOM bomb .... and rightfully so.

1.  It was needed to end the war in the pacific.
2.  It was to Keep the USSR in check vs. Western Europe.
3.  It was to show the world just what devastation can be brought when such weapon is used.

To make the analogy, that the only Nation to use a nuke, is the one likely to use it again..... ??   
two fold:
1.  Damn sure we would use nukes again, in a similar situation, or as a retaliation.
2.  I would NOT be shocked to see, if a retaliation is needed, that it would be the US to do it.....for ANY NATION.

ie:  Paki launches on India.....
Iran/Paki launches on Israel.
NoKo launches on Anyone.  (maybe here, China should do the retribution strike).

The US would/Must be the one to do the retaliation strike, because only the US can answer to any other nations protest about said retribution.

STILL, the point is......as the Hypothetical stated:

Most of you pacifist Leftist types, dont have a problem w/IRAN having a NUKE.
Fine.
That test missle fire is to show you all that a missle can hit as far as the UK.
Its the distance that the missle the new EVIL alliance is testing.....because, after all......lets not be foolish here...... :

The NoKo test this coming week, is REALLY Iran's Missle test.
This missle test will be shared between Iran and NoKo.

So,  SCHNEIP, you have no problem w/Iran haveing Nukes.   
A few others.....

A few that post "Jokes" can never really be relied on to be serious about anything......so why bother answering them.

@ DPS.

Basically, 2nd Gulf War was also the US calling Saddam's Bluff.
He sold all that he had WMD's
He Celebrated 9/11
He trained, harbored and funded terror groups

The US called his bluff here as well.......problem is the 2nd time around wasnt going to be a slap. 
This time his bluff found himself swinging from a rope.

What a day that was for the good guys:

http://www.break.com/index/graphic_saddam_hussein_hanging_video.html

> DPS wrote:

> "Example: Iraq.  No, not talking about the current war.  I'm talking about the 92 war.  Saddam was warned by the international community that if they stayed in Kuwait, we would kick their asses.  They said "bullshit."  The rest is history."

That wasn't an example of one nation starting a conflict with another of vastly superior firepower it was Saddam calling the international community's bluff.  Unfortunately for him they weren't bluffing.

Fair enough, but that highlights a major point:

Small states can still "start" a war via antagonizing larger powers.  Now, I'm not talking about nations doing things like human rights abuses that piss off people.  I'm talking about nations doing exactly as above.  Other examples would include 9/11 and, arguably, the Vietnam and Korean wars.