Thread: Iran could have nukes by 09

Depending on how true this is it could mean that whoever is elected as the next POTUS could be starting their administration in the unenviable position of needint to react to an Israeli first strike against an Iranian nuclear target.


Israel: Iran could have nukes by '09 | Jerusalem Post

Originally Posted by TheHegemon

Depending on how true this is it could mean that whoever is elected as the next POTUS could be starting their administration in the unenviable position of needint to react to an Israeli first strike against an Iranian nuclear target.


Israel: Iran could have nukes by '09 | Jerusalem Post

When Reagan was told about the strike on the Iraqi reactor his response was: "Well, boys will be boys". Israel does have the right to defend itself, and I think we should let them. We don't have to get involved militarily as they can take care of themselves.

Originally Posted by democraticus

When Reagan was told about the strike on the Iraqi reactor his response was: "Well, boys will be boys". Israel does have the right to defend itself, and I think we should let them. We don't have to get involved militarily as they can take care of themselves.

Israel doesn't have the military capability of eliminating all the key Iranian nuclear facilities.

Originally Posted by Dayton3

Israel doesn't have the military capability of eliminating all the key Iranian nuclear facilities.

Well. let's provide them with the neccessary assets then. But we don't invade.

Originally Posted by Dayton3

Israel doesn't have the military capability of eliminating all the key Iranian nuclear facilities.

I think you might be surprised.

Originally Posted by TheHegemon

Depending on how true this is it could mean that whoever is elected as the next POTUS could be starting their administration in the unenviable position of needint to react to an Israeli first strike against an Iranian nuclear target.


Israel: Iran could have nukes by '09 | Jerusalem Post

Why hasn't this been posted at other news sites than the "Jerusalem Post", considering Iran is normal discussion in mass media?

As well, what sources say this about Iran? The article doesn't say.

Well, it's Jerusalem Post, don't take it by word. I think diplomacy is still open to a compromise.

Originally Posted by Dayton3

Israel doesn't have the military capability of eliminating all the key Iranian nuclear facilities.

They have the third largest nuke arsenal on the planet. I think they are totally capable of destroying facilities that don't exist.

Originally Posted by Ronin Tetsuro

They have the third largest nuke arsenal on the planet. I think they are totally capable of destroying facilities that don't exist.

Yea...cause there is no way this guy could be a nuke happy threat:
Iran clerics rebuke Ahmadinejad over 'hidden imam'

It is completely without factual basis but his quote sets of my radioactive alarm bells:
"We must solve Iran's internal problems as quickly as possible. Time is lacking. A movement has started for us to occupy ourselves with our global responsibilities, which are arriving with great speed."

Originally Posted by TheHegemon

Yea...cause there is no way this guy could be a nuke happy threat:
Iran clerics rebuke Ahmadinejad over 'hidden imam'

It is completely without factual basis but his quote sets of my radioactive alarm bells:
"We must solve Iran's internal problems as quickly as possible. Time is lacking. A movement has started for us to occupy ourselves with our global responsibilities, which are arriving with great speed."

If you couple that quote with the fact that Ahmadinejad has stated that Iran has a right to build civilian nuclear power stations and that it's a long road from a power station to a weapons grade program, you'll realize that your fears (while not unfounded) are mitigated by a world community that would benefit greatly from Iran even ATTEMPTING to build nukes.

It's like getting high in your parent's house. You could, but you're just begging to get caught.