US Condemns Bomb Attack on Iran Nuclear Scientist

[ladajo]

Aslan,
Seems like I am not the only one to be slow to point the finger at Israel.

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/01/11/world ... ?hpt=hp_c2

I would say that there is a cultural penchant in your region of the world to blame others for all issues, and then also seek revenge. This creates a very healthy atmosphere for rampant misguided conspiracy theories, and is also probably a good topic for a doctoral paper.

And, it does seem that your Government is seeking extreme control over information access for the populace as a means to control the message and the people:

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/01/11 ... l-network/

[mdeminico]

HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!!



Again the Israeli government committed a terrible crime against humanity.


www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16501566

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16519304

Despite your complete lack of proof for assigning guilt, let's assume by some chance you were right... Yeah... those evil Israelis, killing a person responsible for developing the bomb that WILL cause the deaths of millions of people in both Israel and Iran as soon as it's fully developed.

You think that millions of people in Iran won't die when that crackpot Ahmadinejad gets his hands on a nuclear warhead and the appropriate delivery method, and he uses it on Israel?

You apparently have no clue about how these people think. The fundamentalists in Islam believe that they'll speed up the return of the 12th Iman (whom supposedly went into "occlusion" at 5 years old in the 9th century, and hasn't been seen since) by bringing about globally devastating war. They're freaking nUtS, these people like Ahmadinejad...

They nuke Israel, kill a few hundred thousand people with a small bomb, or a few million with multiple bombs... Israel retaliates and nukes the hell out of Tehran, Tabriz, Karaj, Mashhad, Esfahan, and Shiraz till they're a gigantic self-lighting glass-lined parking lot, and even the cockroaches can't survive. Ahmadinejad and his followers know this is coming, and are off in some foreign country somewhere watching the show go down while ten million people die in a nuclear firestorm.

So, knowing this, wouldn't it stand to reason that there are SANE people within Iran that would like to NOT see this happen?

Wouldn't it stand to reason that these people, the sane citizens of Iran, would know who's who very well? That they would know what facilities are critical to enabling Iran to do this? That they were united in their opposition to their current government when they watched that government slaughter demonstrators in Tehran?

Would you really be surprised if it was these sane people in Iran who were responsible for all these "foreign terrorist" attacks that went down in Iran recently?

[Joseph Chikva]

Yeah... those evil Israelis, killing a person responsible for developing the bomb...

I am not so sure that that victim person was responsible on something. I have read only the first link. And there was written “lecturer and scientist". Lecturer working in a secret program?
But I am assured that power mission directed against one person cannot stop the program. So, ineffective. So, there is not Israel. Because Ahmadinejad was right saying that one nuke bomb can not destroy Iran but one nuke bomb can destroy Israel. Due to small size even conventional missile warheads will cause hard damage in Israel. So, Israel will conduct only hard punch on Iran knock-outing that or will not punch at all. One bomb can not destroy? No problem, there are a lot of bombs in inventory: on a choice – nuke or conventional. But not killing minor scientist.

[Skipjack]

I would say it the other way round "one nuke cant destroy israel, but it can destroy iran". If Iran was to use only one nuclear bomb on Israel, it would be the end of Iran. The US and Israel would wipe Iran from the face of the earth.
Personally, I found the target badly chosen. IMHO, it would be better to target Achmadinnerjacket and his religious zealots instead of the nuclear scientist. But then, who am I and what do I understand about these things?

[Diogenes]

Aslan,
As I condemn Iran attempting to build nuclear weapons, which they are, without question.

Why would thier ability as a nuclear power be any worse than China, or Russia, or North Korea?

How does one ethically stop them from building one?

Easy, you kill everyone that tries to do it. THAT is the ETHICAL way to stop them.

Only by diplomacy and persuasion. Iran, please build polywells not bombs.

Yes, that worked well for Neville Chamberlain.




The Victims of this "diplomacy" philosophy number in the hundreds of millions.

[Diogenes]

Bennmann asks, "Why would thier ability as a nuclear power be any worse than China, or Russia, or North Korea?"

Be complete, now. Add in the US, England, France, Israel ...

Good question, how does one ethically stop nuclear ambitions, especially when you are the only country on Earth to have used the #$%@ things in a war? One can debate the relative numbers of Japanese lives that would have been lost with continued conventional bombs and an eventual invasion, not to mention starvation, 'til the cows come home, but the bottom line is the US has no leg to stand on when it says no newcomers are welcome in the nuke club.

I disagree completely. The man with the gun makes the rules. THAT is the overriding principle which has governed all of human history. It is the basis for Kingship and all other forms of government.

We SHOULD have stopped the Soviet Union from developing them. I am a firm believer that Curtis LeMay was absolutely correct about this. Bear in mind, that WE developed them because we thought the NAZIS (That's National SOCIALISTS everyone) were developing them, and no one doubts the NAtional soZIalists would have used them.

The US and Soviet Union got their lessons in nuclear brinksmanship the hard way, by building up insane arsenals and finally realizing the only thing keeping us from Mutual Destruction was the assurance that it was almost certainly assured, and the Russians loved their children too.
.

This theory DOES NOT WORK with fanatics. Ahm-a-Dinnerjacket has stated many times that he wants to bring back the 12 imam, and the best way to do it is to cause a world wide violent cataclysm.

The aptly named "Mutually Assured Destruction" method would also not have worked on Hitler either. Napoleon used to brag that he could afford to kill something like 10,000 troops per month. Human life is cheap to such people.

During the Cuban Missile crises, Curtis LeMay just about begged John Kennedy (Who CAUSED the crises, but nobody points that out because everyone wants to believe the liberal spin on Kennedy) to attack the Soviet Union because it would be our last chance to actually win an engagement with low loses. The Soviets backed down in the early 60s because they knew they would be wiped out, and we would win an exchange.

WE. WERE. LUCKY.

Lucky that the soviets were hedonistic materialists instead of religious nut-jobs (David Koresh, Ayatollah Kohmeni) or Fanatic narcissists. (Napoleon, Hitler, Obama) Even then, we came close to Armageddon just because of accidents.

I have always thought that all prospective members of the nuclear club ought to visit Japan and have a nice talking to from the only people ever to be on the receiving end of a nuclear war.

Yes, it will obviously discourage those among them that feels we infidels need to burn in hell fire for eternity. Are you freaking kidding me?

Nuclear weapons may seem desirable. Israel certainly wanted them and has used them as a deterrent. But now Israel is faced with the knowledge that they are so small they could easily be effectively wiped out with two of the infernal things. India and Pakistan hopefully will take a deep breath and decide it ain't worth it. Iran and North Korea need to know that any use by them will result in instant annihilation of their own country. MAD seems the only real way to assure they are not used.

They say in investing that:
"Past Performance is No Guarantee of Future Results."


I think you are falling prey to the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. We only survived MAD because the soviets weren't. Even so, we never should have let them build that gun to point it at us.

[Diogenes]

This thread ought to be in the "General" section.

[Diogenes]

Why would thier ability as a nuclear power be any worse than China, or Russia, or North Korea?

How does one ethically stop them from building one? Only by diplomacy and persuasion. Iran, please build polywells not bombs.

Because the leadership of China and Russia has a better grasp on reality and sense of self preservation to not start a nuclear war. Even nutty North Korea would be slightly safer with the bomb, but I wouldn't trust them with it.

In reality only USA and Soviet Union which assignee is Russia were on borderline of nuclear war. Now Russia and China transfer to Iran nuclear technologies. Now Iran without doubt is very aggressive. The creation of Israel state was a peaceful idea. But that time Israelis used terrorism methods against e.g. Britains.
Also the question: why several countries have a right to have nuclear weapon and why others do not? Why it would not be better that all countries including USA deny nuke?

You might just as well ask why we should fight with guns when we have swords available.

[Diogenes]

RWB quote:

"Tom, nuclear weapons are addictive. Once you set one of them off, it makes you feel like a god, and you want to do it again."

And once you own them, you never want to give them up, even though they make you more at risk of total destruction than you ever were without them. Because once you have them, there will be no half measures against you. No enemy with comparable capacity will invade ... they will flatten you in one massive attack. So you feel powerful for owning them, but you cannot use them, and can't sleep at night for fear they paint a target on you.

SHHHH!!!! Don't say "addictive" or Simon will be in favor of it! He's already against prohibition in all forms and If I understand his point correctly, depriving a lunatic of nuclear weapons is a form of "prohibition."


Sorry Simon, had to poke a bit of fun at you there. You may beat me about the head and shoulders at your leisure.

[Diogenes]

Bennmann asks, "Why would their ability as a nuclear power be any worse than China, or Russia, or North Korea?"

Be complete, now. Add in the US, England, France, Israel ...

Japan and Germany on 24 hours notice. South Africa (past tense). 50-50 says Taiwan sub rosa.

Nonproliferation has appeared deader than disco for the last 15 years - which makes the recent "energetic" 10th hour opposition to the Iranian Program so... odd.

Good question, how does one ethically stop nuclear ambitions, especially when you are the only country on Earth to have used the #$%@ things in a war?

Very simply.

"Because we say so."

But then you have to make it stick, and the will among the Bigs is no longer there.

Nuclear weapons may seem desirable. Israel certainly wanted them and has used them as a deterrent. But now Israel is faced with the knowledge that they are so small they could easily be effectively wiped out with two of the infernal things. India and Pakistan hopefully will take a deep breath and decide it ain't worth it. Iran and North Korea need to know that any use by them will result in instant annihilation of their own country. MAD seems the only real way to assure they are not used.

"Rational interest" has very different meanings in different circumstances and cultures.

First we got the bomb and that was good
cause we love peace and motherhood
then Russia got the bomb but that's okay
cause the balance of power is maintained that way!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRLON3ddZIw

[Skipjack]

SHHHH!!!! Don't say "addictive" or Simon will be in favor of it! He's already against prohibition in all forms and If I understand his point correctly, depriving a lunatic of nuclear weapons is a form of "prohibition."

Actually, you might have a point there Diogenes. Maybe Ah mah Dinnerjacket just wants to have nuclear weapons because of the prohibition? Maybe the whole non proliferation is a waste of money? Maybe we should do away with the whole prohibition of nuclear weapons nonsense and just let everyone have the right to own them? We have been fighting this "war against nukes" for almost 7 decades now and looking at the result, I would say it has been a loosing battle.
I mean every bana republic has them now. You can basically buy them from a dealer at the street corner. Think of all the billions this has cost and of all the progress in the development of better nuclear reactors, this has prohibited.

Am I being completely serious here? Not even completely sure myself right now

[Betruger]

Popping Dinnerjacket right now would just fan the flames IMHO. Iran is already digging their hole on their own. Iranian govt anyway.

[Diogenes]

RWB quote:

"Tom, nuclear weapons are addictive. Once you set one of them off, it makes you feel like a god, and you want to do it again."

In this case, I think he has it half right. Set one off in the desert or on a moutain or out at sea and WOW-give me more!!! But the US usage over Japan has left a pychological scar that has yet to heal.

Has it struck anyone that when we "Merkans" say that we don't want folks to have them, at least part of the reason is becasue we wouldn't want that psychic shock on even our worst enemy?

"Because we say so"? Well, yes, but more "because you can have NO IDEA what it is like".

Give me a break. We killed more people in the Fire bombing of Dresden and Tokyo than we did in Nagasaki or Hiroshima.

As one British Air Marshall remarked (during World War II) after being stopped by a traffic cop and told to slow down because he might kill someone, "Young man, I kill thousands of people every night! "

A little known factoid is that Curtis LeMay had to slow down and re-order his conventional bombing campaign of Japanese Cities so as to leave behind a couple of worthwhile targets for which to demonstrate the bomb's power.

We would have unhesitatingly killed ten times the number if we had to. "Psychic shock" is not even an issue.

[Diogenes]

HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!!



Again the Israeli government committed a terrible crime against humanity.


www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16501566

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16519304

Despite your complete lack of proof for assigning guilt, let's assume by some chance you were right... Yeah... those evil Israelis, killing a person responsible for developing the bomb that WILL cause the deaths of millions of people in both Israel and Iran as soon as it's fully developed.

You think that millions of people in Iran won't die when that crackpot Ahmadinejad gets his hands on a nuclear warhead and the appropriate delivery method, and he uses it on Israel?

You apparently have no clue about how these people think. The fundamentalists in Islam believe that they'll speed up the return of the 12th Iman (whom supposedly went into "occlusion" at 5 years old in the 9th century, and hasn't been seen since) by bringing about globally devastating war. They're freaking nUtS, these people like Ahmadinejad...

They nuke Israel, kill a few hundred thousand people with a small bomb, or a few million with multiple bombs... Israel retaliates and nukes the hell out of Tehran, Tabriz, Karaj, Mashhad, Esfahan, and Shiraz till they're a gigantic self-lighting glass-lined parking lot, and even the cockroaches can't survive. Ahmadinejad and his followers know this is coming, and are off in some foreign country somewhere watching the show go down while ten million people die in a nuclear firestorm.

So, knowing this, wouldn't it stand to reason that there are SANE people within Iran that would like to NOT see this happen?

Wouldn't it stand to reason that these people, the sane citizens of Iran, would know who's who very well? That they would know what facilities are critical to enabling Iran to do this? That they were united in their opposition to their current government when they watched that government slaughter demonstrators in Tehran?

Would you really be surprised if it was these sane people in Iran who were responsible for all these "foreign terrorist" attacks that went down in Iran recently?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/03/world ... lager.html

[ladajo]

Having been to ground zero in Nagasaki, as well as visited the "Atomic Museum", there is a singular lasting memory for me. It is the fact that around ground zero, and on the path up and over to the museum, there are many "memorial" monuments paid for a placed by our staunch allies (and opponents) condeming the horrible selfish use of nuclear weapons by the US. I still find this ironic given the cited "world ending devastation" and the fact that the bulk of these monuments are placed at and around ground zero, a particularly nice garden and small park area.

We can achive similar devastation with conventional means and have done so. The fear, I think, of nuclear weapons is the comparitive ease of delivery for given effects, and corrospondingly lower probability of successful defense. Everyone is afraid of the gun that they can't see or hide from.

The effects myths of nuclear wasteland, and thousands of years of lost access to the land are well established by the leftist tree-huggers egged on by some sort of early communist propaganda co-supported by alarmist anti-communists looking to spend defense dollars. Of course when the socialist tree-huggers occasionally get to visit a real ground zero site, they do not hesitate to wip out the I-phone and take some tourist shots standing in the "un-inhabitable wasteland".



http://tripwow.tripadvisor.com/slidesho ... l02aw-7649

http://www.takemytrip.com/06newmex/06_15a.htm