Thisssssssssssssssss could be trouble.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Well, I don’t know about “First Rule,” but I understand your point.  However, I would take exception to your use of the very loaded word, procreation, which is usually used in a humanities context, and often signifies those very specific human begetting activities.  I think the more neutral word, reproduction, is more appropriate as it is commonly understood to encompass both asexual and sexual methods of organismal replication.  JMHO.

Your exception to the term is noted, and as it does technically exclude asexual processes I'd agree that reproduction or (better still) propagation the better blanket terms. That said, Soxy is correct in stating that reproduction in THE goal for living systems. The selfish genes within all life have seen to that.

Edited December 13, 2005 by FlaSoxxJim

[southsider2k5]

As much fun as this thread looks, what it amounts to for me is Iran keeps publically stating that Israel should not be in existance, and at the sametime is very close to developing the weapons that could achieve the very goal they have had since 1948. Just last week the Irani President instead of working towards peace, said that if Europeans really cared about the Jews, they would make an Israel in Europe instead, while ignoring the facts that basically all of the Muslim countries of the middle east have historically refused to take in the Palestinian refugees, and countries like Jordan have refused to take a section of land to make an independant Palestinian state out of.

 

Israel might not have the best record to stand on, but they have NEVER stated that their ultimate goal is the genocide of its neighbors. They have been repeatedly invaded and attacked by other sovergien nations, and live in a perpetual state of war with groups like Hamas who refuse to negotiate a peace that includes a Jewish exsistance. Its hard to justify war, but when your very exsistance is at stake, I can totally understand it. When (not if) this happens, it will be interesting to see how the middle east handles this.

 

I also saw the line about Iran justifying the need for nukes with defense against invasion, and just wanted to point out that the arms race isn't a new objective for Iran. They have been actively pursuing atomic weapons for at least 30 years now. Israel already destroyed one nearly complete nuclear facility, back in the early 80s if memory serves me correctly. Also if memory serves me correctly Iran didn't have any immenent invasion excuse then either. Simply what we have now is Iran being able to fit their propaganda to serve the agenda they have had since at least the middle 70's. Nothing has changed here, Iran has always wanted the ability to blow Israel off of the map, they just have a rational now for posessing that ability.

[Rex Kickass]

I also saw the line about Iran justifying the need for nukes with defense against invasion, and just wanted to point out that the arms race isn't a new objective for Iran.  They have been actively pursuing atomic weapons for at least 30 years now.  Israel already destroyed one nearly complete nuclear facility, back in the early 80s if memory serves me correctly.  Also if memory serves me correctly Iran didn't have any immenent invasion excuse then either.  Simply what we have now is Iran being able to fit their propaganda to serve the agenda they have had since at least the middle 70's.  Nothing has changed here, Iran has always wanted the ability to blow Israel off of the map, they just have a rational now for posessing that ability.

 

If memory serves me correctly, that was Iraq.

 

Previous to 1979, Iran actually had fairly warm relations with Israel as far as that region is concerned, given the Shah's cozy relationship with the U.S.

 

Iran did become more aggressive in 1979-1980 under the new leadership of the Islamists and threatened and did in fact help provoke the Iran/Iraq war throughout the 1980s.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

If memory serves me correctly, that was Iraq.

 

Previous to 1979, Iran actually had fairly warm relations with Israel as far as that region is concerned, given the Shah's cozy relationship with the U.S.

 

Iran did become more aggressive in 1979-1980 under the new leadership of the Islamists and threatened and did in fact help provoke the Iran/Iraq war throughout the 1980s.

 

 

Correct on all counts.

[southsider2k5]

Yeah, I guess I need to mind my Ns and Qs better... It was Iraq that Israel struck, but I was right on Irans nuclear history somewhat, they have actually been trying since the 60s to advance in the nuclear club, long before the Death to America club came into power. That pretty well disqualifies the "defense" crap that Iran has been spewing.

[Rex Kickass]

Actually quite the opposite, they're entire worldview in the 60s and 70s were completely opposite. And the situation they faced in 1980 is wholly different than the one they have now.

[Mercy!]

Your exception to the term is noted, and as it does technically exclude asexual processes I'd agree that reproduction or (better still) propagation the better blanket terms.  That said, Soxy is correct in stating that reproduction in THE goal for living systems.  The selfish genes within all life have seen to that.

Not to belabor the point. Okay, I’m belaboring the point. When I said “I don’t know about First Rule, but I understand your point” I meant that I understood the principle but wished she didn’t use that term, as in First Law of Thermodynamics or Newton’s Second Law of Whatever. You know, I didn't want to spell that out since I was already being niggling enough with the procreation/reproduction thing…………………………………. Wait, aren't we talking behind Soxy's back here?

[Soxy]

Well, I don’t know about “First Rule,” but I understand your point.  However, I would take exception to your use of the very loaded word, procreation, which is usually used in a humanities context, and often signifies those very specific human begetting activities.  I think the more neutral word, reproduction, is more appropriate as it is commonly understood to encompass both asexual and sexual methods of organismal replication.  JMHO.

Fair point, and duly noted.

[Balta1701]

Yeah, I guess I need to mind my Ns and Qs better...

Well, if the President can be forgiven for making that error...I guess we can let you off the hook too.

 

I think the key question in all of this is this one; is Isreal's nuclear arsenal enough of a deterrant to prevent a nuclear armed Iran from attacking it? Israel has enough nukes to turn every other country in the Middle East into a smoking hole in the ground. The real question is...is Iran's leadership willing to sacrifice everything they have...all the power, all the wealth of running a nation...to take a shot at Israel?

[YASNY]

Well, if the President can be forgiven for making that error...I guess we can let you off the hook too.

 

I think the key question in all of this is this one; is Isreal's nuclear arsenal enough of a deterrant to prevent a nuclear armed Iran from attacking it?  Israel has enough nukes to turn every other country in the Middle East into a smoking hole in the ground.  The real question is...is Iran's leadership willing to sacrifice everything they have...all the power, all the wealth of running a nation...to take a shot at Israel?

 

If you are Isreal, do you take that gamble?

[FlaSoxxJim]

Not to belabor the point.  Okay, I’m belaboring the point.  When I said “I don’t know about First Rule, but I understand your point” I meant that I understood the principle but wished she didn’t use that term, as in First Law of Thermodynamics or Newton’s Second Law of Whatever.  You know, I didn't want to spell that out since I was already being niggling enough with the procreation/reproduction thing………………………………….  Wait, aren't we talking behind Soxy's back here?

Yep, I got that. But I'll take any chance to reaffirm the central tennet that in the living world everything is secondary to and in support of getting as many copies of the individual's genes into the next generation.

 

I also could add that while I abhor the term creature when used in the context pf biology (because it derives from and on woruld seem to on some level legitimize a creationist dogma), the use of the term procreation to signify sexual conjugation and the creation of offspring is perfectly acceptable. In this instance, the two creators are the sexually mature organisms, and not a vague divine agent as alluded to by in the term creature[/].

 

See? I'm more picky about language than you. Nya nya nya nya nyah.

[southsider2k5]

Well, if the President can be forgiven for making that error...I guess we can let you off the hook too.

 

I think the key question in all of this is this one; is Isreal's nuclear arsenal enough of a deterrant to prevent a nuclear armed Iran from attacking it?  Israel has enough nukes to turn every other country in the Middle East into a smoking hole in the ground.  The real question is...is Iran's leadership willing to sacrifice everything they have...all the power, all the wealth of running a nation...to take a shot at Israel?

 

I guess the question to me is, do the pols in Iran mean what they say when they say that it is the obligation of Muslims everywhere to fight a holy war to slaughter the Jews and reclaim the homeland of Palestine? Do they really believe that their spot in heaven will be guarenteed by dying to rid the planet of Jews. Judging by the actions of Iran, and the Muslims who are dying in suicide attacks, I think it is definately credible to think that Iran would attack Israel if they had the capability to hit is with atomic/nuclear weapons.

[southsideirish71]

I guess the question to me is, do the pols in Iran mean what they say when they say that it is the obligation of Muslims everywhere to fight a holy war to slaughter the Jews and reclaim the homeland of Palestine?  Do they really believe that their spot in heaven will be guarenteed by dying to rid the planet of Jews.  Judging by the actions of Iran, and the Muslims who are dying in suicide attacks, I think it is definately credible to think that Iran would attack Israel if they had the capability to hit is with atomic/nuclear weapons.

 

Plus its not like an ICBM will be launched from the sovereign nation of Iran letting the world know that they did it.

 

Maybe a truck gets smuggled into Israel from Lebanon/Syria from Hezbollah. You know the guys that Iran has been arming for years with rockets, missles, and guns. Yes made in Iran and all. That truck drives the bomb into Israel and mushroom cloud time. The Iranians are happy as hell, and they can deny that it was them.

 

With terrorists and terrorist regimes the laws of war dont exist. Armies wearing a flag or uniform dont meet on the battlefield. A truck with a warhead drives into a town square and then a flash of light and its over.

Edited December 13, 2005 by southsideirish71

[Rex Kickass]

But this is a state to state relationship. I find it unlikely that Iran would give its nuclear weaponry away to a non-state actor that they can not control. The risks are too high.

 

If Iran is the only other nuclear power besides Israel, they know that a nuclear detonation in Israel means the end of Iran. Because A+B will equal close enough to C that so many people will rain fire down upon Iran that not even China would dare to step in.

 

States have no problem giving away guns and small bombs to terrorist organizations because they know that they can always top them. But to give them your best firepower would be stupid - because what if they turn on you?

 

As awful as a nuclear Iran would be for the region, it may lead to some stabilization. Iran wouldn't have to fear a US attack as much and could focus on either pressuring its neighbors to sway the way of Iran or focus on fixing the problems within its own society.

 

The US doesn't want Iran to go nuclear - not because it fears an attack on Israel but more likely because it fears what would happen when/if that government falls apart. Will it be controlled like in the Soviet Union? Or will it be chaos like Iraq? The Soviet Union would be a not-so-good but best available option. Iraq would be a nightmare. The US would then actually have a vested interest in keeping some degree of military order and status quo in Iran and that does not taste well to any American government.

[southsideirish71]

But this is a state to state relationship. I find it unlikely that Iran would give its nuclear weaponry away to a non-state actor that they can not control. The risks are too high.

 

If Iran is the only other nuclear power besides Israel, they know that a nuclear detonation in Israel means the end of Iran. Because A+B will equal close enough to C that so many people will rain fire down upon Iran that not even China would dare to step in.

 

States have no problem giving away guns and small bombs to terrorist organizations because they know that they can always top them. But to give them your best firepower would be stupid - because what if they turn on you?

 

As awful as a nuclear Iran would be for the region, it may lead to some stabilization. Iran wouldn't have to fear a US attack as much and could focus on either pressuring its neighbors to sway the way of Iran or focus on fixing the problems within its own society.

 

The US doesn't want Iran to go nuclear - not because it fears an attack on Israel but more likely because it fears what would happen when/if that government falls apart. Will it be controlled like in the Soviet Union? Or will it be chaos like Iraq? The Soviet Union would be a not-so-good but best available option. Iraq would be a nightmare. The US would then actually have a vested interest in keeping some degree of military order and status quo in Iran and that does not taste well to any American government.

 

It doesnt work that way. They could denounce the attack. Its not like Matlock would be out in the desert taking samples looking for reactor signatures. They could also claim that it was stolen. Plus it really doesnt matter. The minute that the Israelies attack Iran its over. The rest of the Islamic world will turn on Israel and attack as they would believe that the Jihad is here.

 

Plus how big is Israel. How many Atomic bombs would it take to wipe it off the face of the earth. If you get the right amount of weapons inside, what is the response?

[southsider2k5]

But this is a state to state relationship. I find it unlikely that Iran would give its nuclear weaponry away to a non-state actor that they can not control. The risks are too high.

 

If Iran is the only other nuclear power besides Israel, they know that a nuclear detonation in Israel means the end of Iran. Because A+B will equal close enough to C that so many people will rain fire down upon Iran that not even China would dare to step in.

 

States have no problem giving away guns and small bombs to terrorist organizations because they know that they can always top them. But to give them your best firepower would be stupid - because what if they turn on you?

 

As awful as a nuclear Iran would be for the region, it may lead to some stabilization. Iran wouldn't have to fear a US attack as much and could focus on either pressuring its neighbors to sway the way of Iran or focus on fixing the problems within its own society.

 

The US doesn't want Iran to go nuclear - not because it fears an attack on Israel but more likely because it fears what would happen when/if that government falls apart. Will it be controlled like in the Soviet Union? Or will it be chaos like Iraq? The Soviet Union would be a not-so-good but best available option. Iraq would be a nightmare. The US would then actually have a vested interest in keeping some degree of military order and status quo in Iran and that does not taste well to any American government.

 

If there is one thing that unites the Muslims of the world, it is ridding Palestine of the Jews. I have no doubt that even if Iran didn't attack Israel outwardly, they would have no problem with Hamas or the like "finding" a nuke somehow. Plus if you believe what the Koran saids, and the Imams have preached, it is their DUTY to rid the Jews from there. Death is a good thing in this case, as it means you are in paradise and you have pleased Allah. You have to take off your death is bad, Christian blinders and put yourself in Islams shoes. Even if the Irani President is full of s*** when he talks about destroying Israel, it only takes one underling to leak this to a desparate Palestinian group and bye-bye Holy Land, with the reward of eternal paradise.

 

A nuclear Iran is a worst case scenario IMO.

[Rex Kickass]

The response comes from us, comes from Great Britain, probably even France (despite the state being traditionally Anti-Semitic) and it comes so immediately, the Iranian government wouldn't have time to deny it or even regret their decision.

[southsideirish71]

The response comes from us, comes from Great Britain, probably even France (despite the state being traditionally Anti-Semitic) and it comes so immediately, the Iranian government wouldn't have time to deny it or even regret their decision.

 

Okay, so an atomic bomb detonates inside of Israel. The world reacts, the news presses jump at it. Panic sets in. Then 10 minutes later a video of a masked man speaking Farsi with a picture of the flag of Palestine calling for Jihad and that the will of Allah has been commited and says they are the Jihad Warriors of the World and they are alligned with Al Queda.

 

So do you think that after we obliterate Iran, that a lot of people might get miffed that we jumped too soon. That it could of been terrrorists. Maybe they got their weapons from North Korea, or from the black market from "missing" nukes in the former Soviet Union. Who knows. But before we take retalitory action there would have to be proof beyond a worlds reasonable doubt. Remember also this is not an attack on the US. So technically how are we justified to respond with nukes on Iran.

 

It can become cloudy.

[kapkomet]

Okay, so an atomic bomb detonates inside of Israel.  The world reacts, the news presses jump at it.  Panic sets in.  Then 10 minutes later a video of a masked man speaking Farsi with a picture of the flag of Palestine calling for Jihad and that the will of Allah has been commited and says they are the Jihad Warriors of the World and they are alligned with Al Queda. 

 

So do you think that after we obliterate Iran, that a lot of people might get miffed that we jumped too soon.  That it could of been terrrorists.  Maybe they got their weapons from North Korea, or from the black market from "missing" nukes in the former Soviet Union.  Who knows.  But before we take retalitory action there would have to be proof beyond a worlds reasonable doubt.  Remember also this is not an attack on the US.  So technically how are we justified to respond with nukes on Iran.

 

It can become cloudy.

An attack on Isreal *IS* an attack on the US according to agreements in place and well understood throughout the world.

[southsideirish71]

An attack on Isreal *IS* an attack on the US according to agreements in place and well understood throughout the world.

 

If its an allegedly coming from "Al Queda". Who do we nuke.

 

Before we detonate Nuclear weapons over a country we will need proof like nothing else.

 

I can see it now.

 

A B2 drops a 1 megaton nuke on Tehran. They might deserve it, however how many people would be protesting it.

Edited December 13, 2005 by southsideirish71

[CanOfCorn]

If its an allegedly coming from "Al Queda".  Who do we nuke.

 

Before we detonate Nuclear weapons over a country we will need proof like nothing else.

 

I can see it now.

 

A B2 drops a 1 megaton nuke on Tehran.  They might deserve it, however how many people would be protesting it.

 

Protesting? So while Israel is smoldering, we start an investigation?

 

I don't think anyone would fire nukes back at Iran for fear of killing people in nations that are trying to "democratize" (Iraq and Afghanistan come to mind), but it would be a full scale ground and air war on Iran...and I don't think too many Islamic nations would come to their aid. Hatred of Israel or not.

[southsideirish71]

Protesting?  So while Israel is smoldering, we start an investigation? 

 

I don't think anyone would fire nukes back at Iran for fear of killing people in nations that are trying to "democratize" (Iraq and Afghanistan come to mind), but it would be a full scale ground and air war on Iran...and I don't think too many Islamic nations would come to their aid.  Hatred of Israel or not.

 

 

Actually my personal view is that if they use nukes, we make them into the biggest parking lot in the middle east. See if the sand will turn to glass.

 

 

 

But trust me, if Israel is glowing and we start to build up to go to war with Iran. People will protest. Michael Moore can do a documentary on how the evil americans came to Israels aid.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Protesting?  So while Israel is smoldering, we start an investigation? 

 

I don't think anyone would fire nukes back at Iran for fear of killing people in nations that are trying to "democratize" (Iraq and Afghanistan come to mind), but it would be a full scale ground and air war on Iran...and I don't think too many Islamic nations would come to their aid.  Hatred of Israel or not.

I hope you are right, but we may be deluding ourselves as to the degree of reserve we would show. There have been worst-case-scenario discussions in Neocon circles that have gone so far as to suggest that we eventually might "nuke Mecca" as a general retaliation to the Muslim world if we decide they are not doing enough on their respective homefronts in the Global War on Terror®

 

Now, if incomprehensible actions such as that can be openly suggested by the sort of folks calling the shots in our Special Relationship® with Israel, I wonder how much they'd fret over Nuking Tehran if early intel suggested they were thougght to have been responsible for nuking Israel.

 

And how can we even be talking about these types of scenarios in 2005?

[Balta1701]

Actually my personal view is that if they use nukes, we make them into the biggest parking lot in the middle east.  See if the sand will turn to glass.

But trust me, if Israel is glowing and we start to build up to go to war with Iran.  People will protest.  Michael Moore can do a documentary on how the evil americans came to Israels aid.

Unfortunately...there's one real big problem with the concept of any sort of a nuclear response to a nuclear terrorist attack on Israel based anywhere in the Middle East...some of you probably can guess it...OIL!!!

 

It is possible to launch nuclear strikes within the middle east. It is almost impossible to do so without putting in huge jeopardy the world's last remaining supplies of what has been our single most valuable limited natural resource. If we nuke Iran...what are we going to do about all of that oil sitting under Iran which will suddenly become inaccessible? What will we do when 1/10 of the worlds supply of oil becomes unavailable for years, if not decades?

 

This is an entirely serious question. Would the U.S. be willing to completely sacrifice a huge fraction of the world's oil reserves in a retaliatory nuclear strike? Would you be wililng to pay $15 a gallon? What would that do to the U.S. economy?

[Rex Kickass]

Okay, so an atomic bomb detonates inside of Israel.  The world reacts, the news presses jump at it.  Panic sets in.  Then 10 minutes later a video of a masked man speaking Farsi with a picture of the flag of Palestine calling for Jihad and that the will of Allah has been commited and says they are the Jihad Warriors of the World and they are alligned with Al Queda. 

 

So do you think that after we obliterate Iran, that a lot of people might get miffed that we jumped too soon.  That it could of been terrrorists.  Maybe they got their weapons from North Korea, or from the black market from "missing" nukes in the former Soviet Union.  Who knows.  But before we take retalitory action there would have to be proof beyond a worlds reasonable doubt.  Remember also this is not an attack on the US.  So technically how are we justified to respond with nukes on Iran.

 

It can become cloudy.

 

There wouldn't be ten minutes. If Iran was a declared (or known but undeclared) nuclear power, it would be that fast. Too fast for any videotape to see the light of day.