Iranian cruise missiles

[EricTheRed 0]

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=7946499

"The X-55 has a range of some 1,800 miles..."

Pretty much gives them the ability to hit anything in the mideast. I guess it's a good thing they aren't working on developing nukes to use as a payload...

illegible usually

[markd_nscr986 0]

The really scary thing is.......

If anyone in the Muslim world either attempted or were successful in attacking Israel with a nuclear device......with the 200+ nukes that Israel has saved for that "rainy day"

The response from Israel would be swift,deadly and very very radioactive

Millions die,everyone loses

Marc SCR 6046 SCS 3004

[billvon 3,073]

>If anyone in the Muslim world either attempted or were successful
>in attacking Israel with a nuclear device......with the 200+ nukes that
> Israel has saved for that "rainy day" . . .

Agreed. If the rumors are true, the opposite might happen if Israel launched the first strike. Who knows? We made the doctrine of 'mutual assured destruction' work for 40 years. Hopefully they can too.

[markd_nscr986 0]

I just dont feel that Israel would launch the first strike,I could be wrong though. There was an incident during the '73 war where they might have come close to it,and that was only when they were being overrun in the Sinai and Golan

Marc SCR 6046 SCS 3004

[billvon 3,073]

>There was an incident during the '73 war where they might have
> come close to it,and that was only when they were being overrun in
> the Sinai and Golan.

Well, right. I think it's a given they'd only use them in wartime, but wars do happen. Let's hope they show more restraint than we did.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>There was an incident during the '73 war where they might have
> come close to it,and that was only when they were being overrun in
> the Sinai and Golan.

Well, right. I think it's a given they'd only use them in wartime, but wars do happen. Let's hope they show more restraint than we did.

We've shown plenty of restraint.

Israel is only going to use them as the Sampson option. If their enemies were to succeed in an invasion, the Jews will take em all to hell. A very pure form of MAD.

Iran won't use them either. Cruise missiles just make their countermeasures against attack an effective deterrent.

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

>Let's hope they show more restraint than we did.

The US has shown 60 years of magnificent restraint, an undisputible fact that you continually ignore.

. . =(_8^(1)

[Gawain 0]

Quote

>There was an incident during the '73 war where they might have
> come close to it,and that was only when they were being overrun in
> the Sinai and Golan.

Well, right. I think it's a given they'd only use them in wartime, but wars do happen. Let's hope they show more restraint than we did.

Okay, I'll bite. By your statement, you infer that we should have invaded Japan?

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[markd_nscr986 0]

Yeah Bill,I'll bite too.........

Invade Japan as opposed to the nuclear attacks?

Marc SCR 6046 SCS 3004

[billvon 3,073]

>Okay, I'll bite. By your statement, you infer that we should have
> invaded Japan?

No, I did not infer that.

We used nukes against civilians because we wanted to win a war more quickly. If (god forbid) a war starts between Israel and Iran, let's hope they do not make the decision we did - for the sake of everyone, not just the Iranians or Israelis.

[Hipwrddude 0]

Billvon has a good point. Back to the past... Moments before the Enola Gay appeared over the skies of Hiroshima, the Japanese early warning radar net detected a blip of possibly 3 planes at high altitude and reasoned they were on reconnaissance. They sounded the broadcast to lift the air raid alert. When the 60kg core of Uranium 235 struck ground zero on Hiroshima, Japan, on August 6, 1945, it unleashed a blast equivalent to an unprecedented 13,000 TONS of TNT. 80,000 people died immediately. Strange reports began coming into the Headquarters of the Japanese General Staff telling of a "big explosion" in Hiroshima. Unsure, they dispatched a young officer to fly to Hiroshima to see firsthand what had happened. It wasn't until 16 hours later that Tokyo learned what really had happened--from a White House public announcement. 237,000 people would eventually die. 100,000 would die in the bombing of Nagasaki--the second choice when the city of Kokura couldn't be sighted. Just one of todays MX missiles contains the explosive force of all ordinance dropped during all of WWII. History is the past. There must never be a nuclear detonation anywhere on the planet ever. War must be outlawed. Repressive regimes must be overthrown from within. Civilization must evolve with peace. Don't mess with me while I'm relaxing in my pajamas eating a toaster struedel with a cup of coffee. Or mess with anyone else for that matter! Peace damnit! Now knock it off world!

You're always the starter in your own life!

[skycop 0]

Dude,
Light it, inhale...........hold it............hold it.........hold it........now blow.....
Did that help?

"Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

[Skyrad 0]

I hear the delivey systems for thier nukes are being woven as we speak

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Hipwrddude 0]

Smoking is bad for your health. But yes, I'm much better now thank you.

You're always the starter in your own life!

[falxori 0]

Quote

I hear the delivey systems for thier nukes are being woven as we speak

now that was funny...

O

"Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

>Okay, I'll bite. By your statement, you infer that we should have invaded Japan?

No, I did not infer that.

We used nukes against civilians because we wanted to win a war more quickly.

Um, excuse me, but that is terribly simplistic.

If you didn't want two nukes used, and didn't want to invade Japan, then exactly how would you have defeated them and won the war? They were rather tenacious, you might recall, fighting to the death to the last man. Every man, woman and child was being issued pointed bamboo sticks with which to fight invading Americans. Should we have run a blockade and starved them to death? Yeah, that would have saved a lot of Japanese lives and spared a lot of suffering...

We used nukes to end it "quickly", but "quickly" translated into sparing millions of casualties, both ours and theirs. As horrible as the nuke death toll was, it was the lesser of two evils - both sides ended up with fewer deaths because of it.

I've been to both Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The blame lies entirely with the Emperor for not recognizing his own defeat.

[billvon 3,073]

>If you didn't want two nukes used, and didn't want to invade Japan,
>then exactly how would you have defeated them and won the war?

Invasion. Most apologists point out that an invasion would have been incredibly costly in terms of human life, and that the use of nukes ended the war more quickly - but that we would have won eventually. Not a single apologist I have seen has suggested we might have 'lost' the war. I am not arguing whether or not that's true; it is certainly true that use of nukes against civilians ended the war more quickly and easily. You admit this in your post.

The problem is that if we think that rationale is OK, who are we to say that China or Iran can't use the same rationale? Perhaps a single nuke, used against an isolated military target in Taiwan or Israel, might end a war early (or even prevent one!) and thus save tens of thousands of lives. In their minds of course. And we would be in no position to call that decision morally wrong without being hypocrites of the first order.

It's too late to change history. The fact is that we used nuclear weapons against civilians to win a war more quickly. That's the only standard anyone has used when nuking civilians. It's really too bad if we don't like it when someone does it in the future; we set the standard.

>The blame lies entirely with the Emperor for not recognizing his own defeat.

And the blame would lie with Taiwan if China used nukes against them. The blame always lies with the vanquished - it's the way of history.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

>If you didn't want two nukes used, and didn't want to invade Japan,
>then exactly how would you have defeated them and won the war?

Invasion. Most apologists point out that an invasion would have been incredibly costly in terms of human life, and that the use of nukes ended the war more quickly - but that we would have won eventually. Not a single apologist I have seen has suggested we might have 'lost' the war. I am not arguing whether or not that's true; it is certainly true that use of nukes against civilians ended the war more quickly and easily.

First of all, I reject the term "apologists". No apology is needed for defeating an enemy who started the war with their own illegal and unwarranted aggression in a surprise attack.

And if we had not used the capability we had to save one million American casualties, then you would probably be sitting here right now, with the perspective of history, judging that action is improper, for not using the means available to avoid the casualties.

There is nothing wrong with ending war quickly. Note that we are talking about a defensive war against an unjustified aggressor.

Quote

The problem is that if we think that rationale is OK, who are we to say that China or Iran can't use the same rationale?[/repliy]

Your lumping of this same action by an aggressor into this category, changes the equation, and is not the same thing. That would not make the rationale okay.

Quote

The fact is that we used nuclear weapons against civilians to win a war more quickly.

Every nation who has ever been imbroiled in war, has sought out more advanced weaponry to save the lives of their people, their nation, and their way of life. There is nothing wrong with that, when used defensively.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both towns heavily involved in military affairs, and under the way wars were then fought, due to the lack of precision bombs, they were legitimate targets.

Quote

That's the only standard anyone has used when nuking civilians. It's really too bad if we don't like it when someone does it in the future; we set the standard.

Again, you need to make a clear distinction between aggression, and defense.

If little ol' Israel, with only 4 million people, needed nukes to save their nation from an Arab onslaught, bent on genocide, I wouldn't blame them one bit.

• Quote

[billvon 3,073]

>And if we had not used the capability we had to save one million
>American casualties, then you would probably be sitting here right now,
> with the perspective of history, judging that action is improper, for not
> using the means available to avoid the casualties.

I am specifically NOT judging it, despite your attempts to claim that I am. We did it to shorten a war, whether that decision was good or bad.

>Your lumping of this same action by an aggressor into this category,
> changes the equation, and is not the same thing.

I did not equate the two. If Israel attacks Iran, and Iran retaliates with nukes against civilian sites, they are no better or worse than we are for doing the same thing.

>If little ol' Israel, with only 4 million people, needed nukes to save their
> nation from an Arab onslaught, bent on genocide, I wouldn't blame them
> one bit.

Fine. But then you must accept that Iran can do exactly the same thing, and hold them blameless as well. At least, if your position is to have any consistency at all.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Fine. But then you must accept that Iran can do exactly the same thing, and hold them blameless as well. At least, if your position is to have any consistency at all.

Is Isreal planning to invade? Or did you mean that Iran might use them against US invaders?

Backing up - the need for haste was certainly part of the bombings in Japan. With Germany out, the Russians were coming and the quicker we ended matters, the less spoils of war we would need to share. The Cold War started already, well decades earlier really.

But the a-bombs of the day weren't that much more potent than the bombing pain we were inflicting on Toyko by conventional methods. No one need apologize to Japan for their use, which saved significant lives on their end as well.

[billvon 3,073]

>Is Isreal planning to invade? Or did you mean that Iran might use
>them against US invaders?

Either way. I was thinking more about Israel attacking them in the same way they attacked Iraq in 1981.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I was thinking more about Israel attacking them in the same way they attacked Iraq in 1981.

If all Israel does is precision bomb a nuclear bomb-making plant, then that would not justify wholesale nuclear retaliation by the Iranians against the civilian population of Israel. Proportionate response means something. One small strike does not justify thermonuclear war in response.

[billvon 3,073]

>If all Israel does is precision bomb a nuclear bomb-making plant,
>then that would not justify wholesale nuclear retaliation by the Iranians
> against the civilian population of Israel.

Of course it does. They were attacked; they used nuclear weapons to cut short what could have been a bloody, drawn-out war. Worked for us.

>Proportionate response means something.

Not to us, if it will win a war sooner.

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

If all Israel does is precision bomb a nuclear bomb-making plant,
>then that would not justify wholesale nuclear retaliation by the Iranians
> against the civilian population of Israel.

Of course it does. They were attacked; they used nuclear weapons to cut short what could have been a bloody, drawn-out war. Worked for us.

>Proportionate response means something.

Not to us, if it will win a war sooner.

Maybe for Truman that was true. But obviously not for Johnson or Nixon when they were faced with a long, drawn-out war.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

If all Israel does is precision bomb a nuclear bomb-making plant, then that would not justify wholesale nuclear retaliation by the Iranians against the civilian population of Israel. Proportionate response means something. One small strike does not justify thermonuclear war in response.

I don't think Israel would take the chance in the first place against a country that has the ability to respond. Its nuclear trump card only works against non nuclear nations. Like Japan in 1945.

An attack on a country's nuclear production is a pretty serious attack, esp when one does not yet have a credible nuclear counterforce. That force will be the only thing that keeps the US from considering invading. A proportional response could be pretty devastating. But at that point, Iran would have to weight its options against what Israel might do in response. It would only use nukes if it were sure it could neutralize the massive Israeli arsenel, which is as small as 200, large as 1000+. Not a good bet either.

More likely it would use the world outrage against Israel (and probably the US) to great results.