So, what was the state of emergency when Iran thumbed their nose at the UN? Oh, I know, they want to do it, so they are going to. The rest of the world be damned. That wasn't the US they thumbed their nose at, it was the UN. Of course, the UN can be bought off any position, even the ones they apply themselves, Oil for Food?
I really don't think that it matters how well trained Iran's army is. The whole country could be turned into a parking lot with no troops on the ground, and no use of any nukes. How likely is it that they will maintain their state of morale when their president is shouting, "Die defeating the infidels" from hiding?
The comparison to Viet Nam is accurate. We have been in Iraq entirely too long, for much the same reason that we got beat up in Viet Nam. Instead of going in, and doing what needs to be done in a war, we are ■■■■■-footing around playing police. Why? Public Opinion. Well, I don't know what's going to happen for sure, but if we go to war in Iran, I hope we go to war. I think it's time that people the world over come to realize what it means to piss off one of the major world powers, because whether or not the EU, or the UN wants to acknowledge it, the US is one.
I suppose detonating one little nuke on the ground wouldn't be such a bad thing, if it didn't happen on US soil. Of course, I think this opinion is relative. Relative to what plane they put the bomb on, and where they crash the plane this time.
Let me explain this another way, and use a much more conventional example. A claymore mine is a nasty little device, pointed in one direction. However, a "bouncing Betty" is a whole other ball game. A claymore is placed, and directional. A "bouncing Betty" is a bit less powerful, but more effective since it blows up a couple of meters in the air, instead of on the ground. It has a kill diameter, as opposed to covering a relatively small cone of force.
The same applies to any bomb. If you detonate it in the air, instead of on the ground, it's kill ratio is increased dramatically. In any event, it's a really messed up thing to say that killing a few more US civilians is acceptable, as Purple implied:
Quote:
Additionally, one thing I'd like to add is that people are exaggerating the nuclear threat of Iran. A man-smuggled and carried nuclear weapon may just level a single city block or two, a horrific amount of damage and loss of human life, to be sure, but hardly the end of the world. Iran does not have ICBM's and no country that has them is going to aim them at the US unless it's a final retaliation before they go down.
Terrorists will not get something the power of the weapons used against Hiroshima/Nagasaki within the US, and even those failed to completely obliterate their targets. I suggest we keep a bit of perspective before we declare Armageddon to be on our doorstep. More people die from cancer and AIDS every day than one terrorist nuclear attack on the US would kill.
|
Acceptable losses, so long as it's not you, or your family? "levelling a block or two", or "more people die of AIDS and cancer" is not an acceptable justification for allowing them technology they will use. I guess if they decided to target your home, it would be a different song and dance. However, with what's posted here, I know what my response would be to calls for help: "better a few civilians in your country than a negative world opinion". After all, as far as you're concerned, so long as you can still hope that brown nosing a terrorist sponsoring regime will spare you, it's all good. I wonder how many people thought the same way you did when the Soviet Union was building up territory? I wonder how many people dismissed Hitler as easily as you're dismissing Iran, or Japan, for that matter.
One little point about Japan as well. Saying that the nukes failed to achieve their objective, as horrifying as the use was, is totally incorrect. After all, Japan surrendered. As with any war, that was the objective. War isn't a pretty thing, it's downright ugly, as I've said before. The objective is to kill so many people on the other side that they surrender. If the UN is unhappy about what we do, or how we handle the situation, they can move to Iran, and see if they get the preferential treatment there they get here, and as for the EU, please...Which EU nations would send troops for this blockade?
Edit: One more thought that occurred to me. Use of a nuclear device on US soil by a hostile force would equal Armageddon. It doesn't matter if it killed 10, or 10,000, world opinion be damned, it's time to make some parking lots.
[ 02-11-2007, 06:27 AM: Message edited by: robertthebard ]