WSJ: U.S. military seeks more powerful bomb against Iran

[Pedzie]

What a scary thought!

All correct, but Iran having nuclear weapons is even scarier.

I would say Pakistan (how volatile it is) Also North Korea are both more dangerous than Iran having a nuke, It's weird how the US & allies haven't blown up the above mentioned countries arsenal yet ?

Clue -- they've ALREADY got them!

As in got them 'in their possession' or got them covered like in Iran!

[Ulysses G.]

They are actually the people being threatened by Israeli / Western interests, not the other way round.

The only thing they are being threatened for is violating their pledge not to make nuclear weapons. If they cease and desist violating the treaty that they signed they can go back to sponsoring terrorism around the world and mistreating their own people.

Edited January 29, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[WarpSpeed]

Hope it doesnt kill to many innocent people or those russian guys that are in one of the nuclear plants.

The US are the only country in the history of the planet to use a atom bomb (twice of course) Whats stopping them this time?

Hopefully nothing, third times a charm..

[philw]

Mind boggling rant. Iran are no threat to the UK or The US

Talking about a "rant".

Of course Iran is a threat to the US and UK. They are trying to develop nuclear weapons, they are threatening other countries and to block the Straits of Hormuz. They are a threat to the whole civilized world.

what a load of codswallop.and if US and UK stopped wiping the ar*es another certain group of people

I think you would find any so-called threat to anyone else would miraculously disappear.

Yeah, think you are right.

Nothing beats a manufactured threat, constantly promoted.

Think we can be fairly certain the vast majority of all the populations, of all the countries concerned,do not want to become refugees or widows or have their lives,families and livelihoods destroyed and would rather worry about getting some food and improving their lives.

[Jingthing]

To add yet another note of pessimism, even the moderate Iranians, you know, the ones the west is hoping with overthrow the theocratic dictatorship, want Iran to have nukes!

[WarpSpeed]

All correct, but Iran having nuclear weapons is even scarier.

I would say Pakistan (how volatile it is) Also North Korea are both more dangerous than Iran having a nuke, It's weird how the US & allies haven't blown up the above mentioned countries arsenal yet ?

Clue -- they've ALREADY got them!

As in got them 'in their possession' or got them covered like in Iran!

China's got NK in check and Pakistans government isn't the problem, terrorists are, and unlike Iran which is a terrorist country and government which is next door to Israel and has vowed to destroy them where as Pakistan does not take that stance....

[Steely Dan]

MAD presupposes rational players. Sorry, the religious fanatics in charge of Iran don't qualify.

Tough going isn't it Jing, No matter how many times the Iranian end of world cult is explained, even in films made by the Iranians themselves, there are still apologists who stick their fingers in their ears and shout la la la.

It is unfortunate that generals have a tendency to fight the previous war; I think many believe Iraq was a mistake on pragmatic grounds as even an odious tyrant is rational in a way religious nutcases are not so the rationale for attacking Iran is far more pressing than Iraq ever was. - and nope sorry there are no Christian end of world cults who believe the day of judgement can be hastened by their own actions.

[philw]

To add yet another note of pessimism, even the moderate Iranians, you know, the ones the west is hoping with overthrow the theocratic dictatorship, want Iran to have nukes!

So what ?

You defend the Israeli, US and UK possession, why not others ??

Half seriously, what if every nation in the world was allowed 1 , and only 1 , nuclear device.

Everybody.

That way nobody could ever use it.

Your argument is that some states are more mature / responsible than others, but that is dictated by politics which are in constant flux.

Maybe 30 years from now Iran is the responsible player and another country with a blue flag has become the pariah ??

It's only one generation.

[WarpSpeed]

To add yet another note of pessimism, even the moderate Iranians, you know, the ones the west is hoping with overthrow the theocratic dictatorship, want Iran to have nukes!

So what ?

You defend the Israeli, US and UK possession, why not others ??

Half seriously, what if every nation in the world was allowed 1 , and only 1 , nuclear device.

Everybody.

That way nobody could ever use it.

Your argument is that some states are more mature / responsible than others, but that is dictated by politics which are in constant flux.

Maybe 30 years from now Iran is the responsible player and another country with a blue flag has become the pariah ??

It's only one generation.

Why couldn't they use it? An irrational leader most certainly could, we're talking nuclear bombs here not pistols at 20 paces, if that one bomb was used in such a devastating way there'd be little or no meaningful retaliation but your scenario is flawed anyways as there would always be one outdoing the other in some way to gain an advantage, even more so with only 1 bomb being allowed..

Edited January 29, 2012 by WarpSpeed

[Ulysses G.]

Half seriously, what if every nation in the world was allowed 1 , and only 1 , nuclear device.

Everybody.

That way nobody could ever use it.

Of course they could. There are some real nuts out there and some are ready to die to make an irrational point.

[midas]

To add yet another note of pessimism, even the moderate Iranians, you know, the ones the west is hoping with overthrow the theocratic dictatorship, want Iran to have nukes!

So what ?

You defend the Israeli, US and UK possession, why not others ??

Half seriously, what if every nation in the world was allowed 1 , and only 1 , nuclear device.

Everybody.

That way nobody could ever use it.

Your argument is that some states are more mature / responsible than others, but that is dictated by politics which are in constant flux.

Maybe 30 years from now Iran is the responsible player and another country with a blue flag has become the pariah ??

It's only one generation.

Prof Michael Hudson just gave an interesting interview in which he explains how the rest of the world ( other than USA )

is quietly and deliberately engineering their economies towards a return to a gold standard. He explains also that

a gold standard would automatically place some form of restraint on the capability to finance war.

Ironical isn't it that those that those who ridicule such a position in USA are the ones who simultaneously

want to start new wars at every opportunity

Edited January 29, 2012 by midas

[Scott]

Another post has been deleted. Please address the OP rather than other posters, such behavior is baiting and inflammatory.

[philw]

Half seriously, what if every nation in the world was allowed 1 , and only 1 , nuclear device.

Everybody.

That way nobody could ever use it.

Of course they could. There are some real nuts out there and some are ready to die to make an irrational point.

Quite so, and seems a lot of the " real nuts " out there are in our own governments..................

They are also quite ready to send others to die for their irrational point.

[Ulysses G.]

Half seriously, what if every nation in the world was allowed 1 , and only 1 , nuclear device.

Everybody.

That way nobody could ever use it.

Of course they could. There are some real nuts out there and some are ready to die to make an irrational point.

Quite so, and seems a lot of the " real nuts " out there are in our own governments..................

They are also quite ready to send others to die for their irrational point.

You mean like preventing rogue nations from developing nuclear weapons when they have agreed not to? That is not "irrational".

Edited January 29, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[philw]

Half seriously, what if every nation in the world was allowed 1 , and only 1 , nuclear device.

Everybody.

That way nobody could ever use it.

Of course they could. There are some real nuts out there and some are ready to die to make an irrational point.

Quite so, and seems a lot of the " real nuts " out there are in our own governments..................

They are also quite ready to send others to die for their irrational point.

You mean like preventing rogue nations from developing nuclear weapons when they have agreed not to? That is not "irrational".

Please give more details about this "agreement".

[maiphedmaiaroi]

MAD presupposes rational players. Sorry, the religious fanatics in charge of Iran don't qualify.

Tough going isn't it Jing, No matter how many times the Iranian end of world cult is explained, even in films made by the Iranians themselves, there are still apologists who stick their fingers in their ears and shout la la la.

It is unfortunate that generals have a tendency to fight the previous war; I think many believe Iraq was a mistake on pragmatic grounds as even an odious tyrant is rational in a way religious nutcases are not so the rationale for attacking Iran is far more pressing than Iraq ever was. - and nope sorry there are no Christian end of world cults who believe the day of judgement can be hastened by their own actions.

Not another one of those "wacko conspiracy theories" as JT commonly says.

[WarpSpeed]

Half seriously, what if every nation in the world was allowed 1 , and only 1 , nuclear device.

Everybody.

That way nobody could ever use it.

Of course they could. There are some real nuts out there and some are ready to die to make an irrational point.

Quite so, and seems a lot of the " real nuts " out there are in our own governments..................

They are also quite ready to send others to die for their irrational point.

Yes they seem to be implementing the use of nuclear bombs at every given opportunity..

[philw]

Half seriously, what if every nation in the world was allowed 1 , and only 1 , nuclear device.

Everybody.

That way nobody could ever use it.

Of course they could. There are some real nuts out there and some are ready to die to make an irrational point.

Quite so, and seems a lot of the " real nuts " out there are in our own governments..................

They are also quite ready to send others to die for their irrational point.

Yes they seem to be implementing the use of nuclear bombs at every given opportunity..

Who's that then, the bloody

French ? ( i quite like France actually, wine, cheese, food, sexy girls, architecture, history, art, culture, sometimes even music ) pity it is or could become a socialist muslim dominated country with a nuclear weapon...............

Bit like how Iran could be in 20 years, assuming the loonies don't blow it up.

Edited January 29, 2012 by philw

[WarpSpeed]

Of course they could. There are some real nuts out there and some are ready to die to make an irrational point.

Quite so, and seems a lot of the " real nuts " out there are in our own governments..................

They are also quite ready to send others to die for their irrational point.

Yes they seem to be implementing the use of nuclear bombs at every given opportunity..

Who's that then, the bloody

French ? ( i quite like France actually, wine, cheese, food, sexy girls, architecture, history, art, culture, sometimes even music ) pity it is or could become a socialist muslim dominated country with a nuclear weapon...............

Bit like how Iran could be in 20 years, assuming the loonies don't blow it up.

Answering your own post are you?

[Pedzie]

http://www.juancole....-all-right.html

I think this map really shows us the real intentions in the region, look closely at the blue country with NO US bases!!

I very much doubt all these bases are here because Iran's perceived intention to build a bomb. The words 'natural resources spring to mind' Iran isn't playing ball with the west, and is refusing to be controlled/manipulated by the bankster globalist's.

Just say Iran did build a bomb? It wouldn't be to the same standard of western nukes. Plus if it fired a missile at Israel I would be it would shot down not long after leaving Iranian soil...Thats a fact!

Edited January 29, 2012 by Pedzie

[Ulysses G.]

I very much doubt all these bases are here because Iran's perceived intention to build a bomb.

My guess would be that they have something to with not being too far from Russia.

[Ulysses G.]

Just say Iran did build a bomb? It wouldn't be to the same standard of western nukes.

I feel better already.

[Pedzie]

I very much doubt all these bases are here because Iran's perceived intention to build a bomb.

My guess would be that they have something to with not being too far from Russia.

Yes that maybe true. Answer me this though, if the middle east was not the NO1 oil supplier would the US have so many bases in the area? Yes Iran is playing hardball with the west, It's not the reason why there is so much US presence in the region. The ultimate goal is regime change in Iran (not a bad idea) If the US has Pakistan& North Korea 'covered' as JT puts it, then why not have Iran covered also, instead of an all out war erupting in the region.

[Jingthing]

...

The words 'natural resources spring to mind' Iran isn't playing ball with the west, and is refusing to be controlled/manipulated by the bankster globalist's.

...

Interesting background to the term bankster, used by both sides of the political fringes:

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-bankster.htm

As you can see using the word itself does not tell you exactly where the person using it is coming from, though adding the word globalist is a good clue.

[Steely Dan]

Just say Iran did build a bomb? It wouldn't be to the same standard of western nukes.

I feel better already.

Yes sub-standard nukes in the hands of end of world cult maniacs, what could possibly go wrong?

P.S Best send some Seals to the gulf just in case.

http://www.debka.com/article/21691/

A hurried decision not to de-commission the USS Ponce helicopter marine carrier after duty in Libya - but to refit it for deployment by May in the Persian Gulf as a floating base for commando teams - was confirmed by the US Pentagon and Navy Sunday, Dec. 29.

Edited January 29, 2012 by Steely Dan

[Jingthing]

I very much doubt all these bases are here because Iran's perceived intention to build a bomb.

My guess would be that they have something to with not being too far from Russia.

Yes that maybe true. Answer me this though, if the middle east was not the NO1 oil supplier would the US have so many bases in the area? Yes Iran is playing hardball with the west, It's not the reason why there is so much US presence in the region. The ultimate goal is regime change in Iran (not a bad idea) If the US has Pakistan& North Korea 'covered' as JT puts it, then why not have Iran covered also, instead of an all out war erupting in the region.

I don't recall saying the US had Pakistan and North Korea "covered", whatever that is supposed to mean. If I did, I'd like to see the context.

[Ulysses G.]

If the US has Pakistan& North Korea 'covered' as JT puts it, then why not have Iran covered also, instead of an all out war erupting in the region.

I am not sure that these bases are there only because of oil. Don't forget that the US was very concerned about the Soviet Union arming the Arab countries and that had a lot to do with our involvement in tne area.

As for why we do not just allow Iran to get nuclear weapons, we already made that mistake with the loons in Pakistan and North Korea and have come to regret it. The West does not want to make a mistake like that again.

Edited January 29, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[alexth]

Nice, looks like WW3 is actually in motion then. Would somebody remind the US that with the technology nowadays this is not going to be some remote shiit anymore like Vietnam or Iraq? Guess the govt. officials have already made plans...

Posted with Thaivisa App http://apps.thaivisa.com

[Ulysses G.]

Would somebody remind the US that with the technology nowadays this is not going to be some remote shiit anymore like Vietnam or Iraq?

"Remote shiit"?

[Pedzie]

What a scary thought!

All correct, but Iran having nuclear weapons is even scarier.

I would say Pakistan (how volatile it is) Also North Korea are both more dangerous than Iran having a nuke, It's weird how the US & allies haven't blown up the above mentioned countries arsenal yet ?

Clue -- they've ALREADY got them!

Ok JT This is what you posted 'the've already got them...I presumed you meant Pakistan and North Korea nukes, does the US have possession of these nukes or do they have them covered! Please clarify.

Edited January 29, 2012 by Pedzie