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

[Ulysses G.]

^{They already have them, so it is too late to stop them.}

Edited January 29, 2012 by metisdead
Font resized.

[Jingthing]

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.

You're not making any sense. It is what it is. They've got them, like UG says, too late to stop them from getting them. I'm glad I asked you to clarify because this covered thing is not something I would say or think. Edited January 29, 2012 by Jingthing

[Pedzie]

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.

Not sure these bases are in the middle east because oil ?? Get real, dwindling oil supplies, increased demand for oil from India/China, America's demand for even more oil! and by sheer chance

we find the US military with lots of bases in the oil rich Middle east! Lets not forget the illegal war in Iraq! Oh and it just happens to have the worlds 2nd largest oil deposits ?? Yeah.....

[Jingthing]

It is very elementary that all global powers have been interested in middle eastern power politics for a long time because of the fossil fuel resources. Moving on ...

[Pedzie]

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.

You're not making any sense. It is what it is. They've got them, like UG says, too late to stop them from getting them. I'm glad I asked you to clarify because this covered thing is not something I would say or think.

So tell me you're views and how to stop Iran developing 1 bomb, will it save Israel ? Will the leadership in Iran willingly wipe their 1000's of years of history for a strike on Israel, that the probable bomb won't even make it out of Iranian airspace! Yes we have had rhetoric from Iran about wiping out Israel, It's just rhetoric tho, they don't have the technology yet! And when they do would be very foolish to do so.

[Pedzie]

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!

Ok JT. I don't want to argue with you, and I will close my thoughts on this subject.

You posted the above, 'even moderate Iranians' want a nuke device. Do you have anything to back this up ? How the hell could you possibly know this ? Like most of the middle east, they want freedom/maybe even democracy. A moderate Iranian would probably want to be integrated into the wider world, they Iranians aren't all terrorists!! If they had a moderate stable leadership then Iran would only be an asset to the world in general (without the warmongering west wanting to dictate its own policy to Iran)

Edited January 29, 2012 by Pedzie

[chuckd]

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!

I seriously doubt all those bases are there at all. I know the two bases shown as existing in Saudi Arabia..don't exist. There are NO US military bases in Saudi, unless you count the housing compound of the military advisers for the USMTM.

The entire map is questionable at the very least.

[Jingthing]

...

You posted the above, 'even moderate Iranians' want a nuke device. Do you have anything to back this up ? How the hell could you possibly know this ?

...

This kind of basic information is easily available.

(It is worth pointing out to those, such as Gingrich, who see regime change as the “solution” that Mousavi and other leaders of Iran’s Green Movement strongly support its nuclear program and have criticized Ahmadinejad for giving away too much in his offers of negotiations with the West.)

http://www.washingto...sPbP_story.html Edited January 29, 2012 by Jingthing

[Pedzie]

...

You posted the above, 'even moderate Iranians' want a nuke device. Do you have anything to back this up ? How the hell could you possibly know this ?

...

This kind of basic information is easily available.

(It is worth pointing out to those, such as Gingrich, who see regime change as the “solution” that Mousavi and other leaders of Iran’s Green Movement strongly support its nuclear program and have criticized Ahmadinejad for giving away too much in his offers of negotiations with the West.)

http://www.washingto...sPbP_story.html

Nice to see you quoting from US press ?? This of course only gives you an American perspective of things, surely 1 sided! I am British, I pay no attention to what the 'controlled media' tell me here. Iran's press will also be 1 sided! Does this represent the whole Iranians opinion? I hardly doubt it...Try find a credible source of info JT Not US or Iranian media outlets, they both lie! Or print what they are told to do.

Ordinary Iranians want nukes?? Give me evidence of that, minus US EU UK media thoughts on the idea!

[Jingthing]

Who controls Fareed Zakaria?

[Pedzie]

Who controls Fareed Zakaria?

Answer the above question please...How could you possibly know that normal Iranians want the bomb, give me proof of your statement...You Can't!

Edited January 29, 2012 by Pedzie

[Jingthing]

You're trying to make this personal. I am talking about Iran. We know what the current leadership wants and it is doing regarding their nuclear program. The west's hope for a "moderate" to take over is represented by Moussavi. It is well known and accepted that Iran's success in its nuclear program is a source of national pride for Iranian nationalists, and most Iranians are obviously Iranian nationalists, regardless of their position on the Islamic fundamentalist regime leadership.

This is a left wing US source. Show me one source from anywhere which says Iranians aren't proud of their nuclear program and want it to continue.

You can't.

It is generally accepted internationally that Mousavi WON the last election. What exactly do you want from me? To fly to Iran and interview people? Both sides were PRO nuclear program.

...

It’s true that Mousavi has seized the chance to attack Ahmadinejad from the right on the nuclear question, but this is consistent with Mousavi message during the campaign — back in April, Mousavi was quoted as saying “No one in Iran will accept suspension” of enrichment. And given his own significant past role in Iran’s nuclear program, I think it’s wrong to characterize it as simple opportunism.

...

All of this is to say that Mousavi has been a long-standing proponent of Iran’s right to enrich, a consensus issue among Iranians, and has as strong a claim as anyone to credit for Iran’s nuclear progress.

...

http://thinkprogress...tics/?mobile=nc Edited January 29, 2012 by Jingthing

[Pedzie]

You're trying to make this personal. I am talking about Iran. We know what the current leadership wants and it is doing regarding their nuclear program. The west's hope for a "moderate" to take over is represented by Moussavi. It is well known and accepted that Iran's success in its nuclear program is a source of national pride for Iranian nationalists, and most Iranians are obviously Iranian nationalists, regardless of their position on the Islamic fundamentalist regime leadership.

No JT..This is not personal with you ok . Iran is such a diverse country, the youth of Iran does not want confrontation with Israel, or anyone else...Yes I'ts a shame the country is ruled by crazy people. Given time I think Iran can change, we don't have that time...If you seriously think Iran will fire I'ts first nuke towards Israel then you are crazy for thinking this! It would never get the chance to fire a weapon ( i think you and me know this). Attacking Iran would be a big mistake, we have the technology to stop Iran firing nukes to Israel.

The leadership in Iran is crazy, but not that crazy to instantly attack Israel!! Ahmadinejad is the face of Iran, he doesn't really call the shots..

Again..look at the map I posted JT...Iran is not playing ball with the west, that doesn't mean we should attack them!

Ahmadinejad

[flying]

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

You know that logic is like Swiss cheese when considering only one country in the world

has ever Nuked a Civilian Population

[Pedzie]

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

You know that logic is like Swiss cheese when considering only one country in the world

has ever Nuked a Civilian Population

In the coming months, that will be another country added to the list :-)

[flying]

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

Or like forcing those that signed the same treaty to do what they also promised?

This is not new.......

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2619

Thirty-seven years after agreeing to these conditions, the U.S.—the only nation to have ever used nuclear weapons against human beings—spends $40 billion a year to field, maintain and modernize nuclear forces, including an arsenal of 10,000 warheads, 2,000 of which are on hair-trigger alert.

[flying]

You're not making any sense. It is what it is. They've got them, like UG says, too late to stop them from getting them. I'm glad I asked you to clarify because this covered thing is not something I would say or think.

So basically your saying all Iran has to do is broadcast a world wide message saying....

Ok everybody just to let you know we have finally developed/completed our nuke.....

Because then nobody will bomb them into oblivion?

Sounds like a great reason as to why they want one.

[flying]

. 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 the 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.

You mean like when the US armed the Arabs....later called Terrorist... to fight with the Soviets in Afghanistan?

How have the US come to regret it NK & Pak having a form of defense that the US holds dear?

Because they cannot impose their will on Pakistan or North Korea?

Or because of all the times those two rogues have made threats to the world? Or because all the nukes they have fired at others?

Seems the only regret the US could have is that now they need to point one of the thousands of warheads they themselves hold at another possible force.

Because the facts show no other reason for regret as none of those countries have been a threat to the US position of world cop?

Edited January 29, 2012 by flying

[Jingthing]

You're not making any sense. It is what it is. They've got them, like UG says, too late to stop them from getting them. I'm glad I asked you to clarify because this covered thing is not something I would say or think.

So basically your saying all Iran has to do is broadcast a world wide message saying....

Ok everybody just to let you know we have finally developed/completed our nuke.....

Because then nobody will bomb them into oblivion?

Sounds like a great reason as to why they want one.

They obviously have their various reasons to want bombs and the west has reasons to want them not to have them. Like, this is news to you? Strange. North Korea is a great example. They can blackmail the world now and without that technology they would have nothing.

[flying]

They obviously have their various reasons to want bombs and the west has reasons to want them not to have them. Like, this is news to you? Strange. North Korea is a great example. They can blackmail the world now and without that technology they would have nothing.

That their reason may be to have the same defense & ability to be left alone & not threatened by those who claim to be the sheriff & deputy escapes you.

Yes North Korea.......A nut to be sure but....Blackmail the world???? Fear mongering 1 / Facts substance 0

Edited January 29, 2012 by flying

[Ulysses G.]

Will the leadership in Iran willingly wipe their 1000's of years of history for a strike on Israel

Very possibly. I do not know for sure and either do you, but it is not worth taking the chance.

Edited January 29, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[Ulysses G.]

Yes North Korea.......A nut to be sure but....Blackmail the world????

Wake up. They have been doing it for years.

Edited January 29, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[Scott]

I STRONGLY suggest you get back on the topic.

[geriatrickid]

Christains and jews live in iran peacefully. Didnt you know that?

Proponents of such notions would not surprise me if they also claimed Theresienstadt was a vacation camp.

Anyway, the reason why there is concern in the region is not just because of Israel or the USA or the UK. The Arabs in the region dislike and distrust the Iranians. The biggest proponents of tough action are the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia. Here's a little rule of thumb to help out; Sunnis on one side and Shiites on the other.

Edited January 30, 2012 by geriatrickid

[Pakboong]

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.

Barak: Israel 'very far off' from decision on Iran attack

Israel believes Iran itself has not yet decided whether to make a nuclear bomb, according to intelligence assesment to be presented later this week to U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Dempsey.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/barak-israel-very-far-off-from-decision-on-iran-attack-1.407953

WASHINGTON (AP) – Defense Secretary Leon Panetta says Iran is laying the groundwork for making nuclear weapons someday, but is not yet building a bomb and called for continued diplomatic and economic pressure to persuade Tehran not to take that step.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/story/2012-01-08/iran-nuclear-weapons/52451620/1

The current and past two Mossad chiefs all stated that Iran does not pose an existential treat to Israel and an attack would be a mistake I just don't get how saying this stuff repeatedly matters. I have posted the links to all of these before but it doesn't even slow this insanity. Who are we suposed to listen to, the Politicians? I will listen to the intelligence community and ignore the politicians and the mainstream media which you repeatedly refer to as left wing and not serving the interest of Israel.

I am not getting the sarcasm. This stuff is not hard to find. What is the point of ignoring it? I suppose the posters on Thai Visa have better information than the 2 current defence ministers and 3 Mossad chiefs. That is looney bin material as far as I am concerned. It is not tough going at all.

[Credo]

I can't see an imminent danger to Israel in the development of a nuclear weapon by Iran. Despite the religious extremists in the Iranian government, Israel is a little too small to hit with a nuclear weapon without doing significant harm to some major Islamic religious sites and a very large Islamic population.

I can understand the Gulf States and the Saudi's being very nervous, however.

When it's all said and done, the Iranian government is a pretty unpredictable group and I can understand the concern by a number of nations.

[Morch]

Hrrrmf.

I dunno about this report. Sounds kinda fuzzy. Might be wrong, of course.

For one thing, it's not normal practice to drop a single bomb on high quality targets. Those bombs being quite accurate, and mission planning nowadays is as well - first one digs the hole, second goes all the way (a very simplified version, yes). It's not a new concept or anything.

Second, there's not need to obliterate everything around. Having a collapsed mountain overhead kinda limits options.

Third, weapon development on this level never isn't done to address just current threat, but threat+n (again, simplified version). Public reports of Iranian facilities have been around for months (meaning US intel had them earlier), so assessments and adjustments would have been taken care of. Also, any major overhaul (development, testing, deployment) will make it hard to fit with time frame.

Fourth, the USA is actually pretty good at keeping military capability cards close to chest. Stealth technology, drones and other stuff been around a while before fully exposed. A look at DRAPA's list of projects is quite interesting (This isn't about conspiracy theories: They can't do everything, but they sure have some things up their sleeves :-)).

From a military standpoint, other then getting more forces into the area, and coordintaing with allies (such as they are), there's not much more the USA can/will do. Serisouly doubt they're actually waiting for a last minute gadget to save the day.

If this will come to a head, there will probably not be much ground warfare, this isn't Iraq or Afghanistan. For executing a limited attack ("limited" as in not an all out prolonged military effort) what they have around is almost enough, and could be further reinforced.

There's a lot of talk about possible Irani retaliation to such an attack. In my opinion, this isn't seen as a major threat by the USA. The only options to hit American targets are the navy vessels in the Persian Gulf (and any US attack will surely take out potential threats beforehand), and terrorist attacks outside of Iran (which are not that easy to carry out when under attack).

Firing a few dozen conventional missiles at neighboring countries, while not a joke, isn't a major threat. As far as the USA is concerened such attacks may even serve to win over previously reluctant allies.

I think another consideration for the USA is prolifiration. Iran goes military nuclear, it won't be long before every oil rich country in the area will want to have one. Not a good development in an already unstable area of strategic importance.

Edited January 30, 2012 by Morch

[chuckd]

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

You know that logic is like Swiss cheese when considering only one country in the world

has ever Nuked a Civilian Population

Haven't we gone through this tired old slam against the US many times before? Why must you and others insist on bringing it up when it has been proven the dropping of nuclear weapons on the twin cities saved several million lives that would have been lost in an invasion.

If it had to be done again under the same circumstances, it should be and probably would be done exactly as it happened in 1945.

[Morch]

I can't see an imminent danger to Israel in the development of a nuclear weapon by Iran. Despite the religious extremists in the Iranian government, Israel is a little too small to hit with a nuclear weapon without doing significant harm to some major Islamic religious sites and a very large Islamic population.

I can understand the Gulf States and the Saudi's being very nervous, however.

When it's all said and done, the Iranian government is a pretty unpredictable group and I can understand the concern by a number of nations.

It did not stop Iraq/Hezbollah/Hamas firing on Israel before (granted, the latter two do not reach Jerusalem, but rockets do occasionally hit Arab settlements).

Also pays to bear in mind most Palestinians are Sunni Muslims.

Edited January 30, 2012 by Morch

[Steely Dan]

I can't see an imminent danger to Israel in the development of a nuclear weapon by Iran. Despite the religious extremists in the Iranian government, Israel is a little too small to hit with a nuclear weapon without doing significant harm to some major Islamic religious sites and a very large Islamic population.

Eminently reasonable given western logic, and therein lies the problem. As for any new item citing politicians, military chiefs or ex-military chiefs I don't think for a minute they are there to inform the public, more likely they are coded messages and disinformation intended to throw enemies off balance.