Did we really expect to have lasted this long?

KenSwee

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2012/0811/1224321995773.html

According to a report from an Israeli newspaper, the daily Yedioth Ahronoth, the Prime minister and defence minister of Israel would like to order an attack on Iran’s nuclear sites before the US election in November but lack crucial support within their cabinet and military.

Now we all have opinions of the little state in the Middle East but that's not the topic of this post. If they want to beat the crap out of each other over there, then they are welcome to go ahead as I'm sick of it going on since I've been on this earth. It's the new reason they are at each others throats and what they could use to fight with that bothers me.

My topic is about the amount of time we have survived without an actual nuclear attack happening somewhere in this world and how bloody lucky we have been so far.

At 8:15 A.M. on August 6, 1945, The cat was let out of the bag. We have been unbelievably lucky not to have perished yet as a result of a nuclear war. Do the powers that be and Israel really expect to have warheads hidden under their jumper then complain and threaten Iran because they are adopting a technology that has been available for over 60 years?

Are the big powers just codding themselves that they can prevent this from happening? Nuclear power is such a contentious issue on many different levels. Will a nation use it for good or evil? Nobody knows until it's too late. Does one nation have the right to have nuclear capabilities over another? Where is the rule of law employed? Most westerners would probably say that Iran has no right to have the nuclear capability, but do they feel the same about India? What makes India more capable of having the capability without doing some kind of craziness with it over Iran?

And what of the nations who are hiding the fact that they have them. Again, you could do an entirely new post on that but they must surely exist. It's easy to bash Israel with this stick but I'm sure there are a few more.

And if Israel do attack Iran, how dangerous would it be for the rest of the world if they did slug it our with a few warheads in their part of the world?

I think there is a huge danger that we are entering into another period where the possibility of a nuclear strike could happen from non conventional sources.

Putting aside the military use of nuclear power, as the chaos in Japan showed, nuclear power is a dangerous little devil. But again, is a 2nd or 3rd world country such as Mexico or Botswana entitled to have nuclear power?

paddy147

We are overdue another World War at this stage.

seven_eleven

paddy147 wrote: »

We are due another World War at this stage.

No we're not. World wars arent set out regular occurences like a period :pac:

Duggy747

Stanislav Yevgrafovich Petrov stopped a potential nuclear war back in 83.

a retired lieutenant colonel of the Soviet Air Defence Forces. On September 26, 1983 he was the duty officer at the command center for the Oko nuclear early warning system when the system reported a small launch from the United States. Petrov judged that the report was a false alarm.

This decision may have prevented an erroneous retaliatory nuclear attack on the United States and its Western allies. Investigation later confirmed that the satellite warning system had malfunctioned.

paddy147

Someone just press a red button,and then blame it on a newbie,or a computer malfunction...(terminator)

TheBody

paddy147 wrote: »

We are overdue another World War at this stage.

I bet Hollywood would love another world war to give them some new material to make films about!! :pac:

paddy147

TheBody wrote: »

I bet Hollywood would love another world war to give them some new material to make films about!! :pac:

Or antoher "Team America" puppet film.;)

Madam_X

I reckon it hasn't happened because the powers know it's beyond retarded to kill the whole world (i.e. their source of power) and even themselves, so it's just a threat: and material for ace films, TV shows, ads and songs/vids!

KenSwee

paddy147 wrote: »

We are overdue another World War at this stage.

seven_eleven wrote: »

No we're not. World wars arent set out regular occurences like a period :pac:

Yes I agree about world wars but are we overdue a nuclear attack or massive catastrophe?

KenSwee

Onixx wrote: »

I reckon it hasn't happened because the powers know it's beyond retarded to kill the whole world (i.e. their source of power) and even themselves, so it's just a threat: and material for ace films, TV shows, ads and songs/vids!

True about the superpowers but what about the smaller nations who have or will posses this technology? I could be wrong but I think a world wide nuclear war is unlikely but I don't feel the same about a regional nuclear attack or mis-management of the technology.

keith16

Duggy747 wrote: »

Stanislav Yevgrafovich Petrov stopped a potential nuclear war back in 83.

The man who save the world. There is a brilliant documentary about the whole thing.

Sunnyisland

The threat of a full nuclear war has reciended dramatically since the cold war ended,But there is a chance of a smaller version happening in the middle east or even with NK,There is also more of a threat from a :terrorist: type nuclear attack with a small bomb planted in maybe london or any American cities.

Pottler

Is it just me, or is Israel a bit like the skanger family who have a few bob that live down the street -there's always one- always involved in some feckin drama or row, always throwing rubbish over peoples fences and their kids causing aggro on a daily basis. Like a feckin boil on your arse, always annoying and always threatening to erupt. Personally, they bore me and I wish they'd move, or get a disease, or a burning desire to move to Leitrim, or somthing. Can we not pursuade Israel to move to Leitrim? For the sake of world peace like? Would it fit there? Could we squeeze them in if we used a big squeezy thing?

kowloon

paddy147 wrote: »

Or antoher "Team America" puppet film.;)

That's good enough reason for me.

smcgiff

North korea have the bomb despite the west's wishes. The difference with iran is that they have publically stated they want israel wiped from the face of the planet. That's not western propoganda, just fact.

And, dont rely on the mutual destruction safeguard - it only takes a lunatic/functioning psychotic to be in charge of the red button again see Iran.

The Us / Russia may also strike first if they think it likely the other will strike first, to get a minimal advantage. Again, think a scenario escalating from Iran.

rubadubduba

i'd be more worried about what comes from outerspace tbh, i think we are on borrowed time.

smcgiff

rubadubduba wrote: »

i'd be more worried about what comes from outerspace tbh, i think we are on borrowed time.

We're okay until we invent faster than light travel

Wetbench4

Never mind all that, what we are really due is a superflu. We havent had a good one in years.

Pottler

I thought this was another Saoirview thread to begin with, tbh.:D

Pure_Cork

smcgiff wrote: »

North korea have the bomb despite the west's wishes. The difference with iran is that they have publically stated they want israel wiped from the face of the planet. That's not western propoganda, just fact.

That is not fact, that is complete and utter bull.

Border-Rat

smcgiff wrote: »

North korea have the bomb despite the west's wishes. The difference with iran is that they have publically stated they want israel wiped from the face of the planet. That's not western propoganda, just fact.

And, dont rely on the mutual destruction safeguard - it only takes a lunatic/functioning psychotic to be in charge of the red button again see Iran.

The Us / Russia may also strike first if they think it likely the other will strike first, to get a minimal advantage. Again, think a scenario escalating from Iran.

Scary when you have people this naive. Israel admitted than Iran made no such threat earlier this year. Yet even beyond that, you have an unshakeable belief in it. Secondly, if Iran wanted to wipe Israel off the map, it could. One high explosive MRBM on Israels nuclear weapons development site and its goodnight Israel. Another for good measure on the biological weapons plant.

This is why Israel has not struck Iran.

Kirby

Pure_Cork wrote: »

That is not fact, that is complete and utter bull.

Actually, it's a fact that Ahmadinejad said it. He's the Iranian president.

Now you can argue of interpretation or what he actually meant when he said it, but the fact that he said it is not in dispute. It was reported worldwide.

Border-Rat

Kirby wrote: »

Actually, it's a fact that Ahmadinejad said it. He's the Iranian president.

Now you can argue of interpretation or what he actually meant when he said it, but the fact that he said it is not in dispute. It was reported worldwide.

http://www.ascertainthetruth.com/att/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=718:israeli-pm-admits-iran-never-called-to-wipe-out-israel&catid=56:international-war-on-terror&Itemid=109

rubadubduba

smcgiff wrote: »

We're okay until we invent faster than light travel

that wont be anytime soon.


( after all we are only a flash in the pan.)

Kirby

Border-Rat wrote: »

http://www.ascertainthetruth.com/att/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=718:israeli-pm-admits-iran-never-called-to-wipe-out-israel&catid=56:international-war-on-terror&Itemid=109

As I said, you can argue over interpretation, but not the fact that he said it. He later stated that he wanted to wipe out the regime, not the country, but thats not specifically what he said.

Pure_Cork

Kirby wrote: »

As I said, you can argue over interpretation, but not the fact that he said it. He later stated that he wanted to wipe out the regime, not the country, but thats not specifically what he said.

He DID NOT say that he wanted to wipe Israel off the map. The translation of his original speech by the media wasn't correct. Here is a correct transcript from the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/30/weekinreview/30iran.html?pagewanted=all

Our dear Imam said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. Is it possible to create a new front in the heart of an old front. This would be a defeat and whoever accepts the legitimacy of this regime [Israel] has in fact, signed the defeat of the Islamic world. Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world. But we must be aware of tricks.

****ing hell.

Border-Rat

Kirby wrote: »

As I said, you can argue over interpretation, but not the fact that he said it. He later stated that he wanted to wipe out the regime, not the country, but thats not specifically what he said.

Then, expert that you are, why don't you tell us what he 'specifically' said. I'm not too hot on Farsi myself. Secondly, why hasn't he done it? Iran's Shahab III MRBM system is capable of hitting Israels nuclear weapons facility. That would do the job.

Kirby

Border-Rat wrote: »

Then, expert that you are, why don't you tell us what he 'specifically' said. I'm not too hot on Farsi myself. Secondly, why hasn't he done it? Iran's Shahab III MRBM system is capable of hitting Israels nuclear weapons facility. That would do the job.

People say things all the time that they don't end up doing. So thats a bit of a silly argument.

Secondly, I never cited myself as an expert.

Thirdly, I have no dog in this fight and don't care what they do or don't do to each other. And as I also said twice already, people are free to discuss or guess what he meant by what he said. But not what he actually said. Because that's a fact and I don't believe in facts being twisted for your own political or religous beliefs which is what you are doing.

You are talking about missiles and nuclear weapons facilities and Shanab II MRBM systems as if that makes any difference to what the man said. It doesn't. It's just window dressing for your own political view. The backtracking regarding what he said was damage control. It's fairly common when an administration is afraid of something that their leader says.

Pure_Cork

Kirby wrote: »

People say things all the time that they don't end up doing. So thats a bit of a silly argument.

Secondly, I never cited myself as an expert.

Thirdly, I have no dog in this fight and don't care what they do or don't do to each other. And as I also said twice already, people are free to discuss or guess what he meant by what he said. But not what he actually said. Because that's a fact and I don't believe in facts being twisted for your own political or religous beliefs which is what you are doing.

You are talking about missiles and nuclear weapons facilities and Shanab II MRBM systems as if that makes any difference to what the man said. It doesn't. It's just window dressing for your own political view. The backtracking regarding what he said was damage control. It's fairly common when an administration is afraid of something that their leader says.

If you bother to read my post above you'll see that the man did not say that he wanted "to wipe Israel off the map".

Border-Rat

Kirby wrote: »

People say things all the time that they don't end up doing. So thats a bit of a silly argument.

Secondly, I never cited myself as an expert.

Thirdly, I have no dog in this fight and don't care what they do or don't do to each other. And as I also said twice already, people are free to discuss or guess what he meant by what he said. But not what he actually said. Because that's a fact and I don't believe in facts being twisted for your own political or religous beliefs which is what you are doing.

Its a fact that Ahmedinejad threatened to wipe Israel off the map? Where is your proof?

You are talking about missiles and nuclear weapons facilities and Shanab II MRBM systems as if that makes any difference to what the man said. It doesn't. It's just window dressing for your own political view. The backtracking regarding what he said was damage control. It's fairly common when an administration is afraid of something that their leader says.

He didn't say it. We've established that. Bolding the word 'fact' doesn't make fantasy a fact. The second thing we've established is that he doesn't have the intention of doing it.

Kirby

Pure_Cork wrote: »

If you bother to read my post above you'll see that the man did not say that he wanted "to wipe Israel off the map".

Oh I read it. But I recognise spin when I see it.

Pure_Cork

Kirby wrote: »

Oh I read it. But I recognise spin when I see it.

So the New York Times, one of the biggest newspapers in the United States, is publishing pro-Iranian spin when they publish a translation (done by one of their employees) of Ahmadinejad's original speech?

Border-Rat

Pure_Cork wrote: »

So the New York Times, one of the biggest newspapers in the United States, is publishing pro-Iranian spin when they publish a translation (done by one of their employees) of Ahmadinehad's original speech?

This is how it works. You make up a lie, even with no basis in fact, and the important thing is that as long as its the first thing thats said it'll stick with the lowest common denominator. It doesn't matter if its later proven to be lies, the damage is already done. This is effective propaganda - muck sticking. Another example is the Israelis lying about Iran killing Israeli tourists - sheer bald faced lies. But it was the first thing mentioned and, as such, it stuck with the lowest common denominator.

Its incredible how liable people are to propaganda. You know its working well if they keep peddling the lies after its been exposed as lies. You know, a high percentage of Americans believe Iraq was involved in 9/11 and that Iraq had WMD. These are the people who should not be allowed within 100 feet of a voting boothe.

Kirby

Pure_Cork wrote: »

So the New York Times, one of the biggest newspapers in the United States, is publishing pro-Iranian spin when they publish a translation (done by one of their employees) of Ahmadinejad's original speech?

They also published the "orginal translation". So tell me, which one is correct? They one you would like to be?

You can believe what you like. Thats your right. But if your try and twist facts to try and convince people of your point of view, don't be surprised when you meet resistance.

woodoo

Nuclear weapons are overrated i think. People act as if setting off one would be the end of the world. That wouldn't happen. It would be the end of a city or 2, unfortunate for that country but not end of the world stuff.

As for Iran having a NW i think they would be no more dangerous than Israel. I think they would just use it to ensure they weren't bullied by USA and their angry aggressive little friend.

Madam_X

Dancing With Tears In My Eyes by Ultravox is my fave nuclear strike imminent song/vid.

KenSwee wrote: »

True about the superpowers but what about the smaller nations who have or will posses this technology? I could be wrong but I think a world wide nuclear war is unlikely but I don't feel the same about a regional nuclear attack or mis-management of the technology.

Yup. The latter being Chernobyl. And of course a superpower (US) bombed another power (Japan) but the worldwide thing just seems implausible - literally the stuff of films.

Pure_Cork

Kirby wrote: »

They also published the "orginal translation". So tell me, which one is correct? They one you would like to be?

You can believe what you like. Thats your right. But if your try and twist facts to try and convince people of your point of view, don't be surprised when you meet resistance.

Right, I've posted NYT's translation of his original speech which shows exactly what the man said. They published that 3 days after the original article, by the same author.

I'm not trying to twist facts, I posted exactly what the man said, a direct translation made by American media.

Here is an article from the NY Times blog explaning the mistranslation, and they even write about an Israeli government minister who stated “now that’s a common trope that is put about by a lot of people in Israel, a lot of people in the United States, but as we know Ahmadinejad didn’t say that he plans to exterminate Israel, nor did he say that Iran’s policy is to exterminate Israel.”
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/17/israeli-minister-agrees-ahmadinejad-never-said-israel-must-be-wiped-off-the-map/

You have mainstream American media stating exactly what Ahmadinejad said in his speech, and an Israeli government minister stating that Ahmadinejad did not say he wanted to wipe Israel off the map.

enfant terrible

Border-Rat wrote: »

Its a fact that Ahmedinejad threatened to wipe Israel off the map? Where is your proof?

I think we can all agree Ahmedinejad probably does want to wipe Israel off the map whether he said it or not.

Kirby

Pure_Cork wrote: »

Right, I've posted NYT's translation of his original speech which shows exactly what the man said. They published that 3 days after the original article, by the same author.

I'm not trying to twist facts, I posted exactly what the man said, a direct translation made by American media.

Which sadly is why people can choose to believe what suits their belief best.

Me? I'll go with the original translation, and not the more docile politcally correct alteration that came a few days later. You cannot claim the NYT "correction" as proof of what he said while discounting their original article. Can't have it both ways. It's either "fact because NYT said it!" or it isnt. Thats just being obtuse for the sake of it.

The orignial can be seen here.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/27/international/middleeast/27iran.html

KenSwee

woodoo wrote: »

Nuclear weapons are overrated i think. People act as if setting off one would be the end of the world. That wouldn't happen. It would be the end of a city or 2, unfortunate for that country but not end of the world stuff.

As for Iran having a NW i think they would be no more dangerous than Israel. I think they would just use it to ensure they weren't bullied by USA and their angry aggressive little friend.

Onixx wrote: »

Yup. The latter being Chernobyl. And of course a superpower (US) bombed another power (Japan) but the worldwide thing just seems implausible - literally the stuff of films.

enfant terrible wrote: »

I think we can all agree Ahmedinejad probably does want to wipe Israel off the map whether he said it or not.

I think that it's safe to say that the Iranian government has a particular dislike for Israel but nobody here can determine for sure, if they would like to wipe it off the face of the earth.

Rather then getting bogged down in 3 pages of Israel against Iran, I would like to know if countries like Iran should be allowed to have the technology; both for military and peaceful/energy purposes?

That in my opinion is the bigger question.

adomino

The Repto Sapiens are running out of human meat, they need to be fed too so another war is due.

Pure_Cork

Kirby wrote: »

Which sadly is why people can choose to believe what suits their belief best.

Me? I'll go with the original translation, and not the more docile politcally correct alteration that came a few days later. You cannot claim the NYT "correction" as proof of what he said while discounting their original article. Can't have it both ways. It's either "fact because NYT said it!" or it isnt. Thats just being obtuse for the sake of it.

The orignial can be seen here.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/27/international/middleeast/27iran.html

Apologies for thinking that a full transcript of the speech would help in understanding what was said and in what context, and for thinking that it being published by the same author a few days after the original article with the showstopping attention-grabbing headline (the type that shifts more newspapers than "Iran call for regime change in Israel") would be more accurate and correct.

Apparently the Farsi version of the words spoken by Ahmadinejad doesn't contain Israel, but does contain regime.

The Israeli government minister was just being polite I suppose?

latenia

Kirby wrote: »

Which sadly is why people can choose to believe what suits their belief best.

Me? I'll go with the original translation, and not the more docile politcally correct alteration that came a few days later.

Forget about what one person may or may not have said in one particular speech and think about it logically for just one minute. Why would any country fire a nuke at another nuclear-armed country? It's just never going to happen and the only reason people (members of the public) think it might is because it's just a big military and political game, being played out to keep humans at each others' throats. In this instance it's the "crazy brown frothing-at-the-mouth mullah with his finger on the button" bullsh1t being utilised.

InReality

Iran are never going to nuke israel , they will say israel shouldn't exist etc , but will never do use a nuke.

Israeli leaders are either 1) too stupid or too paranoid and so believe it will , or 2) like to pretend that it will for their own reasons.

I'm about 70% sure its 2.

mikom

♫

And Iran
Iran so far away
I just ran
Iran all night and day
I couldn't get away

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sID9D0QNVHw

Vice city ftw.

Colmustard

I am optimistic nobody will deploy these weapons. No=one has since WW2 to spite the option being there many times.

Sulla Felix

Duggy747 wrote: »

Stanislav Yevgrafovich Petrov stopped a potential nuclear war back in 83.

And worse, ended up getting officially repremanded for it, because he basically said fu to central command.

LC2010HIS

Moving to Mars!:rolleyes:

marshbaboon

Nuclear Armageddon can't come soon enough.

Too many people on this god damn planet. We're well overdue a cull.

hatrickpatrick

smcgiff wrote: »

North korea have the bomb despite the west's wishes. The difference with iran is that they have publically stated they want israel wiped from the face of the planet. That's not western propoganda, just fact.

*sigh*

No. No it isn't.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/iranian-fm-denies-wanting-to-wipe-israel-off-the-map-1.180643

I find it absolutely astounding that a mistranslation has become so firmly ingrained in the pro-Israel lobby's mind. He never said the country should be wiped off the map, he said the regime, AKA government, AKA administration should be. And given how utterly barbaric that regime's behavior is, I'd imagine he's not alone.
Hell, Israeli people themselves are starting to get fed up with the current political authority in Israel. It did not escape the Occupy movement, for example. There's quite a bit of anti-regime sentiment within Israel as well as outside it.
But if you prefer to believe Iran is a genocidal backwater then fair enough...

DEFTLEFTHAND

The worry is always there that it will happen again. The people you mention tend to play the victim card and exaggerate threats to their security. With the Americans backing them, the threat of nuclear war becomes very real.