Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 BrotherGecko wrote:

If they actually wanted one, they would have got one. Its not like Pakistan or Russian wouldn't have sold them one.

That's debatable. Russia and Pakistan, while not hostile towards Iran, aren't close enough to the Islamic Republic to outright sell them complete nuclear weapons. This is especially true of Russia, which is primarily interested in Iran because Iran annoys the US and Western Europe.

Putin/Russia lined up quite a few contracts to help build nuke reactors once this deal went "Green"
Saudi IIRC has ten reactors lined up to be built
Jordan one
Egypt one

All with assistance from Putin

Mind you it does not have to be a full nuke capable weapon
A dirty bomb is more easy to develope

You can build a dirty bomb in the basement of any medical research hospital so that is a non-point. Gaining enough radioactive material for a dirty bomb wouldn't exactly be difficult for a nation like Iran, yet they haven't built or used one.

 zgort wrote:
I dunno - there is a sound bite of that whole "we will kill Israel, death to America" thing. Nukes in the hands of people who want to use them is bad bad bad.

And? Lots of countries will make all sorts of claims as part of their positioning. Remember when the US said Iran was part of an Axis of Evil? It wasn’t because the US was about to nuke them.

People treat world diplomacy like a game of he said/she said. It’s fething tedious.

 BrotherGecko wrote:
You can build a dirty bomb in the basement of any medical research hospital so that is a non-point. Gaining enough radioactive material for a dirty bomb wouldn't exactly be difficult for a nation like Iran, yet they haven't built or used one.

A dirty bomb is not a nuke. They are a terror/pain in the ass/area denial weapon, NOT a destructive weapon. Making one and using one as a country would do nothing but bring down reprisals and sanctions and guarantee any facilities you have which could be used for a real nuke meet tons of bunker busting fun dropped from the sky. So, them not having built and used a dirty bomb is pretty damned useless in making an argument they do not want actual nukes.

I'm very disappointed that Trump didn't yank off his toupee and throw it at somebody

Seems over 50% of the viewers approved of Trump.
Stumping Trumping
I watched the after show of Luntz(?) where he was polling a group of peeps and it seems half those individuals are holding Trump entertainment career against him. Guess they forgot that Reagan was a Hollywood actor before he seeked a political position

 jasper76 wrote:
One question into the debate, and Trump is DONE!!! He just got owned by Rand Paul hardcore, and committed political suicide.

Yes the Democratic candidate admitted he's just a schill and will run 3rd party later. His response on the bankruptcy thing was classic bad.

 sebster wrote:

 zgort wrote:
I dunno - there is a sound bite of that whole "we will kill Israel, death to America" thing. Nukes in the hands of people who want to use them is bad bad bad.

And? Lots of countries will make all sorts of claims as part of their positioning. Remember when the US said Iran was part of an Axis of Evil? It wasn’t because the US was about to nuke them.

People treat world diplomacy like a game of he said/she said. It’s fething tedious.

Exactly. Besides, we all know our politicians will say anything in order to make their voters and corporate paymasters happy, why would the Iranians be any different? I mean, if we don't trust a single word our leaders say, why do we treat other world leaders as speaking pure truth?

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
On a different note, Schumer has just announced he will vote against the Iran deal. I read his statement, and found the argument largely reasonable, especially compared to the vitriolic rhetoric spewed by so many from even before the details were released.

That means that the Democrats already have enough votes to block, so Schumer can save face with his constituents.

I propose that if Trump becomes President, the rest of the world should invade America to save it from that fate

Anybody second that proposal?

He take you all to World Court and sue every country that tried that

After seeing both of the debates now, my current thinking is a Bush/Fiorina ticket would be the best shot for the Republicans to beat Clinton.

 CptJake wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:
You can build a dirty bomb in the basement of any medical research hospital so that is a non-point. Gaining enough radioactive material for a dirty bomb wouldn't exactly be difficult for a nation like Iran, yet they haven't built or used one.

A dirty bomb is not a nuke. They are a terror/pain in the ass/area denial weapon, NOT a destructive weapon. Making one and using one as a country would do nothing but bring down reprisals and sanctions and guarantee any facilities you have which could be used for a real nuke meet tons of bunker busting fun dropped from the sky. So, them not having built and used a dirty bomb is pretty damned useless in making an argument they do not want actual nukes.

I know what a dirty bomb is and I'm sure my comment showed that. I was responding against the idea that if they won't be able to build a nuke then they will build a dirty bomb. You just agreed with me and then argued at me lol and I've got no idea why.

Because a dirty bomb would NOT further their goals at all. There is ZERO reason for them to do so. Doing so would very much be counter productive.

 CptJake wrote:
Because a dirty bomb would NOT further their goals at all. There is ZERO reason for them to do so. Doing so would very much be counter productive.

And how would a nuke not be?

 CptJake wrote:
Because a dirty bomb would NOT further their goals at all. There is ZERO reason for them to do so. Doing so would very much be counter productive.

That was my point lol.

 d-usa wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Because a dirty bomb would NOT further their goals at all. There is ZERO reason for them to do so. Doing so would very much be counter productive.

And how would a nuke not be?

Because they see a nuke capability as entrance into being taken seriously on the world stage and furthering regional power/influence as well as a deterrent factor against US/Israeli attack. A dirty bomb does not convey those benefits.

They look at the Norks and see crazy town and its leader able to do basically what ever they want with no real repercussions because no one wants to see Seoul under a mushroom cloud.

 jasper76 wrote:
After seeing both of the debates now, my current thinking is a Bush/Fiorina ticket would be the best shot for the Republicans to beat Clinton.

For some reason the Democrats very much want Bush to run. He won't be the candidate.

Am I the only guy who saw Walker and kept thinking he looked like an SNL guy?

 CptJake wrote:
Because a dirty bomb would NOT further their goals at all. There is ZERO reason for them to do so. Doing so would very much be counter productive.

I think their goals include wiping Israel off the map - a nuke should make that easier, yeah?

 zgort wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Because a dirty bomb would NOT further their goals at all. There is ZERO reason for them to do so. Doing so would very much be counter productive.

I think their goals include wiping Israel off the map - a nuke should make that easier, yeah?

Iran is smart enough to know that the moment that anybody thinks that they are in possession of a nuke, then Israel will bomb the living hell out of them and nobody is going to do a thing to stop them, and that if they somehow managed to actually shoot of a nuke at Israel they will be on the receiving end of a full nuclear response from Israel.

Israel will bomb them before they think they have a nuke. It kind of defeats the purpose to do so after.

The Republican debate was weird. Didn't they lose the last election because their guy had to go so far to the right before winning nomination that he couldn't then tack his sails back to the mainstream views? I heard that was the reason, anyway. And now it looks kind of like the exact same thing.

Edit to add: from my newspaper-editorial influenced viewpoint, that is.

 Frazzled wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
After seeing both of the debates now, my current thinking is a Bush/Fiorina ticket would be the best shot for the Republicans to beat Clinton.

For some reason the Democrats very much want Bush to run. He won't be the candidate.

It could be because Jeb is a fairly decent guy, and he might be the one that makes some Dems secretly think "well, if we have to lose the election, we'd rather lose to Jeb than any of the others."

Of course, that right there also means he won't get the nomination, because how dare one party nominate a candidate that the other party can at least tolerate?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charles Rampant wrote:
The Republican debate was weird. Didn't they lose the last election because their guy had to go so far to the right before winning nomination that he couldn't then tack his sails back to the mainstream views? I heard that was the reason, anyway. And now it looks kind of like the exact same thing.

Edit to add: from my newspaper-editorial influenced viewpoint, that is.

Romney also made a few glaring missteps like the Etch-a-Sketch comment and the 47% comment. Sound bites like that are easy to play and replay.

 Charles Rampant wrote:
The Republican debate was weird. Didn't they lose the last election because their guy had to go so far to the right before winning nomination that he couldn't then tack his sails back to the mainstream views? I heard that was the reason, anyway. And now it looks kind of like the exact same thing.

Edit to add: from my newspaper-editorial influenced viewpoint, that is.

We don't need that kind of insight on dakka


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just been reading some disturbing info...

Apparently, Reagan didn't get off to a good start either when he first declared a run at the White House. He was behind in the polls, and nobody thought an actor could be taken seriously.

If lightning strikes twice with Trump...




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:

 zgort wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Because a dirty bomb would NOT further their goals at all. There is ZERO reason for them to do so. Doing so would very much be counter productive.

I think their goals include wiping Israel off the map - a nuke should make that easier, yeah?

Iran is smart enough to know that the moment that anybody thinks that they are in possession of a nuke, then Israel will bomb the living hell out of them and nobody is going to do a thing to stop them, and that if they somehow managed to actually shoot of a nuke at Israel they will be on the receiving end of a full nuclear response from Israel.

If Iran shoots first, it could be too late for Israel. Some parts of Israel are only a few miles wide. It's a small country and it would be easy for a well placed nuke to cause a lot of damage.

Trump won't make it. He admitted to being a shill. No Republican openly attacks another. No Republican admits to forming a third party.

He couldn't even say when (as if he did) become a Republican. This guy is a Clinton plant.

 Frazzled wrote:
Trump won't make it. He admitted to being a shill. No Republican openly attacks another. No Republican admits to forming a third party.

He couldn't even say when (as if he did) become a Republican. This guy is a Clinton plant.

If he's a Clinton plant, then it's going to plan.

Exactly.

If anything, the guy's an Obama plant. Whilst everybody is talking about Trump, very few people have noticed a story about the White House getting it in the neck for 'massaging' their numbers on America's fight against human trafficking around the globe.

From what I saw on the news, the Senate committee was pretty scathing about this. A good day to bury bad news, as far as Obama is concerned.

 jasper76 wrote:
After seeing both of the debates now, my current thinking is a Bush/Fiorina ticket would be the best shot for the Republicans to beat Clinton.

Make that Rubio/Fiorina.

I didn't think Bush had a good night.