21 Mar 13
Originally posted by Metal BrainIf only things were so simple. Let's speculate if the nuclear capabilities were reversed, would Iran hesitate to level Israeli cities, regardless of what Israel was doing about enriching uranium.
So don't attack. Simple, right? Live and let live.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/21/us-iran-khamenei-idUSBRE92K0LA20130321
When one neighbor repeatedly makes provocative and threatening statements, how long is long enough to wait before exploiting what might be a temporary military advantage?
21 Mar 13
1 edit
The post that was quoted here has been removedIn poker one bluffs in order to induce opponents to call on later hands, typically not when one is short of chips since then calling is easier. If Israel took the threats to destroy its cities seriously then their past record indicates that they'd take military action. So if the bluff was called now they'd be in trouble. Their future possession of nuclear weapons hardly makes the bluff worthwhile since Israel almost certainly does have the bomb and would certainly use it second strike. Part of the point of a mutually assured destruction strategy is that one's enemy is not so convinced one would try a first strike that they preempt it.
21 Mar 13
The post that was quoted here has been removedI am not an expert on the middle east,
but as far as I know only Jordan is at
peace with Israel. All the rest of the
( Arab states ) are committed to the
destruction of Israel.
I would not imagine that any of us here
are Intelligence agents but the word is
that Iran is close to having nuclear
capability. The Israelis don't want that
to happen and they have said that they
will go in to prevent this with or without
the help of the USA.
22 Mar 13
Originally posted by DeepThoughtAQ was able to raze the middle of Manhattan without nuclear weapons. And Iran has conventional weapons capable, in theory, of striking Israeli territory. The statement is, of course, meant for a quittery domestic audience and most of it was dismissing the possibility of an Israeli attack.
If Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons as Khamenei seemed to be saying then how do they intend to raze Tel Aviv and Haifa?
22 Mar 13
Originally posted by normbenignI'm pretty sure they would given the overwhelming probability of retaliation from the West.
If only things were so simple. Let's speculate if the nuclear capabilities were reversed, would Iran hesitate to level Israeli cities, regardless of what Israel was doing about enriching uranium.
When one neighbor repeatedly makes provocative and threatening statements, how long is long enough to wait before exploiting what might be a temporary military advantage?
22 Mar 13
Originally posted by no1marauderYes, that seems likely, unless they are convinced that the US doesn't have the stomach for another middle east war, or the determination to use nukes even in retaliation.
I'm pretty sure they would given the overwhelming probability of retaliation from the West.
22 Mar 13
Originally posted by normbenignBoth have made threatening statements. Which country are you referring to?
If only things were so simple. Let's speculate if the nuclear capabilities were reversed, would Iran hesitate to level Israeli cities, regardless of what Israel was doing about enriching uranium.
When one neighbor repeatedly makes provocative and threatening statements, how long is long enough to wait before exploiting what might be a temporary military advantage?
25 Mar 13
Originally posted by Metal BrainActually, your choice. I had in mind Iran making threats mentioned in this thread, or their President's threats to destroy Israel made in the past. But of course Israel has made threats regarding Iran's nuclear program.
Both have made threatening statements. Which country are you referring to?
From a military perspective, initiating an attack usually is done from a perceived position of superior power. It would be foolish to wait until an enemy gains the same or better weapons than you already have.