International Jihadis and the West's Response

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]magick wrote:

The “irrelevant” statement is admittedly hyperbole. But the point I wanted to make is that the existence of a threat in of itself doesn’t mean that we have to work completely and totally to extinguish it immediately.[/quote]

Yeah, we heard that before from ol’ Neville. That worked out well.[/quote]

How am I proposing appeasement?

I fully recognize that ISIS wants nothing more than world domination (heh, something out of a comic book indeed) and wants the U.S. destroyed by its power.

But I am arguing that, while ISIS most certainly is an enemy that must be destroyed, it’s not an enemy that must be destroyed as quickly as possible. I think that some people here are reacting to the President’s propaganda words with, what seems to me, over-exaggeration.

[quote]BPCorso wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]BPCorso wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
While I agree with the last points in your last post, are you saying the US government should not be concerned about Iran’s growing influence in Iraq?

Edit, not your LAST post, but the last one on the other page, about how the US took out two of Iran’s enemies.[/quote]

Iran is an enemy country so the USA needs to be concerned with any instance of Iran’s growing influence. My point in those long posts was that Iran’s growing influence in Iraq was inevitable and a reversion to the historical norm, and the USA can’t do much about it without spending enormous amounts of money and resources. With the end result being temporary at best. Money and resources that could be put to more productive use in other initiatives. The USA attempted to combat this growing influence for a great price, and eventually Tehran just convinced Baghdad to demand full troop withdrawal, to the USA’s chagrin.

Like I said the USA needs to be concerned, but is it such a great concern that it’s worth the lives of soldiers and treasure/higher taxes? Iraq is thousands of miles away and doesn’t have much to offer the USA. Saddam Hussein was the USA’s best weapon against Iran’s influence in Iraq, and we know what happened to him.[/quote]

It’s not about their geographic location nor their potential benefit to us. It’s about the threat that ISIS and the other islam extremists who pose harm and threat to us and our allies. Terrorists have long arms who are not constrained by borders and they can hit us where we live.
This isn’t a situation where you can ignore it and hope it goes away. If unchecked they will hit us. It’s only a matter of time. [/quote]

I don’t even disagree with you though. Iran and the USA will continue to battle ISIS independent of each other. The USA does have an interest in degrading/destroying ISIS. I don’t have an argument against that. That’s not my point of the post you replied to.

One of my points was that Iran has a legitimate reason to be involved with the war against ISIS. In their backyard, direct threat, etc. The other major point I had was that it’s a fools errand to try and prevent Iran’s influence in Iraq. It was inevitable, and historically, it’s normal. Iran never demanded that the USA halt its airstrikes, either directly or through its clients in Baghdad. Baghdad being a client of Tehran doesn’t prevent the USA from carrying out its current strategy.

ETA: To be clear, when I’m saying “what benefit does the USA get from having the most influence in Baghdad?” That’s independent of battling ISIS. The two points are related because ISIS is in Iraq, but they’re still separate issues.[/quote]

The good news is that if we are targeting an area where there are Iranian troops, we can just bombs away. Kill two assholes with one stone. If that upsets them, tough. They are hindering a U.S. military operation.

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Wow…The fact that the pose a threat to us is irrelevant? Just wow. Pretty much the most relevant thing on Earth.
And your nanny state analogy does not work at any level.[/quote]

Why doesn’t the nanny state analogy work?

The “irrelevant” statement is admittedly hyperbole. But the point I wanted to make is that the existence of a threat in of itself doesn’t mean that we have to work completely and totally to extinguish it immediately.[/quote]

That was hyperbole? So it’s sort of relevant? They are killing people by the hundreds and thousands, destabilizing an unstable region. Amassing people to western targets to carry out attacks, enslaving and selling people,etc. Their crimes against humanity range far and wide. They have prophesied attacking Europe, Israel, and the U.S. and indeed already a related arm of their jihad got to France. And you say, just because it’s a threat doesn’t mean we have to do anything about it?
The problem with learning our lesson the hard way is that people die. And yes, it means that if there is a legitimate threat to you country or our allies you totally and completely extinguish it and you do that as quickly as possible. What possible advantage could come with pussyfooting around the issue? How would that help in anyway?

And no, comparing the destruction of ISIS with banning potato chips makes no sense whatsoever at any level. We’re not trying to impose a lifestyle, we’re trying to stop ruthless murders from carrying out their acts of terror. Clearly they wanted a reaction, the way to deal with that is the give them what they wish for in a way they cannot handle it.

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]magick wrote:

The “irrelevant” statement is admittedly hyperbole. But the point I wanted to make is that the existence of a threat in of itself doesn’t mean that we have to work completely and totally to extinguish it immediately.[/quote]

Yeah, we heard that before from ol’ Neville. That worked out well.[/quote]

How am I proposing appeasement?

I fully recognize that ISIS wants nothing more than world domination (heh, something out of a comic book indeed) and wants the U.S. destroyed by its power.

But I am arguing that, while ISIS most certainly is an enemy that must be destroyed, it’s not an enemy that must be destroyed as quickly as possible. I think that some people here are reacting to the President’s propaganda words with, what seems to me, over-exaggeration.[/quote]

What would be the point of dragging out their destruction? What possible reasoning exists behind ‘it’s not an enemy that must be destroyed as quickly as possible’? You get off on thousands of people dying? The worst possible scenario is to drag out a conflict on purpose. Many more people are killed unnecessarily that way.

[quote]pat wrote:

That was hyperbole? So it’s sort of relevant? They are killing people by the hundreds and thousands, destabilizing an unstable region. Amassing people to western targets to carry out attacks, enslaving and selling people,etc. Their crimes against humanity range far and wide. They have prophesied attacking Europe, Israel, and the U.S. and indeed already a related arm of their jihad got to France. And you say, just because it’s a threat doesn’t mean we have to do anything about it?[/quote]

The U.S. is doing something about it. The U.S. is bombing them and giving limited support to countries that are actively fighting them with ground troops.

Let’s be clear- you are saying that the U.S. needs to go beyond this and send ground troops into the fray. I am saying the U.S. doesn’t have to do that yet. This is the argument we’re having right now. Please don’t descend into a straw-man argument.

[quote]pat wrote:
The problem with learning our lesson the hard way is that people die. And yes, it means that if there is a legitimate threat to you country or our allies you totally and completely extinguish it and you do that as quickly as possible. What possible advantage could come with pussyfooting around the issue? How would that help in anyway?[/quote]

Because there are ramifications to every action, and it is entirely possible that the ramification of sending ground troops into the war is greater than the ramification of not sending ground troops into the war.

If we can believe the analysis in that Atlantic article posted here a while ago, then the entry of U.S. ground troops will simply cause ISIS to regain its vigor and, indeed, have a new rallying cry. It may cause hundreds of thousands to rally to its banner and infuse new blood and even greater power to something that is starting to weaken.

And the U.S. simply doesn’t have the will to wage war on a large scale right now. Going into a ground war against ISIS without the collective will of the country doesn’t seem like a good idea to me.

[quote]pat wrote:
And no, comparing the destruction of ISIS with banning potato chips makes no sense whatsoever at any level. We’re not trying to impose a lifestyle, we’re trying to stop ruthless murders from carrying out their acts of terror. Clearly they wanted a reaction, the way to deal with that is the give them what they wish for in a way they cannot handle it. [/quote]

You misunderstood the comparison then. I’m not comparing activity to activity. I am comparing reaction to reaction.

Some people see something genuinely dangerous activity (obesity really is killing the country slowly), and react without considering the full ramification of the actions. You see something genuinely dangerous, and react without considering the full ramifications of the actions.

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

That was hyperbole? So it’s sort of relevant? They are killing people by the hundreds and thousands, destabilizing an unstable region. Amassing people to western targets to carry out attacks, enslaving and selling people,etc. Their crimes against humanity range far and wide. They have prophesied attacking Europe, Israel, and the U.S. and indeed already a related arm of their jihad got to France. And you say, just because it’s a threat doesn’t mean we have to do anything about it?[/quote]

The U.S. is doing something about it. The U.S. is bombing them and giving limited support to countries that are actively fighting them with ground troops.

Let’s be clear- you are saying that the U.S. needs to go beyond this and send ground troops into the fray. I am saying the U.S. doesn’t have to do that yet. This is the argument we’re having right now. Please don’t descend into a straw-man argument.

[quote]pat wrote:
The problem with learning our lesson the hard way is that people die. And yes, it means that if there is a legitimate threat to you country or our allies you totally and completely extinguish it and you do that as quickly as possible. What possible advantage could come with pussyfooting around the issue? How would that help in anyway?[/quote]

Because there are ramifications to every action, and it is entirely possible that the ramification of sending ground troops into the war is greater than the ramification of not sending ground troops into the war.

If we can believe the analysis in that Atlantic article posted here a while ago, then the entry of U.S. ground troops will simply cause ISIS to regain its vigor and, indeed, have a new rallying cry. It may cause hundreds of thousands to rally to its banner and infuse new blood and even greater power to something that is starting to weaken.

And the U.S. simply doesn’t have the will to wage war on a large scale right now. Going into a ground war against ISIS without the collective will of the country doesn’t seem like a good idea to me.

[quote]pat wrote:
And no, comparing the destruction of ISIS with banning potato chips makes no sense whatsoever at any level. We’re not trying to impose a lifestyle, we’re trying to stop ruthless murders from carrying out their acts of terror. Clearly they wanted a reaction, the way to deal with that is the give them what they wish for in a way they cannot handle it. [/quote]

You misunderstood the comparison then. I’m not comparing activity to activity. I am comparing reaction to reaction.

Some people see something genuinely dangerous activity (obesity really is killing the country slowly), and react without considering the full ramification of the actions. You see something genuinely dangerous, and react without considering the full ramifications of the actions.[/quote]

Well now your moving the goal posts here. First you said they are no threat, now they are and we’re doing something about it.
Which is it? Are they a threat or not?
My contention is very simple, if you commit to military action you commit to accomplish a stated goal, which in this case is the destruction of ISIS. Performing an action like that with half effort is more dangerous than full effort. While we slowly drop bombs on them, they are slaughtering people, real human beings as human as you and I. They also have the ability to adjust and maneuver. It doesn’t matter if their goal is to engage the U.S. military in it’s full fury. Granting them that goal doesn’t mean it will serve them well or their goals are any level. It will likely destroy them. Being destroyed is not their goal.
Most military analysts agree that boots on the ground is a foregone conclusion. We’re either going to destroy ISIS or let them have the land and commit the genocide and terrorize the world like they wish.
To say they are no threat to us is naive as hell. To say they are no threat, but then they are a little threat which demands little action is just silly.

This is just a question, and I know these issues don’t have to be mutually exclusive. What’s more important to the USA (or the West):

(1) Concentrating on degrading and destroying ISIS, which, for now, is largely focused on establishing its official state.

(2) Concentrating on other terrorist groups that are currently focused on carrying out terrorist attacks in North America and Europe.

ISIS is uniquely savage, but killing people in the Middle East exclusively for now. It is more concerned with installing infrastructure and attracting people to have a functioning state. Like teachers and doctors and whatnot. Its immediate enemies are anyone in its path and don’t fall in line. Down the road, it might refocus on attacking NA/EU. Or it might just focus on expanding the size of its state within the ME. [I don’t think it ever gets this far in real life]

Other terrorist groups pose more of a direct threat to the USA/West at present. As their focus is terrorist attacks, not establishing a functioning state and killing people in its way. Yemen’s Al-Qda affiliate was responsible for the recent terrorist attacks in Paris for example. We all know Al-Qda was responsible for 9/11. But these groups aren’t just out there in plain view committing atrocities. They’re in hiding and plotting. Also not as “popular” these days. These groups aren’t attracting the same amount of attention and recruits as they used to since ISIS became the new terrorist hot shots.

What do y’all think?

I think Isis’s media reach HAS influenced home grown terrorist attacks in Australia & Canada, not to mention hatchet attacks in the states, so it is every bit as dangerous as the others who are hiding and plotting.

As far as not attacking Al-Qaeda right now, we just took out a commanding officer in Al-Nursa, Al-Qaeda’s Syrian branch this week.

[quote]pat wrote:
Well now your moving the goal posts here. First you said they are no threat, now they are and we’re doing something about it.[/quote]

No, I wrote that they’re not an existential threat to us, and that they cannot actually hurt us.

To further clarify- I meant that, in spite of their language and stated goals, they can’t actually pose a genuine, regime toppling etc, threat to us. They very well could cause another attack on the scale of 9/11. Heck, they may even be able to assassinate the POTUS. But none of these will cause the U.S. to fall on its knees, or really even hurt it in any significant manner.

This is the flaw behind all those terrorist attacks. All they do is provoke people, not actually hurt them in any particular manner.

ISIS is not the U.S.S.R. It is not the Japanese Empire. It is not Fascist Germany. Those countries posed a genuine, existential threat to the U.S.- ISIS does not.

[quote]pat wrote:
My contention is very simple, if you commit to military action you commit to accomplish a stated goal, which in this case is the destruction of ISIS. Performing an action like that with half effort is more dangerous than full effort. While we slowly drop bombs on them, they are slaughtering people, real human beings as human as you and I.[/quote]

Just to be clear- You’re saying that the major reason they need to be stopped is because they’re killing lots of people and generally committing a bunch of things considered crimes against humanity?

[quote]pat wrote:
They also have the ability to adjust and maneuver. It doesn’t matter if their goal is to engage the U.S. military in it’s full fury. Granting them that goal doesn’t mean it will serve them well or their goals are any level. It will likely destroy them.[/quote]

You don’t know this. We thought we destroyed the Taliban. They just regrouped and came back.

It is one thing to have a military with a strong civilian support for both the war effort and the cause, and another entirely to have a military with weak civilian support.

The point is- We’re both just speculating here. Neither of us have any real idea what’ll actually happen if the U.S. sends ground troops. It could be like you said- ISIS crumbles. Or it could be like I said- ISIS reinvigorates itself and gets hundreds of thousands of new volunteers and the U.S. faces a challenge that goes beyond its current will.

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Well now your moving the goal posts here. First you said they are no threat, now they are and we’re doing something about it.[/quote]

No, I wrote that they’re not an existential threat to us, and that they cannot actually hurt us.

To further clarify- I meant that, in spite of their language and stated goals, they can’t actually pose a genuine, regime toppling etc, threat to us. They very well could cause another attack on the scale of 9/11. Heck, they may even be able to assassinate the POTUS. But none of these will cause the U.S. to fall on its knees, or really even hurt it in any significant manner.

This is the flaw behind all those terrorist attacks. All they do is provoke people, not actually hurt them in any particular manner.

ISIS is not the U.S.S.R. It is not the Japanese Empire. It is not Fascist Germany. Those countries posed a genuine, existential threat to the U.S.- ISIS does not.
[/quote]
Oh brother. So killing a whole bunch of people and threatening the lives of potentially hundreds or thousands of people is not enough for you. They have to completely dismantle the entire government and the country for you to care?

And clearly that’s not enough for you. However, the threat is way beyond killing a bunch of people, torturing, enslaving, and murder. It’s a destabilization of the entire region. Which is a problem for us as well as all involved.

[quote]

[quote]pat wrote:
They also have the ability to adjust and maneuver. It doesn’t matter if their goal is to engage the U.S. military in it’s full fury. Granting them that goal doesn’t mean it will serve them well or their goals are any level. It will likely destroy them.[/quote]

You don’t know this. We thought we destroyed the Taliban. They just regrouped and came back.

It is one thing to have a military with a strong civilian support for both the war effort and the cause, and another entirely to have a military with weak civilian support.

The point is- We’re both just speculating here. Neither of us have any real idea what’ll actually happen if the U.S. sends ground troops. It could be like you said- ISIS crumbles. Or it could be like I said- ISIS reinvigorates itself and gets hundreds of thousands of new volunteers and the U.S. faces a challenge that goes beyond its current will.[/quote]

You’re simply not paying attention and you’re wasting my time. If I have to spell this out for you at the most elementary levels, I have little hope you have any chance of understanding.

[quote]pat wrote:
Oh brother. So killing a whole bunch of people and threatening the lives of potentially hundreds or thousands of people is not enough for you.[/quote]

It’s not enough to consider an existential threat.

[quote]pat wrote:
They have to completely dismantle the entire government and the country for you to care?[/quote]

You’re descending into a strawman argument again.

Let me know where I wrote that I don’t care about ISIS and its actions.

I’m clearly trying to make a differentiation here between an “existential threat” and a “threat”.

The U.S. is already responding to the threat by sending air strikes and giving limited support to the countries that are fighting ISIS on the ground.

But I am arguing that ISIS doesn’t pose an existential threat to the U.S. itself, and as such sending ground troops in may be a premature decision, if not outright the wrong decision to make.

[quote]pat wrote:

And clearly that’s not enough for you. However, the threat is way beyond killing a bunch of people, torturing, enslaving, and murder. It’s a destabilization of the entire region. Which is a problem for us as well as all involved.
[/quote]

And you believe that the U.S. sending troops into the regions can stabilize it?

Do you believe the Iraq War brought stability to the region? What about the War in Afghanistan?

[quote]pat wrote:
You’re simply not paying attention and you’re wasting my time. If I have to spell this out for you at the most elementary levels, I have little hope you have any chance of understanding.[/quote]

So you believe that you know what’ll happen if the U.S. sends ground troops to battle ISIS?

Can you provide the sources that you’ve read that helped you form this belief so that I can read them myself?


ISIS hangs soldiers at city entrance.

Destroys ancient achealogical site:

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150307/ml--islamic_state-1baeadebf0.html

Moroccan woman arrested in Barcelona as ISIS recruiter:

Edited - Sorry misread your post initially. I thought you were talking about Iran. But I’ll leave the post anyway as it’s certainly true of Iran.

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Oh brother. So killing a whole bunch of people and threatening the lives of potentially hundreds or thousands of people is not enough for you.[/quote]

It’s not enough to consider an existential threat.

[quote]pat wrote:
They have to completely dismantle the entire government and the country for you to care?[/quote]

You’re descending into a strawman argument again.

Let me know where I wrote that I don’t care about ISIS and its actions.

I’m clearly trying to make a differentiation here between an “existential threat” and a “threat”.

The U.S. is already responding to the threat by sending air strikes and giving limited support to the countries that are fighting ISIS on the ground.

But I am arguing that ISIS doesn’t pose an existential threat to the U.S. itself, and as such sending ground troops in may be a premature decision, if not outright the wrong decision to make.

[quote]pat wrote:

And clearly that’s not enough for you. However, the threat is way beyond killing a bunch of people, torturing, enslaving, and murder. It’s a destabilization of the entire region. Which is a problem for us as well as all involved.
[/quote]

And you believe that the U.S. sending troops into the regions can stabilize it?

Do you believe the Iraq War brought stability to the region? What about the War in Afghanistan?

[quote]pat wrote:
You’re simply not paying attention and you’re wasting my time. If I have to spell this out for you at the most elementary levels, I have little hope you have any chance of understanding.[/quote]

So you believe that you know what’ll happen if the U.S. sends ground troops to battle ISIS?

Can you provide the sources that you’ve read that helped you form this belief so that I can read them myself?[/quote]

Iran has more ICBMs than anyone else in the ME. More than Israel. They already have medium range ballistic missiles that can reach Europe and within a very short time they will be able to reach America. It does actually represent an existential threat. ICBMs aren’t for high explosives. They’re for nuclear warheads. The batshit crazy Mullahs in Iran will soon have nuclear weapons(may already) and a huge arsenal of ICBMs. That’s an existential threat.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Edited - Sorry misread your post initially. I thought you were talking about Iran. But I’ll leave the post anyway as it’s certainly true of Iran.

Iran has more ICBMs than anyone else in the ME. More than Israel. They already have medium range ballistic missiles that can reach Europe and within a very short time they will be able to reach America. It does actually represent an existential threat. ICBMs aren’t for high explosives. They’re for nuclear warheads. The batshit crazy Mullahs in Iran will soon have nuclear weapons(may already) and a huge arsenal of ICBMs. That’s an existential threat.[/quote]

Of course Iran is an existential threat to the U.S., and if there is serious evidence that Iran means the U.S. harm then I think the U.S. should go in and remove whoever means harm.

Hopefully me saying this lets others know what I’m trying to convey when I differentiate between “existential threat” and “threat”.

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Oh brother. So killing a whole bunch of people and threatening the lives of potentially hundreds or thousands of people is not enough for you.[/quote]

It’s not enough to consider an existential threat.

[quote]pat wrote:
They have to completely dismantle the entire government and the country for you to care?[/quote]

You’re descending into a strawman argument again.

Let me know where I wrote that I don’t care about ISIS and its actions.

I’m clearly trying to make a differentiation here between an “existential threat” and a “threat”.

The U.S. is already responding to the threat by sending air strikes and giving limited support to the countries that are fighting ISIS on the ground.

But I am arguing that ISIS doesn’t pose an existential threat to the U.S. itself, and as such sending ground troops in may be a premature decision, if not outright the wrong decision to make.

[quote]pat wrote:

And clearly that’s not enough for you. However, the threat is way beyond killing a bunch of people, torturing, enslaving, and murder. It’s a destabilization of the entire region. Which is a problem for us as well as all involved.
[/quote]

And you believe that the U.S. sending troops into the regions can stabilize it?

Do you believe the Iraq War brought stability to the region? What about the War in Afghanistan?

[quote]pat wrote:
You’re simply not paying attention and you’re wasting my time. If I have to spell this out for you at the most elementary levels, I have little hope you have any chance of understanding.[/quote]

So you believe that you know what’ll happen if the U.S. sends ground troops to battle ISIS?

Can you provide the sources that you’ve read that helped you form this belief so that I can read them myself?[/quote]

I really don’t care if a threat is existential or not. This seems to be were we are missing here. I don’t differentiate between the two. And technically your wrong anyway. Terror has already fundamentally changed our lives for the worse, further threats from it will cause even more changes. Just because a place call the United States of America will still exist and will still have a Republic for a government doesn’t mean they haven’t and won’t fundamentally change the way we live. They have already succeeded there. So yes, their very presence, and the threats they make are existential threats to us. They threaten our freedoms and the way we live our lives and what we believe in as a country.

As far as methodology, I don’t really care how they are taken care of. Whether it be land, sea or air so long as they are done away with and done away with quickly. Dragging it out is the sure fire way to ensure maximum casualties for all involved.
Now when I said we are going to need boots on the ground regardless, I also specified, that if not for combat then to better assign targets from the air. I didn’t specify we needed ground troops to do war. But we do need at the least somebody on the ground to tell us where to put the missiles.
We lack the intelligence to be successful completely by air without more targets. We don’t carpet bomb like we did in ww2.
In other words there’s no way to avoid boots on the ground. And we already have a small but growing contingent. It’s not my desire to put people in harms way, but when war comes knocking it has to be fought with conviction. Not half measures.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Iran has more ICBMs than anyone else in the ME. More than Israel. They already have medium range ballistic missiles that can reach Europe and within a very short time they will be able to reach America. It does actually represent an existential threat. ICBMs aren’t for high explosives. They’re for nuclear warheads. The batshit crazy Mullahs in Iran will soon have nuclear weapons(may already) and a huge arsenal of ICBMs. That’s an existential threat.[/quote]

Iran has no ICBMs.

The only countries in the world known to possess land-based Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles are the United States, Russia, China, India and Israel. France and Britain also have submarine-based ICBMs.

“The U.S. Department of Defense no longer assesses that Iran could flight-test an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) capable of striking the United States by 2015, which had been the judgment held by U.S. intelligence since 1999. Instead, an unclassified summary of the Pentagon’s annual report to Congress on Iranian military power from January 2014 noted that Iran has publicly stated it may deploy a space launch vehicle by 2015, and that such a space launch vehicle could be capable of ICBM ranges if configured as a ballistic missile.”

A public statement that a country “may deploy” a space launch vehicle which “may be capable” of ICBM ranges is not exactly the same as having “more ICBMs than anyone else in the ME”.

Varq, could they launch a nuke from a ship? Or possibly detonate one hidden in a shipping container?

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Varq, could they launch a nuke from a ship? Or possibly detonate one hidden in a shipping container?[/quote]

Of course they could.

And if my grandmother had wheels she’d be a wheelbarrow.

Questions are, would they, why would they, and against whom would they?

The last question is pretty easily answered. They would likely launch a strike against Israel if they felt sufficiently threatened. I do not believe they would launch an unprovoked nuclear strike against anyone, and certainly not the United States. This would be suicide. Even crazy mullahs (who do not, in fact, dictate military policy in Iran) understand this.

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Iran has more ICBMs than anyone else in the ME. More than Israel. They already have medium range ballistic missiles that can reach Europe and within a very short time they will be able to reach America. It does actually represent an existential threat. ICBMs aren’t for high explosives. They’re for nuclear warheads. The batshit crazy Mullahs in Iran will soon have nuclear weapons(may already) and a huge arsenal of ICBMs. That’s an existential threat.[/quote]

Iran has no ICBMs.

The only countries in the world known to possess land-based Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles are the United States, Russia, China, India and Israel. France and Britain also have submarine-based ICBMs.

“The U.S. Department of Defense no longer assesses that Iran could flight-test an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) capable of striking the United States by 2015, which had been the judgment held by U.S. intelligence since 1999. Instead, an unclassified summary of the Pentagon’s annual report to Congress on Iranian military power from January 2014 noted that Iran has publicly stated it may deploy a space launch vehicle by 2015, and that such a space launch vehicle could be capable of ICBM ranges if configured as a ballistic missile.”

A public statement that a country “may deploy” a space launch vehicle which “may be capable” of ICBM ranges is not exactly the same as having “more ICBMs than anyone else in the ME”.

[/quote]

"Iran has the largest and most diverse ballistic missile arsenal in the Middle East…

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Iran has more ICBMs than anyone else in the ME. More than Israel. They already have medium range ballistic missiles that can reach Europe and within a very short time they will be able to reach America. It does actually represent an existential threat. ICBMs aren’t for high explosives. They’re for nuclear warheads. The batshit crazy Mullahs in Iran will soon have nuclear weapons(may already) and a huge arsenal of ICBMs. That’s an existential threat.[/quote]

Iran has no ICBMs.

The only countries in the world known to possess land-based Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles are the United States, Russia, China, India and Israel. France and Britain also have submarine-based ICBMs.

“The U.S. Department of Defense no longer assesses that Iran could flight-test an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) capable of striking the United States by 2015, which had been the judgment held by U.S. intelligence since 1999. Instead, an unclassified summary of the Pentagon’s annual report to Congress on Iranian military power from January 2014 noted that Iran has publicly stated it may deploy a space launch vehicle by 2015, and that such a space launch vehicle could be capable of ICBM ranges if configured as a ballistic missile.”

A public statement that a country “may deploy” a space launch vehicle which “may be capable” of ICBM ranges is not exactly the same as having “more ICBMs than anyone else in the ME”.

[/quote]

"Iran has the largest and most diverse ballistic missile arsenal in the Middle East…

[/quote]

A ballistic missile is not the same thing as an intercontinental ballistic missile. The article you linked, which neither has a date of publication nor lists its sources, uses words like “could” and “might” and “theoretically” a lot when discussing ICBM capabilities.

I suppose if Iran wanted to launch a missile over the border into Turkey, and if you consider Turkey to be Europe, then technically you could consider that ballistic missile to be “inter-continental” but at this point, that’s about it.

Listen, Iran was being ballyhooed as an existential threat to the United States when I joined the Army nearly three decades ago. The song “Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb bomb Iran” (to the tune of “Barbara Ann” was a hit on the radio. They might have rockets that could theoretically hit Tel Aviv from Tehran? OMG. We DEFINITELY have enough nuclear firepower in one submarine to turn every city in Iran into a slag heap. So does Israel, except they carry theirs on trucks, not submarines.