Option 3: America doesn't attack Iran, Iran invades Israel, and Israel doesn't use any of its 400 nukes stationed on submarines just off Iran's coast to level its mortal enemy. Check.

If Iran invades Israel and appears likely to win, Israel will nuke Iran and vice versa.  

Option 4: America doesn't attack Iran, and Iran and Israel engage in 50 years of Cold War, while Iran gets consistently weaker because its oil becomes less and less valuable as America shifts to hydraulically-fracked natural gas for its energy needs and Iran gets "guided" by people who have demonstrated their economic cluelessness repeatedly.

This is the best possibility, certainly, and probably the one that is most likely to occur, but it's also very risky to assume that everything will work out just so and nothing bad will happen.

Maybe Iran never recovers, just as Pakistan may never recover. Maybe America should engage in some nation-building, since it has worked so well everywhere you have tried it.

I don't like the idea of an invasion any more than you do, I just don't think it's an option that can be ruled out completely.  I don't trust the neo-cons or Israel to make the decision, but if the consensus international diplomatic position came to be that war was the only way to stop Iran from getting the bomb, I could see myself supporting that option depending on the circumstances.

Allons-y!

3. I agree. That was my point. ("Check.")

4. I agree this option would be most likely, which was another of my points. Cold Wars certainly carry risk, just less risk than open hostilities.

400 seems an unlikely high number.

I thought I read last year that Israel had 400 nukes deployed on submarines which were stationed off Dubai (with Dubai's acquiescence). If you have better numbers, I'd love to hear them. But in any case, Israel plainly has more than enough nukes to turn all of Iran into plate glass, which was my point to begin with, and that Iran has as much reason to be paranoid about Israeli attack as Israel has to be paranoid about Iranian attack.

The current estimate for numbers of nuclear warheads Israel possesses is between 75 and 400.  Some of those can be launched from the Israel Dolphin class sub.  Most of those warheads are undoubtedly located inside the territorial boundaries of Israel in highly secure locations.  There may be a few which are located on board Dolphin subs, but that would be the extent of the sub-launched threat --a few.

I am shitfitter; hear me roar.

Really don't like the idea of a nuclear-armed Israel, but since the US sure isn't going to go in and take them away, it's better that Iran and other countries in the region get them ASAP to act as some sort of check on Israeli behavior.  

An armed society is a polite society, after all.

I got more styles than prison got bricks- ain't that some shit?

What Israeli behavior do you find troublesome?

bulldozing houses

white phosphorous

I got more styles than prison got bricks- ain't that some shit?

You believe Iran would nuke someone who bulldozed a house?

What's wrong with white phosphorous?

It figures you'd see nothing wrong with it.  For someone like you, who obviously used WP to ease your jock itch, it figures.

I am shitfitter; hear me roar.

Well, then, enlighten me: what is wrong with it? I mean, one obviously ought not go around burning people and places without a very good reason, but if one must, what is wrong with WP as opposed to something else?

No, I don't believe Iran would start a nuclear war over one house.

White phosphorous is great for making smoke and burning stuff, the problems start when Israel uses it to commit war crimes by burning civilians and medics.

I got more styles than prison got bricks- ain't that some shit?

How many bulldozed houses until a nuke was appropriate?

Israel maintains that there were Hamas fighters in the areas where it used WP. No war crime.

The Nazis maintain there were no Jews in the gas chambers, only puppies. No war crime.

No, that never happened. Your knowledge of history is abysmal.

Your comprehension skills are abysmal. My point was that it is idiotic to ask the accused if they committed a war crime. It seems there might be a conflict of interest there.

It is idiotic to ask the people who actually committed the acts whether or not what they did was legal?

You going to ask John Gotti if his acts were legal?

You're just trolling now.

Using WP is not illegal. Using WP when there are civilians around is not necessarily illegal. The circumstances matter.

That's all well and good, but I don't want to told of the circumstances behind the use by the people using it. That's not what I would call an unbiased source.

Do you believe the IDF was deliberately targeting civilians and knew there were no Hamas personnel in the area?

Let's say there's 1 Hamas guy in a group of 1000 civilians, would that be legal or illegal use of WP in your view?

That hypothetical would not seem proportionate to me.

What ratio would be proportionate to you to make it legal?

That depends on how many angels are dancing on the head of your pin.

You want to use WP on angels too?

WP is no good on angels; you have to use napalm.

Hopefully nuclear weapons would be kept mainly as a deterrent, instead of used as retaliation or punishments.  I don't recall very many nuclear weapons used in anger since the late 1940's.

Al Qaeda maintains that the US deserved 9/11...

But if Israel says they didn't do anything bad then they must not have done anything bad.

I got more styles than prison got bricks- ain't that some shit?

Hopefully nuclear weapons would be kept mainly as a deterrent, instead of used as retaliation or punishments

But if Israel says they didn't do anything bad then they must not have done anything bad

* Have you heard of the concept of Nonproliferation?

I imagine a substantial number of houses would need to be bulldozed before something as drastic as a nuclear strike would be the appropriate response.  Fortunately, though, we are speaking about nuclear weapons being kept as a deterrent and not as a retaliatory option.  By that I mean, their existence is meant to deter Israeli misbehavior through fear of retaliation regardless of whatever actual threshold another country decides to set as the point where nukes are launched.

You still haven't posted what Israel actually said- only that they "maintain" that enemy forces were present in the area that the WP was fired.  I'm not familiar with international law regarding the circumstances in which killing civilians, medics, or aid workers is allowed- but if there is a guideline as to how many of those may be killed in furtherance of some goal without it being considered a war crime, then the same ought to be applied in the reverse.

I got more styles than prison got bricks- ain't that some shit?

Fortunately, though, we are speaking about nuclear weapons being kept as a deterrent and not as a retaliatory option.  By that I mean, their existence is meant to deter Israeli misbehavior through fear of retaliation regardless of whatever actual threshold another country decides to set as the point where nukes are launched

Anyway, given your stance, you would no doubt agree that Israel (or anyone else, I suppose) is, even as we speak, justified in threatening to use nuclear weapons against Iran. After all, Iran's violations of human rights exceed Israel's by several orders of magnitude.

I'm not familiar with international law regarding the circumstances in which killing civilians, medics, or aid workers is allowed- but if there is a guideline as to how many of those may be killed in furtherance of some goal without it being considered a war crime...

HRW is a pretty good site.  What do they have to say about Israel and the Occupied Territories?

Yes, although I don't believe they would admit such a thing.

I got more styles than prison got bricks- ain't that some shit?

Well, since there is no evidence whatsoever that they intentionally targeted civilians, I have concluded that you are delusional.

Hmm yes. When Israel kills civilians, it's just an accident.

I got more styles than prison got bricks- ain't that some shit?

Hah!

Don't bother trying to point out their numerous logical inconsistencies, it's a religion. You just believe