Iranian Missile Base to be Built in Venezuela

[Skilero]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...=feeds-newsxml

In order to grease the wheels of the venture, the Iranians paid in cash for the preliminary phase and, the total cost is expected to come to 'dozens of millions' of dollars, say Die Welt.
The German publication said that the secret agreement between Venezuela and Iran would allow the Chavez government to fire rockets at Iran’s enemies, should the Islamic Republic face military strikes.
In recent years Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is thought to have been building a nuclear arsenal, and has - on occasion - shown his country's capability, firing rockets into the sea.



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz1MeKWxxDm

The base would have the potential to fire nuclear weapons.
This alarms me more than anything else has since 9/11.

[Light Buster]

If they use this against us, we would be dead.

[Eris]

I'm skeptical. Certain elements within US politics has a long history of finding incontrovertible evidence of huge threats where ever it's convenient to do so.

So my immediate reaction is "Oh, Obama must be up for reelection soon."

If they use this against us, we would be dead.

Why would they? They can't possibly have enough nukes to do more than destroy a city or two, which would just lead to massive retaliation. Seems more like a defensive move than anything else.

[Skilero]

I'm skeptical. Certain elements within US politics has a long history of finding incontrovertible evidence of huge threats where ever it's convenient to do so.

So my immediate reaction is "Oh, Obama must be up for reelection soon."

If they use this against us, we would be dead.

Why would they? They can't possibly have enough nukes to do more than destroy a city or two, which would just lead to massive retaliation. Seems more like a defensive move than anything else.

A defensive move could be sub-categorized into a countering tactic for, say, the implications of attacking Israel? We don't even know if it is safe to assume Iran can or cannot stockpile enough nuclear warheads to destroy multiple cities. Even so, the fact that a missile base is randomly being constructed in Venezuela and that these developments weren't supposed to go public leads me to believe that Iran has plans for the future.

[Kyubi-no-kitsune]

oh fun it sounds like the beginnings of another cuban missle crisis and were is JFK when we need him lol

[Anoleis]

Didn't Obama visit Chavez at some point? Idk, this has a great deal of politics involved, and that alone smells fishy. However, they could have let Pelosi walk around...

[Eris]

A defensive move could be sub-categorized into a countering tactic for, say, the implications of attacking Israel?

The implications of attacking Israel should come from the UN, not the US, so I don't really see this as relevant.

We don't even know if it is safe to assume Iran can or cannot stockpile enough nuclear warheads to destroy multiple cities. Even so, the fact that a missile base is randomly being constructed in Venezuela and that these developments weren't supposed to go public leads me to believe that Iran has plans for the future.

We're speaking tens of thousands of warheads* for a mutually assured destruction scheme. Pretty much thee entire country would be blanketed in missile silos. This is not something that goes unnoticed.

* as these things are fairly easy to intercept, the idea behind a MAD scheme is to send so many that even if the majority are intercepted, complete destruction is guaranteed.

[DOOM!]

Oh, what difference does it make if either the happi-go-lucky amerikanians or hlah-hlah musulman iranians have nukes?
Firstly, they'll never use them because, Secondly, if one is fired and another idiot retaliates, followed by another retaliating idiot, everything of value will be lost to all.
Also, why are nukes still frightening when there are countless, horrifying WMD out there, mostly being possessed by the 'good guys'?

[Skilero]

The implications of attacking Israel should come from the UN, not the US, so I don't really see this as relevant.

Holding the United States against the wall would also threaten the United Nations at the same time.

We're speaking tens of thousands of warheads* for a mutually assured destruction scheme. Pretty much thee entire country would be blanketed in missile silos. This is not something that goes unnoticed.

* as these things are fairly easy to intercept, the idea behind a MAD scheme is to send so many that even if the majority are intercepted, complete destruction is guaranteed.

One hit is danger enough to threaten if you ask me.

One should take note of the below information.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Thursday the solution to the Middle East crisis was to destroy Israel, Iranian state media reported.
In a speech during an emergency meeting of Muslim leaders in Malaysia, Ahmadinejad also called for an immediate cease-fire to end the fighting between Israel and the Iranian-back group Hezbollah.

"Although the main solution is for the elimination of the Zionist regime, at this stage an immediate cease-fire must be implemented," Ahmadinejad said, according to state-run television in a report posted on its Web site.

Source: http://www.haaretz.com/news/ahmadine...ation-1.194367

[Eris]

Holding the United States against the wall would also threaten the United Nations at the same time.

Not really. The US generally only does the UN's bidding when it's convenient.

One hit is danger enough to threaten if you ask me.

That would just lead to even stronger retaliation.

[Skilero]

Not really. The US generally only does the UN's bidding when it's convenient.

I agree with you there on the UN's bidding, but the fact that an ally's well-being is at risk for countering an action executed by Iran against Israel that an overwhelming majority of nations in the Middle East would support might not seem worth it for the UN. What you're saying is true, but isn't it possible that Iran's just looking for some insurance in the event that it faces an overwhelming sanction for its actions?

Also, friendly nation Colombia will be uneasy with this missile base held by a hostile entity neighboring it.

That would just lead to even stronger retaliation.

I mean, the threat of a single hit is enough to make you second-guess any intervention in a theoretical situation like the attacking of Israel - let alone something at a lesser degree of danger.

This isn't an unthinkable thing to happen - let's look at the quote again:

"Although the main solution is for the elimination of the Zionist regime, at this stage an immediate cease-fire must be implemented,"

Source: http://www.haaretz.com/news/ahmadine...ation-1.194367

At this stage, the point in time at which Ahmadinejad was quoted, was not the right time to seek out the "main solution" to the Middle East crisis in eliminating the "Zionist regime". Is this a move to ready for that "stage"? I want to know for sure that it isn't before I dismiss this missile base as nonsense.

[Eris]

I agree with you there on the UN's bidding, but the fact that an ally's well-being is at risk for countering an action executed by Iran against Israel that an overwhelming majority of nations in the Middle East would support might not seem worth it for the UN. What you're saying is true, but isn't it possible that Iran's just looking for some insurance in the event that it faces an overwhelming sanction for its actions?

Also, friendly nation Colombia will be uneasy with this missile base held by a hostile entity neighboring it.

I mean, the threat of a single hit is enough to make you second-guess any intervention in a theoretical situation like the attacking of Israel - let alone something at a lesser degree of danger.

My point is that this doesn't really affect US decisions at all. If Iran fires a missile, they will face massive retaliation to the point where the country will be a smoldering radioactive crater, hence they can't fire a missile. That's the entire point of nuclear weapons, they're a deterrent: If either side attacks, both sides lose.

This isn't an unthinkable thing to happen - let's look at the quote again:

At this stage, the point in time at which Ahmadinejad was quoted, was not the right time to seek out the "main solution" to the Middle East crisis in eliminating the "Zionist regime". Is this a move to ready for that "stage"? I want to know for sure that it isn't before I dismiss this missile base as nonsense.

I tend not to put too much stock into context-less quotes. Solution to what? The "zionist regime" could also refer to the Israeli government.

[Skilero]

My point is that this doesn't really affect US decisions at all. If Iran fires a missile, they will face massive retaliation to the point where the country will be a smoldering radioactive crater, hence they can't fire a missile. That's the entire point of nuclear weapons, they're a deterrent: If either side attacks, both sides lose.

Unfortunately, the countries involved in retaliation for an event like Iran's attacking Israel might not think both sides' losing is worth it, especially when it isn't just Iran who would respond to such retaliation. Furthermore, the retaliation wouldn't bring anything to a 'smoldering radioactive crater' simply because of the fact that outright bombing Iran would bring about civilian casualties too immense for its allies to respond with inaction. If anything, a long campaign would take place in Iran to overthrow the government; this would be met with a lot of retaliation.

I tend not to put too much stock into context-less quotes. Solution to what? The "zionist regime" could also refer to the Israeli government.

According to the linked article, the solution is for the Middle East's issues in the social and political aspects of their life. Also, President Ahmadinejad has had a history of saying things against those in control of Israel, aside from Israelites themselves. Ahmadinejad uses the term "Zionist", often coupled with "regime" for emphasis, to characterize the political and economic leaders of Israel.

We can assume a lot of things here, but it is most certainly a fact that Ahmadinejad wants to remove the current government in Israel. If and when he does so, the missiles would act as a deterrent to other countries' inervening in the mission.