What if Iran attacked U.S?

[malo2]

[hide]

Another point that seems to have been eluded is that this little skirmish was in Iranian waters. I was watching the news thinking, satirically, "Yes, how DARE Iran use boats to threaten forgeign battleships that enters its territory. I mean, how unreasonable is THAT?".

It's not like the U.S has completely sealed off all Iranian waters even from itself and is aiming nukes at anyone who sets even a toe inside. They were patrolling, and common sense tells you not to come near a military ship, they had plenty of room swim in their cute little bathing suits in the rest of hundreds of miles of water.

 

That's irrelevant and you know it.

 

 

 

Those US ships had absolutely no right to be there in the first place. If they were trying to secure the waters of neighbouring countries, then of course that's a sensible thing to do, but they should have kept within the naval borders of those countries. The US has no Right of Passage agreement with Iran and should therefore not have been in Iranian waters in the first place.

[/hide]First of all, go look at the world map. You should find that Iran is hardly surrounded by sea, if they are not in Iranian waters, then they're in somebody else's waters, Iran does not border the ocean. So you are telling me they shouldn't be there at all which is not very smart. Even with the discovery that Iran has most likely halted it's nuclear program, it's still a thread with no nuclear program, espechially no nuclear program right now.

 

 

 

Second of all, who is complaining that the U.S is patrolling Iranian waters other than Iran? The Russians swim all over the Canadian waters without permission, I that thats a much bigger deal. It also happens in many other parts of the world as well. Yes when a small country is a threat to the big country, then not patrolling their waters is just stupid. This [kitty] train of thought is what puts everyone at risk from the international level down to the local level where people scream racist just because airport security double searches a bunch of loud praying Muslims. Boo Hoo.

 

 

 

America may have troops sent through-out the world, then again there is a good 230million residents in the U.S. who own at least a gun, and then most of them who would probably defend themselves with anything they can get their hands on. Can't invade the U.S. without mass casualties on either side.

 

 

 

Attack America on the shorelines, or in the middle of the Atlantic/Pacific would get you killed very quickly.

 

 

 

Improbable in my opinion. :|

 

 

 

You're an idiot. If anyone attacked the US, it'd be with (nuclear) bombs not guns and tanks. :roll:

I think you are the idiot that can't comprehend the world nuclear state. If anyone in the world would make a single nuclear attack, then the doomsday clock would be closer to midnight than it was during the Cuban missile crisis, and if you know your history, then you should know that's pretty damn close.

[Ginger_Warrior]

First of all, go look at the world map. You should find that Iran is hardly surrounded by sea, if they are not in Iranian waters, then they're in somebody else's waters, Iran does not border the ocean. So you are telling me they shouldn't be there at all which is not very smart. Even with the discovery that Iran has most likely halted it's nuclear program, it's still a thread with no nuclear program, espechially no nuclear program right now.

 

When there is evidence Iran is a threat to your domestic security, I'll agree with you. As it is, you're buying into hysteria. As mentioned before, the majority of Jihadists are trained in Saudi Arabia. Pakistan holds the HQ of al-Queda, not Iran.

 

 

 

Like it or not; Iran has a right to develop a nuclear program. I agree, nuclear weapons are not needed and none at all should exist, but I would urge you to look at your own nuclear stockpile before condemning another country for its intentions to develop nuclear power.

 

 

 

As for the territory issue, you're arguing a unreal point. The fact is, Iran does have its own naval space and has the right to dictate who enters that territory.

 

 

 

Second of all, who is complaining that the U.S is patrolling Iranian waters other than Iran? The Russians swim all over the Canadian waters without permission, I that thats a much bigger deal. It also happens in many other parts of the world as well. Yes when a small country is a threat to the big country, then not patrolling their waters is just stupid. This [kitty] train of thought is what puts everyone at risk from the international level down to the local level where people scream racist just because airport security double searches a bunch of loud praying Muslims. Boo Hoo.

 

I'm amazed you call me for being "not very smart" (and I suppose you know my IQ then?), and yet you brand Muslims as a 'race'.

[Bxpprod]

It seems that the media is proposing that Irani speed boats are threating USA warships about blowing themselfs up. Bush has commented that serious consequences will take place if this happens.

 

 

 

Now we already know what Bush and his Administration wants. He wants a dam good excuse to march into Iran for Oil and to make us pay heavy money for it.

 

 

 

So my question is, what IF Iran openly and admittedly attacked US troops. Would you want us to Invade Iran?

 

 

 

If so, how much longer would the war last? How would oil prices go?

 

 

 

Discuss.

 

 

 

Tehran will be leveled. Hiroshima style.

[darkmage099]

 

America may have troops sent through-out the world, then again there is a good 230million residents in the U.S. who own at least a gun, and then most of them who would probably defend themselves with anything they can get their hands on. Can't invade the U.S. without mass casualties on either side.

 

 

 

Attack America on the shorelines, or in the middle of the Atlantic/Pacific would get you killed very quickly.

 

 

 

Improbable in my opinion. :|

 

 

 

You're an idiot. If anyone attacked the US, it'd be with (nuclear) bombs not guns and tanks. :roll:

I think you are the idiot that can't comprehend the world nuclear state. If anyone in the world would make a single nuclear attack, then the doomsday clock would be closer to midnight than it was during the Cuban missile crisis, and if you know your history, then you should know that's pretty damn close.

 

 

 

L2 read, Malo...

 

 

 

Skatedog is saying that America's civilian guns will defend an invasion ( :roll: ). And I'm saying that's stupid because no one will ever invade America. IF someone wanted to attack America, it would be with bombs.

 

 

 

I dont even know what you're talking about with this nuclear state. That's completely irrelevant.

[Kashi]

If this online gaming forum populated by teenagers is any reflection of the average American's

 

opinion, then anything the US does is, apparently, wrong in the eyes of the voters.

 

 

 

 

 

'Pull troops out of Iraq? What are you thick?'

 

 

 

'Keep troops in Iraq? You blockhead.'

[darkmage099]

If this online gaming forum populated by teenagers is any reflection of the average American's

 

opinion, then anything the US does is, apparently, wrong in the eyes of the voters.

 

 

 

 

 

'Pull troops out of Iraq? What are you thick?'

 

 

 

'Keep troops in Iraq? You blockhead.'

 

 

 

You're right, we shouldn't voice our opinions. We shouldn't question our government and its actions. We shouldn't hold debate about what's right and what's wrong. You're right, we should all be ignorant citizens.

[malo2]

First of all, go look at the world map. You should find that Iran is hardly surrounded by sea, if they are not in Iranian waters, then they're in somebody else's waters, Iran does not border the ocean. So you are telling me they shouldn't be there at all which is not very smart. Even with the discovery that Iran has most likely halted it's nuclear program, it's still a thread with no nuclear program, espechially no nuclear program right now.

 

When there is evidence Iran is a threat to your domestic security, I'll agree with you. As it is, you're buying into hysteria. As mentioned before, the majority of Jihadists are trained in Saudi Arabia. Pakistan holds the HQ of al-Queda, not Iran.

 

 

 

Like it or not; Iran has a right to develop a nuclear program. I agree, nuclear weapons are not needed and none at all should exist, but I would urge you to look at your own nuclear stockpile before condemning another country for its intentions to develop nuclear power.

 

 

 

As for the territory issue, you're arguing a unreal point. The fact is, Iran does have its own naval space and has the right to dictate who enters that territory.

*looks at own country's nuclear stock pile* I got 0, how about you? ooh what's that? you have 200? looks like your argument has just backfired.

 

 

 

And yes, its a great idea to send suicidal speed boats at a military ship instead of discussing it if they had a problem. I believe that considering Iran being a threat (the Al-Queda point was pretty irrelevant) I think the U.S had it's right to peacefully patrol Iran's waters, you may not see it that way, but if you think that approaching them with speed boats and possibly suicide bombing is a better idea than simply negotiating with the U.S about it, then you are insane.

 

 

 

Second of all, who is complaining that the U.S is patrolling Iranian waters other than Iran? The Russians swim all over the Canadian waters without permission, I that thats a much bigger deal. It also happens in many other parts of the world as well. Yes when a small country is a threat to the big country, then not patrolling their waters is just stupid. This [kitty] train of thought is what puts everyone at risk from the international level down to the local level where people scream racist just because airport security double searches a bunch of loud praying Muslims. Boo Hoo.

 

I'm amazed you call me for being "not very smart" (and I suppose you know my IQ then?), and yet you brand Muslims as a 'race'.

idiot.

 

 

 

[hide]

 

America may have troops sent through-out the world, then again there is a good 230million residents in the U.S. who own at least a gun, and then most of them who would probably defend themselves with anything they can get their hands on. Can't invade the U.S. without mass casualties on either side.

 

 

 

Attack America on the shorelines, or in the middle of the Atlantic/Pacific would get you killed very quickly.

 

 

 

Improbable in my opinion. :|

 

 

 

You're an idiot. If anyone attacked the US, it'd be with (nuclear) bombs not guns and tanks. :roll:

I think you are the idiot that can't comprehend the world nuclear state. If anyone in the world would make a single nuclear attack, then the doomsday clock would be closer to midnight than it was during the Cuban missile crisis, and if you know your history, then you should know that's pretty damn close.

 

 

 

L2 read, Malo...

 

 

 

Skatedog is saying that America's civilian guns will defend an invasion ( :roll: ). And I'm saying that's stupid because no one will ever invade America. IF someone wanted to attack America, it would be with bombs.

 

 

 

I dont even know what you're talking about with this nuclear state. That's completely irrelevant.

[/hide]yeah sorry about that, but what i said still stands relevant.

[darkmage099]

*looks at own country's nuclear stock pile* I got 0, how about you?

 

 

 

And yes, its a great idea to send suicidal speed boats at a military ship instead of discussing it if they had a problem. I believe that considering Iran being a threat (the Al-Queda point was pretty irrevelent) I think the U.S had it's right to peacefully patrol Iran's waters, you may not see it that way, but if you think that approaching them with speed boats and possibly suicide bombing is a better idea than simply negotiating with the U.S about it, then you are insane.

 

 

 

Why are you condemning Iran for nukes but not America?

 

 

 

 

 

Who said they sent suicidal speed boats at military ships. Please, show me your evidence; not assumptions.

 

 

 

Negotiate with the US. Hah, this is a discussion not a comedy club.

[malo2]

*looks at own country's nuclear stock pile* I got 0, how about you?

 

 

 

And yes, its a great idea to send suicidal speed boats at a military ship instead of discussing it if they had a problem. I believe that considering Iran being a threat (the Al-Queda point was pretty irrevelent) I think the U.S had it's right to peacefully patrol Iran's waters, you may not see it that way, but if you think that approaching them with speed boats and possibly suicide bombing is a better idea than simply negotiating with the U.S about it, then you are insane.

 

 

 

Why are you condemning Iran for nukes but not America?

 

 

 

 

 

Who said they sent suicidal speed boats at military ships. Please, show me your evidence; not assumptions.

 

 

 

Negotiate with the US. Hah, this is a discussion not a comedy club.

because you see, U.S is one of the countries that disassembles nukes to this day (it has about 1/3 of the nukes it had at the height of the cold war), and is the most responsible with keeping them safe and avoiding any nuclear war. Why would you think the U.S wants to start launching nukes at everyone? the U.S is not am militaristic country, it has 300 million regular people living in it, and it's government does what it can to earn their support so it can get re-elected, and that does not include directing nukes at other countries. Why isn't anyone condemning Russia for it's nukes? it has more nukes than anybody else. Worry about Pakistan who has enough nukes to kill a good 2-4billion people, and has a very unstable country.

 

 

 

Secondly, circling a military ship who would obviously suspect you of being a suicide bomber is pretty suicidal, kinda like dancing with a towel covering your face, around a soldier patrolling Iraq.

[BlueLancer]

What if Iran attacked U.S?

 

 

 

If Iran, or any other country for that matter, made an open attack on U.S. soil,

 

I believe the government would launch enough nuclear missiles to reduce the entire

 

country to a smouldering pile of ash.

 

 

 

(This is not sarcasm, I am being 100% serious.)

 

 

 

 

 

If there were US soldiers occupying Iran and an attack on those soldiers was officially sanctioned by

 

the Iranian government, I believe the U.S. would invade Iran (in a way this course of action would be

 

both justice and misjustice.)

 

 

 

Because it obviously makes strategic sense to massacre an entire country, make the world's 5th largest oil exporter uninhabitable for a century and destroying all it's infrastructure.

 

 

 

Why do you think the US never retaliated against Saudi Arabia even though Osama himself is a Saudi and so were the 9/11 hijackers? Saudi Arabia produces 4 gigabarrels of oil every year (600 million tons).

 

 

 

They have nearly more oil reserves than all the other countries of the world combined. The US will never attack Saudi Arabia or any other middle-eastern country with nuclear weapons.

 

 

 

Iraq is the world's 3rd oil richest country, and a ridiculously easy target due to their outdated military under Saddam's rule. But hey, they're in the middle east, and they have a bad dictator. Let's blame them for 9/11 and claim credit for purge terrorism from the world.

 

 

 

Read the CIA world factbook entry on Saudi Arabia's export partners. Yep, guess who's the biggest importer of their products (along with Japan which direly needs it). Hint: The product is not sand or electronic devices.

 

 

 

By buying american gasoline, you directly fund palaces, women, booze, and private soccer stadiums for the 3000-or-so Saudi princes who own all those shell corporations. Oh those Quran-abiding sympathetic princes.

[Ginger_Warrior]

*looks at own country's nuclear stock pile* I got 0, how about you? ooh what's that? you have 200? looks like your argument has just backfired.

 

Which part of "I agree, nuclear weapons are not needed and none at all should exist" did you not understand? You know as much as anyone else I don't blindly support the policies of my nation, and was disappointed at the decision by my government to renew the Trident missile defence scheme. I also support the CND. Where on Earth did I condone having 200 missiles, or nuclear power at all in Britain?

 

 

 

Also, notice my word "stockpile", not "missiles". Do you or do you not have nuclear power? I think you'll find the answer to that question is in fact 'yes'. So what gives you the right to condemn Iran for wanting to start a nuclear program of their own?

 

 

 

And yes, its a great idea to send suicidal speed boats at a military ship instead of discussing it if they had a problem. I believe that considering Iran being a threat (the Al-Queda point was pretty irrelevant) I think the U.S had it's right to peacefully patrol Iran's waters, you may not see it that way, but if you think that approaching them with speed boats and possibly suicide bombing is a better idea than simply negotiating with the U.S about it, then you are insane.

 

Maybe not in those tactics no, but you're missing the point. You've quite rightly pointed out your anger at Russia placing its naval units in your territory, then you say America has the right to do it to another country, simply because, as you put it, they're 'smaller'. My question is why did America feel it had a right to be there in the first place? Because I personally see no justification; while conversly I see Iran has every right to defend its borders.

 

 

 

I'm amazed you call me for being "not very smart" (and I suppose you know my IQ then?), and yet you brand Muslims as a 'race'

idiot.

 

Big word. I presume that means you accept your point was fundamentally flawed then?

[9Fade1]

If Bush wants a war with Iran, I say give him an AK-47 and see who long he'll last on his own,

 

 

 

George Bush vs The Iranian Army,

 

 

 

That would be a good t.v Programme

[malo2]

And yes, its a great idea to send suicidal speed boats at a military ship instead of discussing it if they had a problem. I believe that considering Iran being a threat (the Al-Queda point was pretty irrelevant) I think the U.S had it's right to peacefully patrol Iran's waters, you may not see it that way, but if you think that approaching them with speed boats and possibly suicide bombing is a better idea than simply negotiating with the U.S about it, then you are insane.

 

Maybe not in those tactics no, but you're missing the point. You've quite rightly pointed out your anger at Russia placing its naval units in your territory, then you say America has the right to do it to another country, simply because, as you put it, they're 'smaller'. My question is why did America feel it had a right to be there in the first place? Because I personally see no justification; while conversly I see Iran has every right to defend its borders.

no actually russian subs in my country's territory is really the least of my problems as long as they cause no trouble. America does have the right to be in Iran because I ran is still a nuclear threat, do you realize than nuclear weapons are the only thing on the planet capable of destroying all life in a few days? If America gets nuked, then Canada is [bleep]ed too because many of Americas major cities are very close to Canada, we would be the first to feel the devastating effects from radiation. If a country makes serious threats against another, and then begins a nuclear program then action should be taken immediately. Even if they have halted their nuclear program, that does not mean it's safe to leave. When did a few military ships in Iran kill anybody? I have no problem with Russia floating nukes in my completely innocent waters, why is Iran, who has threatened America multiple times, have a problem if it no longer has anything to hide?

 

 

 

I'm amazed you call me for being "not very smart" (and I suppose you know my IQ then?), and yet you brand Muslims as a 'race'

idiot.

 

Big word. I presume that means you accept your point was fundamentally flawed then?

My question is; were you born just yesterday? Is Arabic not a race like black, white, and asian? Have you never heard of racial profiling going on not in just america, but everywhere in the world?

[Ginger_Warrior]

And my question is, do you not realise the difference between Muslims and Arabs? You clearly stated "muslims", which are part of the Islamic religion, not a race. Of course, if you're seriously implying all Arabs are Muslims, then I may as well accuse you of racial stereotyping now.

 

 

 

no actually russian subs in my country's territory is really the least of my problems as long as they cause no trouble.

 

The Russians swim all over the Canadian waters without permission, I that thats a much bigger deal.

 

Hmm... contradiction?

 

 

 

So you agree with a country placing its naval units into another country, without that country's permission (in fact, forget that; at that country's opposition) based on the idea Iran might develop nuclear missiles and might launch them at an American city that might be close to the Canadian border?

 

 

 

You're removing a nation's right to defend its borders based on something which is only going to happen after three variables?

 

 

 

Wouldn't it be easier to just coerce them by helping them develop nuclear power, on the condition America, the UN and the EU can keep inspectors inside Iran, keeping an eye on all nuclear activity thereafter?

 

 

 

Or am I just, as you put it, an 'idiot' whose arguments could not possibly have any validity, based on my opinion Muslims should be held to the same level of pre-suspicion as everyone else at an airport? I mean... how naÃÆÃâÃâïve of me to suggest a country with supposedly democratic values should do that.

[malo2]

And my question is, do you not realise the difference between Muslims and Arabs? You clearly stated "muslims", which are part of the Islamic religion, not a race. Of course, if you're seriously implying all Arabs are Muslims, then I may as well accuse you of racial stereotyping now.

Wow you really must be living under a rock. Let me explain, racial profiling is when security or basically anybody else dealing with a security sensitive matter is extra careful when a person of a certain race appears. When four Arabs come to an airport to take a trip to Washington or something, the security is extra careful because there is a higher chance that they are suicidal Muslim extremists then the four white Americans before them. Sad but true, and sometimes necessary.

 

 

 

no actually russian subs in my country's territory is really the least of my problems as long as they cause no trouble.

 

The Russians swim all over the Canadian waters without permission, I that thats a much bigger deal.

 

Hmm... contradiction?

 

 

 

So you agree with a country placing its naval units into another country, without that country's permission (in fact, forget that; at that country's opposition) based on the idea Iran might develop nuclear missiles and might launch them at an American city that might be close to the Canadian border?

 

 

 

You're removing a nation's right to defend its borders based on something which is only going to happen after three variables?

 

 

 

Wouldn't it be easier to just coerce them by helping them develop nuclear power, on the condition America, the UN and the EU can keep inspectors inside Iran, keeping an eye on all nuclear activity thereafter?

 

 

 

Or am I just, as you put it, an 'idiot' whose arguments could not possibly have any validity, based on my opinion Muslims should be held to the same level of pre-suspicion as everyone else at an airport? I mean... how naÃÆÃâÃâïve of me to suggest a country with supposedly democratic values should do that.

What contradiction? what are you talking about? yes it is a much bigger deal because Canada is a more powerful and more important country, if Russia were to attack Canada that would be far more damaging to the stability around the world than if poor little Iran went to war with the U.S. But that doesn't mean I think that will happen, i just don't see Russia attacking Canada because they have never really had many major problems, and they are not any kind of a threat to each other.

 

 

 

As for Iran, is there something you do not comprehend about the devastating effects of nuclear warfare? Would you actually consider three variables to be enough to assume the safety of about 100 MILLION (or much much more) people? If you were the U.S secretary of defense then the world would be [bleep]ed. Not only that, it's not three variables, are you that self centered that you don't consider the fact that billions of lives would be at risk if Iran got through the first variable? The second variable means that millions will be dead, maybe I would happen to be still alive by chance, but i would still feel the effects of radiation being carried over by weather, ect...

 

 

 

 

 

As for using nuclear energy safely, I don't have a problem, and I don't think anyone else should. But what is wrong with keeping a few military ships near by just in case something goes over the line? Billions of lives is not something to joke about, if Iran has nothing to hide, it should not have a problem with U.S military ships patrolling their waters, just like I have no problem with Russian subs patrolling Canadian waters.

[Rebdragon]

malo, learn to go back through your posts and edit out the word "idiot" and it's synonyms. It gets really annoying after a while having to continually read that in a post.

[darkmage099]

malo, learn to go back through your posts and edit out the word "idiot" and it's synonyms. It gets really annoying after a while having to continually read that in a post.

 

agreeeeeeeeeeeeed

[frogmann2]

If Iran attacks one of our ships, then we'll send a missle so far up their [wagon] we'll knock their teeth out, and I'll be following that missle and killing the American murdering bastards. If they threaten us, try to deal with it at the table, but leave the guns on the table so they know we're not gonna stand by and watch them push us around

 

 

 

As for gas prices, the government has nothing to do with gas prices, it's all the gas company, whom the governemtn has nothing, and should have nothing, to do with. If invading Iran does anything to gas prices, it'll lower them. Anyways, if we were really so gas driven, why ahven't we invaded Kuwait, or Saudi Arabia, or drilled into the Alaskan oil reserves.

 

 

 

And another thing, there is nothing for ending an economic slump like a good war. Plenty of money being distributed to suppliers for, well, supplies. Look what ended the Great Depression, WW2.

[Zealot]

The only motive that I can concieve of for Iran attacking the US right now is if it were the case that they believed doing so would make Iraq become another Islamic Republic. That seems rather improbable to me at the moment even if the United States were forced to greatly reduce their presence there, so it seems equilly improbable that Iran will openly attack the United States. Support insurgency? sure... But they have little to gain and much to lose by awakening the sleeping giant's wrath.

 

 

 

If it does come to war between the United States and Iran I suspect that it is more likely to do so via an attack on Israel... God help us all if that happens.

[MrMateo]

we'd nuke the frikkin crap out of them. :twisted:

[Olbritishchap]

I'm pretty sure they'd get owned by our military. I saw a video about it and someone( i think it was a presidential candidate) said about the speed boat incident "They have no idea how close they came to meeting those virgins they're supposed to get" lol.

[Defender2516]

Bush is ready to go to War with Iran because his election is soon over and wants to get in there before our troops are set to pull out.

 

 

 

Its been reported on the news that he annouced we must attack Iran for the security of the world and nation.

 

 

 

Also, a new news report stated that Iran has a time limit to respond to their possible WMD's and their "ambitions", or we could just simpley invade on its neglect to respond.

 

 

 

He is literally doing EVERYTHING in his power to get a good dam excuse to go to war with these people and I hope the American people don't buy into this BS. We already made a mistake with Iraq, don't make one now with Iran.

 

 

 

Intresting to know that Iraq was the top terrorist funding nation back in 2001, and now its Iran in 2008. Please, what more lies will you continue to feed the population so you can justify yourself attacking them. 70% of America already disapprove of his leadership.

[BlueLancer]

Bush is ready to go to War with Iran because his election is soon over and wants to get in there before our troops are set to pull out.

 

 

 

Its been reported on the news that he annouced we must attack Iran for the security of the world and nation.

 

 

 

Also, a new news report stated that Iran has a time limit to respond to their possible WMD's and their "ambitions", or we could just simpley invade on its neglect to respond.

 

 

 

He is literally doing EVERYTHING in his power to get a good dam excuse to go to war with these people and I hope the American people don't buy into this BS. We already made a mistake with Iraq, don't make one now with Iran.

 

 

 

Intresting to know that Iraq was the top terrorist funding nation back in 2001, and now its Iran in 2008. Please, what more lies will you continue to feed the population so you can justify yourself attacking them. 70% of America already disapprove of his leadership.

 

 

 

Other than the 70% disapproval (which is quite true), it would be nice if you provided sources for those other claims.

 

 

 

I never heard or read a news report where Bush claimed Iran should be attacked. The harshest I've heard is "we are keeping all options on the table", I never heard the US should attack Iran.

[Google90]

There is not one country that would attack the mainland of the top economic country of the world.

[Lenticular_J]

If it was any serious attack, with any nuclear weapons even being THOUGHT OF...Hello World War 3. I highly doubt ANYONE would be stupid enough to ignore such a world-wide threat. Much like in World War 2. Nazi scientists were suspected to be developing all sorts of high-tech weapons, including missiles. Apart from a handful of alliances (mostly passed by threats), Nazi Germany had the whole world against it. Everyone takes notice over nuclear/high-tech threats. Two countries developing nuclear technology - including weaponry? North Korea and Iran. What two countries are being watched very closely by the UN? Exactly.

 

While I highly doubt any country would attack any country with a strong foundation and plenty of alliances (From the United States to England to New Zealand), if they did...They would certainly be screwed.

 

 

 

But if nukes were involved, we'd all be screwed. :uhh:

 

(By the way, any responses to this post probably won't be taken notice of. I rarely look back at debates : )