Iranians Break Reactor Seals

#3
and perhaps even some Israeli 'we-can-bomb-any-country-we-like' type antics.
Which makes a change from "We can supply any country we like, and screw embargos" type antics. Allegedly.
 
#5
Any direct action against Iran should fall squarely into the laps of the French & Germans. After all, they are shouting the loudest, but refused to get involved with Iraq/Afghanistan.
 
#6
I'm running a sweepstake on when the Israeli airforce bomb it. That'll put the proverbial cat amongst the pigeons.

V!
 
#7
I've been watching this caper for yonks, and also the way it's been reported. It's noticeable that everyone seems to conveniently "forget" that Iran has done nothing wrong or illegal. It's always been in compliance with the conditions as laid down in the anti-proliferation treaties and within the guidelines of the IAEI.

I might be wrong, but I get the distinct impression that the "Michelin Man" in Israel has given the nod to BUSH (Brain Use Sure Hurts!) to get on the case, in spite of the fact that the differing treatments of Iraq and North Korea (one country weak and vulnerable with no nukes, the other one of unknown status but quite possibly WITH nukes), sent out a very clear message to other countries: get yourself some nukes if you want to be left alone.

MsG
 
#8
It's noticeable that everyone seems to conveniently "forget" that Iran has done nothing wrong or illegal.
Bit of a lawyer's answer, isn't it? Iran is a dodgy theocracy/ police state that sponsors terrorism. I think it's reasonable to take a policy decision that they are likely to want to cement their aspiration to be regional top dog by developing nuclear weapons capability. And, furthermore, their manifest belief at governmental/ policy level that there is definitely a happy afterlife might mean that they might be prepared to use them. I don't trust countries run by clerics of any religion, personally.

If my next-door neighbour, who's previously done time for dealing narcotics, goes out and buys a chemistry set, some hydroponic equipment and some large exotic-looking plants then he's done nothing illegal. However, what sort of fcukwit would I be if I didn't suspect he might be knocking up a load of drugs?

V!
 
#9
Dear Vegetius,

I share your misgivings, believe me. I don't trust the fatherlesses either, simply because, in the past, they've given me absolutely no reason to. But their every move is being monitored by the IAEI. Now, you could say that there's still reason to distrust them, despite that, but unfortunately, that's about all the control the international community is going to get.
My point is that it's all a smoke job to tighten American control of the Middle East and is being blown out of all proportion expressly for that purpose.

MsG
 
#10
I don't like the prospect of a nuclear Iran but would make the following observations:

1. Anything the Americans/Israelis do in the way of military action will make things far worse.

2. I didn't like the prospect of India and Pakistan pointing nukes at each other, but that seems to have evolved peacefully.
 
#11
The irans have had a evil regime imposed on them by the yanks . Invaded by a evil regime backed by the yanks .Seen two neigbour countries invaded by the yanks .Why wouldnt they want a nuke ? There is a bit of democracy and a bit of liberalism just watch bushes stormtroopers smash it . Personally pull out and let the arabs &israels nuke each other too bits .
 
#12
woody said:
The irans have had a evil regime imposed on them by the yanks . Invaded by a evil regime backed by the yanks .Seen two neigbour countries invaded by the yanks .Why wouldnt they want a nuke ? There is a bit of democracy and a bit of liberalism just watch bushes stormtroopers smash it . Personally pull out and let the arabs &israels nuke each other too bits .
Their evil regime was self imposed. They have no one to blame but themselves. Like I have said before I could live with a nuclear Iran, but I will bet Europe wont like the uncertainty. The US will more or less be protected by our limited ABM system.
 
#13
tomahawk6 said:
woody said:
The irans have had a evil regime imposed on them by the yanks . Invaded by a evil regime backed by the yanks .Seen two neigbour countries invaded by the yanks .Why wouldnt they want a nuke ? There is a bit of democracy and a bit of liberalism just watch bushes stormtroopers smash it . Personally pull out and let the arabs &israels nuke each other too bits .
Their evil regime was self imposed. They have no one to blame but themselves. Like I have said before I could live with a nuclear Iran, but I will bet Europe wont like the uncertainty. The US will more or less be protected by our limited ABM system.
If you believe that about ABMs then you've been smoking some of the 'agricultural' exports from Afghanistan! The only tests that they've done so far have had a pretty poor record of success. I agree with the rest of the comments though.

I admit that I don't know the scale of the enrichment process, but they do need some enriched fuel to follow their plans for a civilian nuclear program. I would assume that they hgave additional capacity beyond this given the concerns raised by the IAEA.

Woody, if you believe that Iran has 'a bit of democracy and a bit of liberalism', then you've been sharing the same stuff with Tomahawk6! The liberal canditates applying to stand in their elections were almost universally barred by the religious leaders.
 
#14
tomahawk6 said:
The US will more or less be protected by our limited ABM system.
The US failed to protect itself from a small team of fanatics armed with box-cutters and domestic airline tickets. What makes you think it can protect itself from a nut armed with a small nuclear "suitcase bomb" of Iranian origin?

V!
 

OldSnowy

LE
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#15
The facts are that Iran for 18 - that's 18 - years covertly worked on developing a nuclear capability, and, when found out, claimed it was for peaceful purposes only. They do not need it, they have massive energy reserves, and the sole reason they are doing it is to make nuclear weapons.

They are a country that has, as a stated aim of government, the destruction of Israel.

Frankly, if the Red Sea Pedestrian Air Force does attack the sites, I would certainly not blame them. It was only their action against the (French supplied) Iraqi rectors at Osirak that S Hussein didn't actually get real WMD some years ago.
 
#16
What worries me about this is the complete lack of connection with reality of those who think that military action against Iran will solve this problem. I'm sure that Tom Clancy could write a book where everything turns out right but reality is not as amenable.

One of the major drivers for an Iranian bomb is the Israeli nuclear arsenal. Deterrence, MAD, call it what you will worked for the US/USSR and India/Pakistan and I think that the Iranians think it can work for them. The other benefit is that the US will leave them alone - after all, crazed dictator plus bomb (North Korea) equals kid gloves, crazed dictator minus bomb (Iraq) equals invasion. Put yourself in their shoes, you'd want one. I do think though they've missed a propaganda trick though by not proposing a nuclear free Middle East - which means disarming Israel and keeping US nuclear propelled vessels out.

The first objection is that bombing a nuclear facility will release radioactive material. Cue shots of children with cancer etc and frankly you've created a generation of jihadis by that action alone. That assumes that you know where everything is and that it's not buried deep. If it is then you start to need to use nukes to destroy it, which again is counter-productive. After all that then you still don't know whether you've got it all without onsite inspection and I don't see the US having enough troops to invade and occupy Iran as well as Iraq.

Once you've started military action then the Iranians have every reason to launch an all-out assault. US troops in Iraq are hardly sitting around twiddling their thumbs so if a few hundred thousand Iranians decide to come over the border could they really cope ? I know air power is great and all but if they hide enough troops in the cities, attack airfields etc it's not as clear cut as you'd hope. Plus they can see if their small boat swarm attacks, Kilos, cruise missiles etc really can take down US warships.

If they do manage to develop a bomb then the last delivery method they will contemplate against the US will be a ballistic missile. They know the US has an ABM system in place, so they'll use another method. Again, quite a few commentators in the US need a good smack with the clue stick on this issue. US borders are extremely porous - unless you're a granny flying on an airline when the TSA will search you very thoroughly. I've seen those clowns in action, it's laughable. But I digress. Weld it into a container and ship it in, or get a Mexican to take it over for you, perhaps get the drug smugglers to label it up as half a ton of cocaine.
 
#17
tomahawk6 said:
woody said:
The irans have had a evil regime imposed on them by the yanks . Invaded by a evil regime backed by the yanks .Seen two neigbour countries invaded by the yanks .Why wouldnt they want a nuke ? There is a bit of democracy and a bit of liberalism just watch bushes stormtroopers smash it . Personally pull out and let the arabs &israels nuke each other too bits .
Their evil regime was self imposed. They have no one to blame but themselves. Like I have said before I could live with a nuclear Iran, but I will bet Europe wont like the uncertainty. The US will more or less be protected by our limited ABM system.
I think he's referring to the Shah - who was most definitely US backed. He was installed with the help of the CIA in 1953 deposing the democratic reformer President Mossadegh. The Shah was then overthrown by popular revolution, closely followed by the Islamic Revolution that installed the current system. Whether or not it is still popular today is of course another question. Funnily enough, their position has been greatly strengthened by the US recently. There was a time, not so long ago, then the Mullahs pumped out rhetoric against the US and Iranians saw it as over the top nonsense. Not any more. Way to win the Info Ops campaign USA !

And Saddam was also backed by the US when he invaded Iran post revolution - revenge for the hostage crisis and Eagle Claw perhaps ?
 
#19
tomahawk6 said:
Carter had a choice, back the Shah or bend to popular will. He went with the latter and the rest is history.
A US President allowed a foreign people to choose their own style of government ? That's a refreshing change.
 
#20
And with the Iriainians make noise's of coperation towards Syria, it suddenly looks like a realy bad move to do anything.

However With the elections coming up and bush suffering at home, hurling brickbats at the Terrorisumist's suddenly makes his prospects look better.

Of course we can all see what will happen as soon as they start on Iran: you can kiss Iraq goodnight, and watch the price of oil go through the roof.

And far be it for me to ridicule the US ABM, but isn't the corner stone of it's tracking system Outside the US ABM coverage, at some place in the UK?
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top