Would military action stop Iran developing a nuclear bomb?

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by rockape34, Mar 5, 2007.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. here
  2. Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

    Shame Bush doesn't give a fcuk.

    Or a damn.
  3. I see it as basically America have no choice, once they get the bomb. They can wipe out any place out they feel like. I feel military action from America can only stop them. The sactions arnt working. If Britain decides to join America, Britain couldnt afford and it would turn out as a mess. It would also step up exterisim for more attacks on Britain and America. Its a very hard situation. No one will be a winner.
  4. I thought sanctions hadn't begun yet. Are we not still at the trying to negotiate stage, with the threat of sanctions if no solution can be found, and military action remaining on the table?
  5. I had thought they had put santions on? Thats what i had read somewhere.
  6. Intersting bloke on BBC R4 this am:

    His reasoning seems pretty sound to me. When has any nation been more motivated to innovate, than when it faces a serious military threat, or is in the middle of a war? It worked for Oppenheimer.

    Also made the point that - at this time - Iran is prob'ly about 5yrs way from nukes as a viable wpn system.

    So - plenty of time for diplomacy (if only Dubya knew what the word meant)
  7. I hope you don't mind a random civilian, attracted by the quality of debate here from joining in.

    Is it possible, that the whole Iran WMD thing, like the whole Iraq WMD thing is just a propaganda exercise to garner support for something they want to do anyway?

    It seems much more likely to me that the US wants to smash Iran up a bit because it can't think of any more sensible way to redress the huge strategic gift it gave Tehran by invading Iraq and handing it over to various more or less Iran-linked Shia groups.
  8. in_the_cheapseats

    in_the_cheapseats LE Moderator

    There have been a degree of sanctions on Iran for sometime now. However they are nothing in comparison to those placed on N Korea, as an example.

    I heard the article that Stonker refers to as well. Well thought out with pragmatic views being put across.

    Thing is I can't see how USA can really do anything. Russia and Iran are starting to get on pretty well. China is already Iran's main oil recipient and Japan also gets a large proportion of its oil from Iran.

    The latter two nations would be more than a little pissed off if their oil supply is disrupted. It translates in old speak to mean a serious threat to their national interests and security.

    That means USA would lay itself open to economic sanctions and that could be crippling if China plays hardball.

    I only hope that Dubya is smart enough to speak to his advisors and for once, listen to them. The consequences would be too much for USA's economy which is teetering on the brink of recession as it is. :frown:
  9. It probably is mainly posturing by both sides. If Iran does have a purely civil program it's not helping it's case by preventing inspections. That was the same mistake Saddam made. But Dubya isn't helping by being stupid and backing them into a corner. If he doe's attack them, the chances are that the attack will not be able to seriously affect production but they'll turn round and work on nukes because they've already been damned for them.
  10. in_the_cheapseats

    in_the_cheapseats LE Moderator

    There probably is a bit of that but remember as well you are talking about a Christian (fundamentalist? - my view, yes) power that has deep suspicion of what it still sees as a radical source of terrorism, of an ideology it doesn't understand or like and worse a source of oil it can't touch! + they never have got over that embassy fiasco in Carter's time.

    Remeber as well Iraq is a strategic interest of the USA -an oil source it can tap for the future. What happens when the next door neighbour builds the bomb? That interest is under threat and therefore the USA will push v v hard for that threat to be neutralised, one way or the other. As I said for the reasons in my last post, it has to be awfully careful how it does this.
  11. Sure, but it's pretty obvious that short of invading and occupying, which they're not in a position to do, they can't actually stop Iran from building a bomb, something that their military people must have made very clear. So if they're still thinking of doing it, it must be for some other reason. The combination of strategic interests, vengefulness and the desire to 'turn around' the horrible mess they've made in Iraq might add up to a motive.
  12. I have said this before, what would be the point in Iran making a nuclear weapon then using it. Because as soon as they launched or even prepared to launch Iran would cease to exist. So Iran would lose everything if it ever used or prepared to use a nuclear bomb. Military action against Iran would however help to create thousands of Iranian insurgents hell bent on revenge.

    Iraq would become the first place for them to go and exact their revenge.
    Surely that is not a good idea. It does seem though that george Bush has started talks with Iran-I hope so. I hope this is not just a smoke screen that hides the real plan.

    There is nothing anyone in Britain could do about it now anyway. If America has already decided then it will happen.

  13. No.
  14. As I see it Iran is certainly trying to develop a nuclear weapon. As soon as it carries out its first live test Israel will attack. Bush and prob indeed this govt don't give a fcuk about the region save for the oil revenue and a few misc defense contracts but Israel faces annihilation on the whim of the mad mullahs running that odious country.