Ships under attack in the middle east

Johno please? said:
People seem to be forgetting something... Iran say they dont want nukes.
Click to expand...

Oh, they say that? Well then they must be telling the truth eh? Nobody ever lies.

Just out of curiosity, why would they be threatening to enrich uranium beyond the levels required for power production and in to weapons grade realms?
 
Course they are telling porkies, you would have to be a total Trump to not get that.
You dont need to spend the vast amounts of money, energy and time taking uranium to weapons levels of enrichment for power reactors - nope the only use for those is nukes (or sub reactors which also tend to use high enriched glowsticks)
 
ubersonic said:
They just said they plan to enrich their uranium well beyond what is required for energy generation, what are they after then if they don't want weapons? (genuine question).
Click to expand...


Seriously, NK don't want nukes, Iran don't want nukes, they want something to bring the worlds super powers to the table and stop just randomly deciding okay, we hate you so we're going to limit everything you can do in the world.

Does anyone think the leaders of either country genuinely want to get nukes then attack another country, you think they all want to die in glorious hell fire when they are retaliated against? Nukes, or the threat of getting them brings people to the table, it's how Iran got the deal they got which unfroze assets and started what could be a sequence of events that sees their trade grow and their country prosper. It's what NK wanted as well. Unfortunately we had general ********* in office and he completely 100% waste the opportunity to do a real deal with NK and he arbitrarily pulled out of the Iran deal setting back that relationship by huge amount. Even if the next president got them to come to the table they have so little reason to believe that 4 years later the next guy won't tear it up again.

What leaders say to brainwashed or religious zealots to stay in power, and what they would really do given the chance are very very different things. Ultimately Iran with a few nukes could take out a few cities, but they could launch pretty devastating attacks on Israel/SA without nukes before getting wiped off the face of the earth. They haven't now, they won't if they get nukes. Rhetoric is about control, nukes is about power, not about attacking the enemy. if they didn't care about being destroyed then they could have gone out in a blaze of glory long ago.

One of the main reasons the super powers fear such nations getting nukes is not that they themselves will use them, but that religious zealots will manage to steal one or countries with little money in desperation will sell nukes to a terrorist group.
 
drunkenmaster said:
Seriously, NK don't want nukes, Iran don't want nukes, they want something to bring the worlds super powers to the table and stop just randomly deciding okay, we hate you so we're going to limit everything you can do in the world.

Does anyone think the leaders of either country genuinely want to get nukes then attack another country, you think they all want to die in glorious hell fire when they are retaliated against? Nukes, or the threat of getting them brings people to the table, it's how Iran got the deal they got which unfroze assets and started what could be a sequence of events that sees their trade grow and their country prosper. It's what NK wanted as well. Unfortunately we had general ********* in office and he completely 100% waste the opportunity to do a real deal with NK and he arbitrarily pulled out of the Iran deal setting back that relationship by huge amount. Even if the next president got them to come to the table they have so little reason to believe that 4 years later the next guy won't tear it up again.

What leaders say to brainwashed or religious zealots to stay in power, and what they would really do given the chance are very very different things. Ultimately Iran with a few nukes could take out a few cities, but they could launch pretty devastating attacks on Israel/SA without nukes before getting wiped off the face of the earth. They haven't now, they won't if they get nukes. Rhetoric is about control, nukes is about power, not about attacking the enemy. if they didn't care about being destroyed then they could have gone out in a blaze of glory long ago.

One of the main reasons the super powers fear such nations getting nukes is not that they themselves will use them, but that religious zealots will manage to steal one or countries with little money in desperation will sell nukes to a terrorist group.
Click to expand...

While I agree with that thinking in regard to Iran - their pursuit is definitely about having the bargaining and deterrent power (and one of the reasons the US and Israel are so terrified of them getting nuclear weapons as they don't want them having that ability to have a say on matters) as before you are superimposing Western thinking post WW2 onto NK but that country has largely been isolated from the lessons the rest of the world developed from post WW2. NK absolutely want nukes and there is a far higher chance, in some theoretical situation where they could potentially reunify the peninsula by force, that nuclear weapons would play a part in that. Despite some of the elites having wider world experience and some like Kim Jong-un being educated outside the country that has still largely been under strict minding - their mentality is much closer to the world before WW2 in this regard. What will likely be a bigger guarantee their nuclear weapons won't be used in some active capacity beyond their bargaining power is the influence that Xi Jinping seemingly has.
 
Iran's IRGC claim to have shot down a US RQ-4 drone, which was operating over Iranian territory.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-48700965

wUTVjOM.gif
 
Dis86 said:
Oh, they say that? Well then they must be telling the truth eh? Nobody ever lies.

Just out of curiosity, why would they be threatening to enrich uranium beyond the levels required for power production and in to weapons grade realms?
Click to expand...
so they can sell it to those who do want it.
 
BBC article has changed since I posted it. It did claim that it was over Hormozgan, not near it like it does now. Also changed the drone too, now it's a MQ-4C Triton rather than the previously stated Global Hawk.
 
englishpremier said:
He's linked to the story on the BBC. What proof do you expect him to have? Telemetry from the drone? Perhaps the flight recorder? surely you just have to watch the news and wait for announcements like everyone else.
Click to expand...

The article which also states it was over international waters you mean?

Don't make bold assertions that can't be backed up.
 
englishpremier said:
He's linked to the story on the BBC. What proof do you expect him to have? Telemetry from the drone? Perhaps the flight recorder? surely you just have to watch the news and wait for announcements like everyone else.
Click to expand...

Dis86 said:
The article which also states it was over international waters you mean?

Don't make bold assertions that can't be backed up.
Click to expand...

Malevolence said:
BBC article has changed since I posted it. It did claim that it was over Hormozgan, not near it like it does now. Also changed the drone too, now it's a MQ-4C Triton rather than the previously stated Global Hawk.
Click to expand...
 
Malevolence said:
BBC article has changed since I posted it. It did claim that it was over Hormozgan, not near it like it does now. Also changed the drone too, now it's a MQ-4C Triton rather than the previously stated Global Hawk.
Click to expand...

The Yanks claim it was an MQ-4C Triton travelling through international airspace; the Iranians claim it was an RQ-4 Global Hawk which had entered Iranian territory.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom