Bomb Iran?

[The Halk]

Iran has hidden a second enrichment facility.

We've been oppressing them for years because we fear them as a nuclear power, with the intention of persuading them with a carrot and stick to abandon their nuclear weapons programme.

Of course it's not very fair of of, but that's life.

They've now gone against us and have a second facility.

So... what do you think folks ... do we -

A) Bomb it ourselves
B) Wait on Israel bombing it, and say we support their actions
C) Wait on Israel bombing it, and in public say we disapprove of their unilateral actions, but in private we're relieved that they did it
D) Do not bomb it, press Israel not to bomb it, and put on some meaningful sanctions
E) Do not bomb it, press Israel not to bomb it, and put on some meaningless sanctions
F) Do not bomb it, press Israel not to bomb it, and no nothing else.

I'm in favour of C.

 

[The Halk]

Or how about:

G) Mind our own ******* business and live and let live? Who the **** are we to dictate to anyone that they can or cannot have nuclear weapons?

The US can go **** itself too - arrogant *******!

* There, I feel so much better

That's option F, except you clearly wanted to look different

 

[The Halk]

Ooh. This is getting interesting. I'm now having second thoughts.

How about

G - As long as Iran submit to our oppression, open up the site for immediate inspection, and the site is found to be not on the path to nuclear weapons it's all fine

I'm starting to think there may be something behind what Ahmadinejad has said....

I don't actually want to bomb Iran. But if they are attemping to build nuclear weapons it needs to happen. Better if Israel do it than us, but if they won't we have to.

 

[The Halk]

"Oppressing them for years"? How, exactly? And what time period are we talking about here?

Obviously we shouldn't bomb Iran. That would be pointless, dangerous and entirely counter-productive. It would be like hanging out a huge "WELCOME" mat to every Muslim with a half-baked grudge against the West and asking them if they'd like to pop into the country to blow a few things up on the weekend.

Iran should be dealt with via the UN.

We've forced them not to develop nuclear weapons for nobodies good but our own. I'm just saying it's what it is.

What if Iran cannot be dealt with by the UN? What if the UN is so ineffective that they just put a few sanctions on them and it doesn't stop them developing nuclear weapons? I'm of the opinion that we will know reasonably soon if they are trying to develop nuclear weapons. More power to the UN if it states that they either drop the programme to our satisfaction or they'll get bombed... But I don't think they will.

If they don't, and it's a choice between us sending in strike bombers or Iran having nukes, do you bomb or not?

 

[The Halk]

You can not police the world, we should stop trying.

I think we've been reasonably successful in preventing the spread of nuclear weapons - just as long as we avoid ground wars.

If you bomb Hamilton we will respond in kind. The People's Republic of Hamilton is proud to announce we have nuclear weapons of our own.

 

[The Halk]

You may be right, it's a hard one to judge as to create a truly global nuclear threat is not easy and requires some big brains/money/resources. Not many countries have the facilities to develop them.

Even though I’d prefer more countries did not obtain them, I do find it quite hard to understand how we can really justify simply banning any country from having them. The only way to do this fairly would be for global disarmament, which, as we all know is never going to happen in our lifetimes (nor should it)

We've justified it in the past by claiming we're headed for nuclear disarmament. I started another thread elsewhere where it became pretty clear that nuclear disarmament isn't desirable - well, it is for eveyrbody else apart from us.

Really it just is bullying other nations for the greater good, and we have to make peace with our own consciences that it is indeed the right thing to do.

 

[The Halk]

Our mishandling of Iraq has probably prompted many pariah states to accelerate their plans for nuclear weapons. If we believed Iraq had the ability to nuke the UK then we would not have invaded.

 

[The Halk]

Exactly.

Also, Western countries regularly show off the benefits of having nukes so its little wonder when other nations look at us and then decide to build some for themselves.

Yep, and that's why our carrot/stick diplomacy with them has to be handled very well.

I'm now starting to think that we have already mishandled this new Iran "crisis".

From what I understand Iran has come forward and stated they have a not yet operational facility.

Obama, Brown, Sarkozy are apparently going to announce this is terrible and they must co-operate or face sanctions.

Then the Iranian leader comes on telly (link - notice the interviewer says - A), 2). Heh amateur!". The Iranian leader indicates they haven't actually done anything wrong.

The BBC reports that Iran says they have to report 180 days in advance of any facility handing nuclear materials, which they are doing.

So perhaps Obama, Brown, Sarkozy are too fast off the mark and Iran really is towing the line.

Frankly I don't know anywhere near enough to know what's right or not. On the face of it Ahmadinejad doesn't look under pressure, and his body language suggests honesty, and confidence.

 

[The Halk]

ppl ppl carm down i hope its the other way round and they make the nukes or even better take them form pakistian and blow up jews and who ever else gets in there way inshallah

Sadly if that happens then at absolute best we will have multiple nuclear warheads used, and the impact that has on the millions or billions of lives lost.

At worst it'll lead to nuclear winter and the death of the vast majority of the population, and send humanity back to the stone age on a ruined planet.

 

[The Halk]

I think the main worry is not the fact that Iran or any other country has Nuclear weapons, its the worry that they could easily get into Terrorist hands.

I don't agree. I don't think if Iran developed nukes it'd be easy for them to get into terrorist hands, why on earth would Iran have lax security with them?

What I am concerned about is with nuclear weapons Iran can go and do whatever it likes. Annex part of Iraq? Easy. What are the west going to do? Nothing. Iran has a lot of oil on it's borders, if it aquires that territory, and we're unable to respond then it will be able to trade it, no matter what sanctions we bleat on about.

 

[The Halk]

And it is in a world with countries like Iran that our illustrious leaders want to 'reduce' our own nuclear capability, madness, utter, utter madness. We should build a dozen more ballistic missile subs, not reduce our number from 4 to 3.

We only need enough to do the job. The job would be to murder the majority of a nations population, destroy their infrastructure, industry and render the entire area unfit for human habitation.

If we can do that with 3 subs then why do we need a dozen?

 

[The Halk]

If you believe Labour we can do it with one!

Did they say that? They're cutting it down from 4 to 3. As I understand only one is on service at a time. It seems perfectly reasonable that one of the others is being cleaned, and getting the oil changed so to speak, while the other is having more serious maintenance.

I won't be voting labour of course, I don't like em. They've lied and decieved us, and their policy is entirely based on what they think will get them votes. But there's no need to just make stuff up about them.