DELETED_74993

[Castiel]

bomber?

or the one the uk is always worried about smuggle it in.

They do not really have the ability to mount an airstrike on Israel with any degree of certainty, even if they could retrofit one of their multiroles to carry a nuclear hardpoint it is extremely unlikely that it could negotiate Israeli Air Defenses and EWS.

Smuggling nuclear material is again practically impossible and again, what delivery system would you use that would be effective.


Iran simply doesnt possess the kind of projection of power required to effectively do anything other than defend itself.

 

[ennogs]

As much as Israel and the Jewish lobbies in the West would love us to declare war on Iran, it just won't happen now.

Why won't it happen now?

 

[StriderX]

They do not really have the ability to mount an airstrike on Israel with any degree of certainty, even if they could retrofit one of their multiroles to carry a nuclear hardpoint it is extremely unlikely that it could negotiate Israeli Air Defenses and EWS.

Smuggling nuclear material is again practically impossible and again, what delivery system would you use that would be effective.

Smuggling isn't practically impossible, Nuclear material has been moving for decades from Russia and its ex-occupied territories.
(Of course Russia never really cared about looking after its material in the first place)

Smuggling into a nation that realises the danger, is much harder id agree.

But not impossible, as i've said if you have the material at hand (the hardest part), a bit of planning is all that is needed.

 

[trigger-happy]

Why won't it happen now?

because he said so!

 

[Chives]

Our forces aren't "overstreched" but our money and resources at our disposal are.

We also don't want to be in Iran for the next decade either, fightin off highly trained forces with much better knowledge about the area and no doubt hidden caches of weapons.

There's also the Scorched Earth policy i bet they would use.

We also know that Iran hides many military installations inside population centres as well as nuclear research.

If we accidentally blow one up, whichever way the wind blows, radiation will travel and i doubt anyone in the area wants that...including Israel.

Plus peoples opinion of war in the UK atm is extremely low and no one wants another decade of dead soldiers.

Oh I agree, in budget terms things are tight.
I dispute that the Iranians are highly trained forces though, most of there equipment is ageing Eastern Block stuff that is hugely inferior to Israeli/Saudi/Western equipment. I wouldn't put much on there army fighting off a western invasion either, they surely would know that they would lose no matter how hard they fought.

 

[ennogs]

Not going to happen. China and Russia would veto any move in the UN.

The UK has too few forces and the US public is sick of foreign wars.

Yes but unluckily for US citizens their government no longer cares what the people think. When Obama ran for president he knew the public was sick of all the wars. He made campaign speeches about pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan etc. Did he do any of that? No. He actually increased the wars America is fighting. If the American government decides it is going after Iran the peoples views will not stop them

 

[Castiel]

Smuggling isn't practically impossible, Nuclear material has been moving for decades from Russia and its ex-occupied territories.
(Of course Russia never really cared about looking after its material in the first place)

Smuggling into a nation that realises the danger, is much harder id agree.

But not impossible, as i've said if you have the material at hand (the hardest part), a bit of planning is all that is needed.

It is somewhat different transfering material between two participating factions than it is smuggling a fully operational nuclear device into a country with the intention of using it.

To all practical purposes it is effectively impossible. Dirty Bombs are less so, however they are also next to useless as an offensive weapon.

 

[StriderX]

It is somewhat different transfering material between two participating factions than it is smuggling a fully operational nuclear device into a country with the intention of using it.

To all practical purposes it is effectively impossible. Dirty Bombs are less so, however they are also next to useless as an offensive weapon.

Who said that Iran had to smuggle it into Israel?

Could easily...well not easily, shift it around the world and make it look like its coming from a friendly/neutral nation.

A cargo ship would be the preferred choice if one was smuggling weapons grade uranium or a bomb into a nation.

 

[[TW]Fox]

Yes but unluckily for US citizens their government no longer cares what the people think. When Obama ran for president he knew the public was sick of all the wars. He made campaign speeches about pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan etc. Did he do any of that?

I thought Iraq pullout was being completed this year?

 

[Castiel]

Who said that Iran had to smuggle it into Israel?

Could easily shift it around the world and make it look like its coming from a friendly/neutral nation.

A cargo ship would be the preferred choice if one was smuggling weapons grade uranium or a bomb into a nation.

It would be impractical. The chances of it being successful in reality are so slim as to be effectively useless.

There is a world of difference from obtaining fissible material and actually being able to use it effectively.

If there was real concern over nuclear terrorism then the focus should be on Pakistan, there have been at three attempt to acquire nuclear weapons from pakistani facilites all of which were obviously unsuccessful so you woukd think the focus would be on Pakistan, North Korea, China and Russia rather than Iran as those nations, along with Israel are the most likely sources of illicit nuclear arms or the material to produce them.

 

[George Hincapie]

Our forces aren't "overstreched" but our money and resources at our disposal are.

I absolutely disagree with this. Our Forces cannot commit to another theatre of operations unless an existing deployment is ended.

Also, you can't expect these guys and girls to be deployed 365 days a year. They are real people and they need a break as well.

 

[dowie]

There is some evidence that Iran was effectively supporting The Jaish al-Mahdi in Basra, however it is not as simple as stating this is evidence for overt attacks by Iran on the British. The Mahdi Army were a Shia paramilitary force who opposed what they saw as US occupation of Iraq and Muqtada Al-Sadr has close ties to Iran (primarily due to his Shia affiliations) however he certainly was not a supporter of the Iranian Govt and definitely not of Iranian interference in Iraq.

Yes, I know who they are, as I already said in a previous post - they didn't always get on with Iran. This fact was leveraged by the British when reaching an agreement with them.

There were frequent overt incursions near border areas and there was certainly a covert presence within Iraq by Iranian forces.

Hezbollah were training Iraq Militia so that is not really surprising and again, if we are to look at Iran we must also look at Syria and particularly South Africa.

This is diverting slightly from the thread tbh.. but the point is that this isn't the same as simply supplying weapons but rather taking a more active role and having a specific intent. The previous poster stated Iran has never attacked us - I'm maintaining that they have indeed been attacking our forces:

Sir John Sawers, formerly political director at the Foreign Office now Britain’s ambassador to the UN, about a deal the Iranians offered:

"The Iranians wanted to be able to strike a deal whereby they stopped killing our forces in Iraq in return for them being allowed to carry on with their nuclear programme: 'We stop killing you in Iraq, stop undermining the political process there, you allow us to carry on with our nuclear programme without let or hindrance'."

It has long been known that the Iranians are responsible for the deaths of British forces in Iraq. But Sir John Sawers is the most senior official to say it and make explicit that the Iranians told the British government that they were doing this.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeeho...g-it-was-killing-british-troops-in-iraq.thtml

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/20/iran-curb-attacks-on-british-troops

Again - just to re-iterate I'm not stating this is a reason to attack Iran - this is simply in response to the poster who stated Iran has never attacked us.

 

[dowie]

I'd be more worried about Iran's response if they get bombed by Israel.

This ^^^^

And tbh.. the whole thread is just speculations about what if - the fact that some people at the MOD may or may not have drawn up plans re: what to do if the US decide to attack Iran doesn't necessarily mean attacking Iran is inevitable or likely to happen any time soon. Obama wouldn't want to do anything of the sort any time soon so it would require fairly compelling evidence of a viable nuclear program (and hopefully a bit more credible evidence than that used to justify the Iraq invasion).

Having said that - if there was strong evidence of the development of weapons, or they successfully carried out a test (probably years away) then I'd be very much in favour of instant strikes - if the US/UK didn't do so then Israel would.

 

[Castiel]

Yes, I know who they are, as I already said in a previous post - they didn't always get on with Iran. This fact was leveraged by the British when reaching an agreement with them.

There were frequent overt incursions near border areas and there was certainly a covert presence within Iraq by Iranian Forces.

This is diverting slightly from the thread tbh.. but the point is that this isn't the same as simply supplying weapons but rather taking a more active role and having a specific intent. The previous poster stated Iran has never attacked us - I'm maintaining that they have indeed been attacking our forces:

http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeeho...g-it-was-killing-british-troops-in-iraq.thtml

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/20/iran-curb-attacks-on-british-troops

Again - just to re-iterate I'm not stating this is a reason to attack Iran - this is
simply in response to the poster who stated Iran has never attacked us.

I explained that incursions were made, and the likely reasons for them, along with the Allied Coalitions incursions into Iran and support for internal militia within Iran, like I said a defensive rather than pre-emptive and offensive foreign policy is Iran's Modus Operandi.

The was no direct combatative operation between US/UK forces and Iranian Forces. The claims made by John Sawyers refer to IEDs etc...all things Iran has significant influence over because of their links to the Shia Militias and Hezbollah who were the direct combatants, not Iran themselves. A little remiscient of Egypt's influence over Hamas etc...

Iran has never made an pre-emptive offensive military action against the UK, everything they have done and those things you have pointed to were and are no different (in fact they are reactive to) to the West's actions in protecting their own interests in the region. As I have said Iran is a primarily defensive nation, and nothing said here proves otherwise.

I think that was what the previous poster was refering to, and he is right. That is not to say I support Iran or its actions per se, just that they can be described as understandable and in many ways as justifiable as our own.

 

[Floogie]

Can anyone explain how Iran would arrive at the decision to attack Israel given the Israelis also possess a second strike ability and the Iranians do not?

It appears some posters may be suggesting that Iran would happily decide to "wipe Israel off the map*" at the cost of the extermination of their own civilisation - perhaps as some token gift to the rest of the Islamic world. Now I'm pretty sure that being a Muslim doesn't make one entirely irrational, so how the Iranians continue to be considered aggressors and totally selfless really escapes me...

*Famous misquote alert!

 

[StriderX]

It would be impractical. The chances of it being successful in reality are so slim as to be effectively useless.

There is a world of difference from obtaining fissible material and actually being able to use it effectively.

If there was real concern over nuclear terrorism then the focus should be on Pakistan, there have been at three attempt to acquire nuclear weapons from pakistani facilites all of which were obviously unsuccessful so you woukd think the focus would be on Pakistan, North Korea, China and Russia rather than Iran as those nations, along with Israel are the most likely sources of illicit nuclear arms or the material to produce them.

Perhaps, however this isnt entirely disconnected from why Iran has centrifuges in the first place.

A Pakistani Nuclear scientist set up an array of clients (including Iran) to sell Nuclear knowledge and where to get centrifuges/build them.

 

[dowie]

I think that was what the previous poster was refering to, and he is right. That is not to say I support Iran or its actions per se, just that they can be described as understandable and in many ways as justifiable as our own.

Perhpas you should let the other poster speak for himself tbh... rather than pouncing on a comment and starting a diverting debate. My comment was indeed mostly related to the activities highlighted in those links I've posted btw... I don't really require explanations of who the the Mehdi army are etc..

 

[LabR@t]

Those that say we won't do it as we have cut troops numbers?

What if it was planned that way?

High unemployment is a problem at the moment so imagine if the plan was to reduce armed forces numbers and then bring back conscription and hence getting rid of the problem of angry young men ( and women) off the streets.

 

[Castiel]

Perhpas you should let the other poster speak for himself tbh... rather than pouncing on a comment and starting a diverting debate. My comment was indeed mostly related to the activities highlighted in those links I've posted btw... I don't really require explanations of who the the Mehdi army are etc..

There is no need for that attitude tbh.As far as I know this is an open debate and you raised the issue, not I. However you did need some explanation, as you thought Iran had a republican guard which it does not, that the british seized in disputed waters were in Iraqi waters when it was in fact an oversight of the coalition in not informing Iran of the boundaries and the subsequent refusal of either side to concede that was the real issue. You stated initially that supplying weapons to insurgents and militias constitutes an attack on the UK and then You say it isnt the same??and while you may know who the Mehdi Army are or their relationships with other militias and Iran, others participating may not and so for that reason alone it is valid to mention them.

The simple answer is that Iran is not an offensive nation and there is no evidence that they directly or overtly engaged with UK forces in Basra or anywhere else, support for militias and other groups and nations that are in their interest is not indicative of anything other than a defensive posture in relation to their foreign policy. You stated that Iran has attacked our Forces regularly during the past decade and that I am afraid is patently not true, unless you lay the same accusations to every other nation that supplies militias, terrorists, insurgencies and states that do and have directly attacked our Forces. This would include those I have named already, as well as Israel and the United States.

 

[ennogs]

I think Israel will attack Iran first. However If the UK and the USA do ever attack Iran our TV and press will tell you indirectly beforehand. Before any attack from us and America you will see an increase in news stories and TV documentaries telling us how bad Iran is and how much of a nutter and tyrant Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is. They may even do that if they know Israel is going to strike first. So when Israel does strike they hope we will be thinking well Iran deserved it, we needed for it to be done etc.

So they may try and tell us Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is an evil dangerous tyrant like Colonel Gaddafi. At best our TV and press withhold information from us and at worst they lie to us.

Let’s look at the life of a Libyan when this tyrant called Gadaffi was in power.

1. When he got into power Gadaffi nationalised key sectors of the oil industry and negotiated a good price for all the oil producing countries. He used that money to build much needed schools, hospitals and other infrastructure. Gadaffi has never been forgiven by the west for nationalising oil.

2. The price of the petrol is 0.14 cents in Libya.

3. Before Gadaffi less than 1/5 of Libyans were literate. Gadaffi built schools and made schooling free. This resulted in the literacy rate rising to 83%.

4. When he got into power Gadaffi was determined to make the country self sufficient in its food production. Gadafi initiated the construction of a very large man made river referred to in the Guinness book of records as one of the wonders of the modern world. He had the river constructed to help with farming. It helped turn desert into fertile land for farming.

5. If a Libyan wants to be a farmer they are given free use of land and a home to live in. They are also given free seeds, livestock and equipment to start them off.

6. When he got into power Gadaffi declared it a human right to own a home. He promised to house every Libyan citizen and to do it before he housed his own mother and father. He kept that promise as his father died living in a tent before he was able to get a home of his own.

7. During his new home building project all Libyans where given a house or an apartment for free.

8. In current times all newlywed people in Libya get around 50,000 dollars from the Government to buy their first home.

9. There are no electricity bills in Libya. Electricity is free.

10. Unlike in the UK and nearly all other countries the Libyan Government owns the national bank and prints its own currency. In the UK the bank of England is a private bank and nothing to do with the Government. Any money the government gets from the bank of England is always a loan with interest. Our government owes the Bank of England so much money it really only manages to pay off the interest. It’s the same in the US as the Federal Reserve is private bank and nothing to do with the Government.

11. The GDP per capita of Libya is very high. Over $15,000. Purchasing power is very high compare to the GDP.

12. Libya has the highest standard of living in Africa. It is also rated ahead of Russia, Brazil and Saudi Arabia.

13. The economy of Libya was improving rapidly. In 2010 it had 10% growth. It has no external debts. It also has the reserves amount of 150+ billion dollars.

14. It is against the law to loan money for profit in Libya. All loans have to be at 0% interest.

15. Gadaffi believed in economic democracy and that all its citizens should share in its countries wealth. A part of the Countries oil revenue is deposited into the bank account of every Libyan citizen.

16. He actively encouraged women into education, work and politics.

17. Healthcare, medicines and hospitals are free in Libya.

18. If for any reason the state is unable to help you with a surgery procedure it will pay for you to have it done in another country. While you are in that country you also get $2,200 a month to help you.

19. When a Libyan citizen buys a car the Government pays 50% of the price.

20. Basic food items are subsidised by the Government. As an example a huge loaf to costs only 15 cents in Libya.

21. Unemployment fees are given from the government until a person finds a Job.

22. If you graduate from university and cannot find a job the government pays your wage until you find a job. So let’s say you graduated and the average pay for your line of work is $80,000 a year the government would pay you the monthly equivalent until you found work.

23. A Libyan mother gets $5000 when she gives birth.

24. Gadaffi was the only Arab leader to apologise for the Arab worlds part in the slave trade. This angered other Arab leaders. He promised to be a soldier to Africa and to do anything he could to help them. He wanted to help create a united states of Africa and helped in negotiating many ceasefires.

25. He gave money and training to many freedom movement groups around the world.

26. Nelson Mandela called Gadaffi one of the greatest freedom fighters of the 21st century. He praised Gadaffi for his part in helping to end apartheid.

27. He publicly opposed the invasion of Iraq. Which it turns out to have been a very stupid thing to do.

(sarcastic mode) Naturally the above was well discussed in our newspapers and TV documentaries to give us a balanced or alternative view about life in Libya under Gadaffi. According to our government, press and TV Gadaffi was a complete ****. Well he did oppose the invasion of Iraq and fund freedom movements around the globe.

I am sure they will do the same thing again and lie to use about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Iran. They lied about Saddam and his weapons of mass destruction. They lie to us all the time and Iran is going to be no different.