[Changleen]

Well, after much speculation that the US would leave bombing Iran to the Israelis if talks fail, it appears that George is willing to do it himself.

From the UK Telegraph:

US prepares military blitz against Iran's nuclear sites

Strategists at the Pentagon are drawing up plans for devastating bombing raids backed by submarine-launched ballistic missile attacks against Iran's nuclear sites as a "last resort" to block Teheran's efforts to develop an atomic bomb.

Central Command and Strategic Command planners are identifying targets, assessing weapon-loads and working on logistics for an operation, the Sunday Telegraph has learnt.

They are reporting to the office of Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, as America updates plans for action if the diplomatic offensive fails to thwart the Islamic republic's nuclear bomb ambitions. Teheran claims that it is developing only a civilian energy programme.

"This is more than just the standard military contingency assessment," said a senior Pentagon adviser. "This has taken on much greater urgency in recent months."

The prospect of military action could put Washington at odds with Britain which fears that an attack would spark violence across the Middle East, reprisals in the West and may not cripple Teheran's nuclear programme. But the steady flow of disclosures about Iran's secret nuclear operations and the virulent anti-Israeli threats of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has prompted the fresh assessment of military options by Washington. The most likely strategy would involve aerial bombardment by long-distance B2 bombers, each armed with up to 40,000lb of precision weapons, including the latest bunker-busting devices. They would fly from bases in Missouri with mid-air refuelling.

The Bush administration has recently announced plans to add conventional ballistic missiles to the armoury of its nuclear Trident submarines within the next two years. If ready in time, they would also form part of the plan of attack.

Teheran has dispersed its nuclear plants, burying some deep underground, and has recently increased its air defences, but Pentagon planners believe that the raids could seriously set back Iran's nuclear programme.

Iran was last weekend reported to the United Nations Security Council by the International Atomic Energy Agency for its banned nuclear activities. Teheran reacted by announcing that it would resume full-scale uranium enrichment - producing material that could arm nuclear devices.

The White House says that it wants a diplomatic solution to the stand-off, but President George W Bush has refused to rule out military action and reaffirmed last weekend that Iran's nuclear ambitions "will not be tolerated".

Sen John McCain, the Republican front-runner to succeed Mr Bush in 2008, has advocated military strikes as a last resort. He said recently: "There is only only one thing worse than the United States exercising a military option and that is a nuclear-armed Iran."

Senator Joe Lieberman, a Democrat, has made the same case and Mr Bush is expected to be faced by the decision within two years.

By then, Iran will be close to acquiring the knowledge to make an atomic bomb, although the construction will take longer. The President will not want to be seen as leaving the White House having allowed Iran's ayatollahs to go atomic.

In Teheran yesterday, crowds celebrating the anniversary of the 1979 Islamic revolution chanted "Nuclear technology is our inalienable right" and cheered Mr Ahmadinejad when he said that Iran may reconsider membership of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

He was defiant over possible economic sanctions.

At least they're not going to try and invade, however if they go ahead and do this the obvious result will be Iran's populus falling in line behind Ahmadinejad and even more Muslim militancy. Iran have already said they will retaliate against 'western interests' if attacked, which most people read to mean US bases and forces in Iraq and a general strioke against Israel. If they strike Israel back you can guess what happens next...

 

[BurlyShirley]

I just dont understand what Iran is doing here. They have to know we can take out their sites at will, WTF are they thinking?

 

[Changleen]

That's why they're trying to drag out and stall the diplomatic process for as long as possible. They're trying to get a nuke before anyone jumps on them by playing brinkmanship games with the West. We've already seen at least twice Iran step back and 'become willing' to re-enter negotiations with the west after taking two steps forward towards their goals.

Iran knows the only thing that gives it any degree of protection is having functional nuclear missiles. It will work its way towards that as best it can whilst stalling inspections and other programmes aimed at ensuring it does not become a nuclear weapon owner.

The reason they want this protection is because they think the US wants regeime change there, which it blatently does and has been very bellicose about in the recent past. If there had been no invasion of Iraq, I strongly doubt Iran would be pushing anything like this hard toward nuclear technology. Economically, developing nuclear energy is a huge waste of cash for not-exactly-rich Iran when they have oil and natural gas coming out of their ears and the means in place already to use it.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Figured you'd come up with some roundabout way of making it the US's fault.
This is not their first rodeo, however.

 

[LordOpie]

If Iran wants to play with the big dogs, they're gonna get bit.

 

[Changleen]

Figured you'd come up with some roundabout way of making it the US's fault.

And I figured that'd be the only part you gave a crap about. Anyway, how is what I said not true? I'm not blaming the US for Iraq having a crazy nutjob as a leader, but you cannot deny that recent US actions have made it much easier for Iran's hardliners to sell their worldview to the Iranian public.

Anyway the more important and interesting issue is what happens if the US does go ahead and stamp on their nuclear programme.

 

[BurlyShirley]

And I figured that'd be the only part you gave a crap about. Anyway, how is what I said not true? I'm not blaming the US for Iraq having a crazy nutjob as a leader, but you cannot deny that recent US actions have made it much easier for Iran's hardliners to sell their worldview to the Iranian public.

Anyway the more important and interesting issue is what happens if the US does go ahead and stamp on their nuclear programme.

Israel has an itchy trigger finger. I dont think we're spread that thin.

 

[Transcend]

So why does Iran not have the rights to have nuclear weapons? Please clarify this.

The US can, France can, the UK can, hell they don't complain about ISRAEL having them.

If anyone will fire nukes in anger, it's Israel. Because someone threw rocks.

 

[Transcend]

Israel has an itchy trigger finger. I dont think we're spread that thin.

The US doesn't have near enough troops to Invade Iran if need be. It is what, 4 times larger then then Iraq?

 

[Transcend]

I just dont understand what Iran is doing here. They have to know we can take out their sites at will, WTF are they thinking?

For once I agree, they are antonizing not only the sole superpower (for what it's worth right now military and respect wise), but the rest of the damned civilized world. He is out of control, but i don't think he is a madman. He knows any strike he makes, basically turns his country into glass.

Hell, maybe that is what he wants. In his eyes, inciting global chaoes can bring about the second coming of the great Imam.

 

[Changleen]

So why does Iran not have the rights to have nuclear weapons? Please clarify this.

Under the NPT which Iran has signed and ratified, they have waived their rights (as has everyone) to further nuclear weapons development, which since they didn't have any, means they never would. They are threatening to withdraw from this, however.

The US can, France can, the UK can, hell they don't complain about ISRAEL having them.

We are all obliged not to develop and test any further weapons, however the US is flouting this somewhat by using supercomputers to develop new types of nuke. Since supercomputers capable of doing this sort of work were not around when the treaty was signed, it could be interpretted not to cover that, but this sort of work is clearly against the spirit of the treaty. Israel I don't think signed up.

If anyone will fire nukes in anger, it's Israel. Because someone threw rocks.

I agree.

 

[Changleen]

For once I agree, they are antonizing not only the sole superpower (for what it's worth right now military and respect wise), but the rest of the damned civilized world. He is out of control, but i don't think he is a madman. He knows any strike he makes, basically turns his country into glass.

I don't think he wants to strike, I think he just wants the guarantee of not being struck.

Hell, maybe that is what he wants. In his eyes, inciting global chaoes can bring about the second coming of the great Imam.

That would make him quite insane. Hopefully, as you said, he is not that psycho.

 

[DirtyDog]

So why does Iran not have the rights to have nuclear weapons? Please clarify this.

The US can, France can, the UK can, hell they don't complain about ISRAEL having them.

If anyone will fire nukes in anger, it's Israel. Because someone threw rocks.

Because they are far from a stable country. Let every nutjob government on the planet have a nuke in the name of fairness and it's the end of civilization. That's the one thing we can't let happen.

 

[Changleen]

Because they are far from a stable country. Let every nutjob government on the planet have a nuke in the name of fairness and it's the end of civilization. That's the one thing we can't let happen.

All treaties and so on aside I agree. However we also need to look at who else has them once all this is over.

 

[Changleen]

Just to confirm, basically everyone in the world has signed up to the NPT except three states - India, Pakistan, and Israel.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

So why does Iran not have the rights to have nuclear weapons? Please clarify this.

The US can, France can, the UK can, hell they don't complain about ISRAEL having them.

If anyone will fire nukes in anger, it's Israel. Because someone threw rocks.

i dont see it as "John killed before, thus Joe should be allowed to kill today".

its already bad there are n00k00l4r weapons, why the need to increase the risk??? just for the sake "me too"-ism???

 

[JRogers]

i dont see it as "John killed before, thus Joe should be allowed to kill today".

its already bad there are n00k00l4r weapons, why the need to increase the risk??? just for the sake "me too"-ism???

It's not like the US just got a bunch of weapons dumped on its lap and now they are just sitting in warehouses. The weapons are maintained, still built and developed. I don't really want Iran to have nuclear weapons, but I don't approve of the US invading them or bombing them on suspicion.

 

[jaydee]

So why does Iran not have the rights to have nuclear weapons? Please clarify this.

The US can, France can, the UK can, hell they don't complain about ISRAEL having them.

If anyone will fire nukes in anger, it's Israel. Because someone threw rocks.

I don't know about legal rights, but I don't think that a nation with a large population of Islamic fundamentalists who, if you hadn't noticed, are real big on bombs, should have the big bomb to play with. And they are led by a man who has stated that genocide is at the top of his "things to do" list. The Israeli government has not come out and said they want to eradicate Iran, or Iraq, or Syria, or Islam in general. And I don't think they are retaliating against Hamas and Islamic Jihad because someone walked into a public place crowded with innocent people and started throwing rocks. I'd be really happy if no one was permitted to have nuclear weapons, but that's not gonna happen.

 

[Changleen]

It's not like the US just got a bunch of weapons dumped on its lap and now they are just sitting in warehouses. The weapons are maintained, still built and developed. I don't really want Iran to have nuclear weapons, but I don't approve of the US invading them or bombing them on suspicion.

Whilst I agree that bombing or even worse invading Iran would be a very bad idea, the trouble is that once they have nukes, that's it. You can't really go back from that point. So we're kind of out of alternatives...

 

[Transcend]

Right, I am aware of the NPT, legally speaking. I just mean realistically, there is nothing to keep them from doing it besides an all out military strike.

Other countries have them, as you suggest, for MAD, which i completely agree with. I also agree that they probably want them for this very reason.

I would still have to play devil's advocate however and say that this is a pretty damn good reason to want a nuke. The US is breathing down your neck, you want to defend yourself. I am just saying I can see their point of view.

Also, when i said strike i didn't mean nuclear (nukular LOL). I just meant all of his posturing about "removing" israel, and any attack threat againts them will result in him firing missiles at Israel. He would have to be insane. One regular long range missile fired into israel will get Iran invaded by not only the US, but probably a coalition of forces created by the security council.

So i guess i am on the fence as to whether or not he is certifiably insane. I wouldn't put firing a missile into Israel past them, and it would plunge the entire area into bedlam.

 

[Transcend]

I don't know about legal rights, but I don't think that a nation with a large population of Islamic fundamentalists who, if you hadn't noticed, are real big on bombs, should have the big bomb to play with. And they are led by a man who has stated that genocide is at the top of his "things to do" list. The Israeli government has not come out and said they want to eradicate Iran, or Iraq, or Syria, or Islam in general. And I don't think they are retaliating against Hamas and Islamic Jihad because someone walked into a public place crowded with innocent people and started throwing rocks. I'd be really happy if no one was permitted to have nuclear weapons, but that's not gonna happen.

I agree on not wanting them to have them, but in all fairness the biggest bully ont he planet is breathing down their necks. I would want something to defend myself as well. Whether it can make a difference or not is another question entirely as they have no delivery system capable of reaching the us...only Israel. Of course, he does seem rather hell bent on having israel wiped off the face of the earth.

Just saying..if i was iran and had the big bully shaking a stick at me..i'd want a big stick as well.

That said, I think Israel is just as out of control. Oh boy, you blew yourself up and destroyed a bus....let's fire rockets into your towns and roll tanks down your streets. It just doesn't seem proper (from either side), and it clearly is only escalating things.

 

[DirtyDog]

Fraser, how would Iran defend against the US with a nuke? They have no method of delivery other than giving the nuke to terrorists. The only good it is to them is for terrorism or to nuke nearby countries like Israel.

 

[Transcend]

Fraser, how would Iran defend against the US with a nuke? They have no method of delivery other than giving the nuke to terrorists. The only good it is to them is for terrorism or to nuke nearby countries like Israel.

The fact that they could even give the nuke to terrorists is usually restraint enough. Just look how much 90% of the world is freaking out that they may even be on their way to doing research about one...

 

[fluff]

Because they are far from a stable country. Let every nutjob government on the planet have a nuke in the name of fairness and it's the end of civilization. That's the one thing we can't let happen.

What makes you say that Iran is unstable? It is probably one of the most stable states in the region. Just cos you don't like them doesn't make them unstable.

If the West would stop buggering about with the Middle East it would be a lot more stable than it currently is

 

[fluff]

Fraser, how would Iran defend against the US with a nuke? They have no method of delivery other than giving the nuke to terrorists. The only good it is to them is for terrorism or to nuke nearby countries like Israel.

Then explain why the US is so reluctant to do to North Korea what it has done to Iraq?

Iran can defend itself against invasion if it has nuclear weapons and recent US actions have illustrated their reluctance to mess with anyone who is well armed.

 

[BurlyShirley]

The US doesn't have near enough troops to Invade Iran if need be. It is what, 4 times larger then then Iraq?

I disagree with this. We arent spread as thin as people would have you believe. There are what, 100,000 troops in Iraq? Thats not even the entire Marine Corps, the smallest of the armed forces. You hear alot of whining about troop rotations, crappy gear, etc... but if it really came down to a need for war, none of that stuff would matter. We'd activate all kinds of reservists and have plenty of people. Not to mention Israel would be happy to lend a hand, and probably australia. And probably canada too.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Then explain why the US is so reluctant to do to North Korea what it has done to Iraq?

Iran can defend itself against invasion if it has nuclear weapons and recent US actions have illustrated their reluctance to mess with anyone who is well armed.

I would say the million-man, well trained standing army has more to do with it than some nuke that may or may not be capable of delivery to the US. That and its connected to China and its opening a can of worms that we arent ready to wrangle.

 

[fluff]

I would say the million-man, well trained standing army has more to do with it than some nuke that may or may not be capable of delivery to the US. That and its connected to China and its opening a can of worms that we arent ready to wrangle.

So you agree with me then?

"recent US actions have illustrated their reluctance to mess with anyone who is well armed."

 

[BurlyShirley]

So you agree with me then?

"recent US actions have illustrated their reluctance to mess with anyone who is well armed."

I took it that you were saying we wouldnt invade because they have a nuke. If not, then I agree.
Or it could be that we just needed a warmup. Phase 2 of the "Axis of Evil" is about to be underway, eh?

 

[fluff]

I took it that you were saying we wouldnt invade because they have a nuke. If not, then I agree.
Or it could be that we just needed a warmup. Phase 2 of the "Axis of Evil" is about to be underway, eh?

If they have nukes I doubt the US will invade, where will you base the invasion force to be safe?

 

[BurlyShirley]

If they have nukes I doubt the US will invade, where will you base the invasion force to be safe?

There "are" already plans for invading korea drawn up, from my understanding. I dont know them specifically, but I would assume they wouldnt put all their eggs in one basket. Probably seoul, Japan, numerous aircraft carriers and other ships...
Trust me, the WORST think NK could do is use a nuke in that situation.

 

[fluff]

There "are" already plans for invading korea drawn up, from my understanding. I dont know them specifically, but I would assume they wouldnt put all their eggs in one basket. Probably seoul, Japan, numerous aircraft carriers and other ships...
Trust me, the WORST think NK could do is use a nuke in that situation.

There are probably plans for invading China, France and even the UK, doesn't mean it's realistically ever going to happen. I don't doubt the the US could overwhelm North Korea never mind Iran but at what cost? Iraq was a very soft target and it has still become increasingly unpopular due to the loss of US troops; going up against a madman with nukes will cost far more US lives.

It may be suicide to use a nuke against the US, but suicide attacks are the hallmarks of desperate fanatics.

 

[BurlyShirley]

There are probably plans for invading China, France and even the UK, doesn't mean it's realistically ever going to happen. I don't doubt the the US could overwhelm North Korea never mind Iran but at what cost? Iraq was a very soft target and it has still become increasingly unpopular due to the loss of US troops; going up against a madman with nukes will cost far more US lives.

It may be suicide to use a nuke against the US, but suicide attacks are the hallmarks of desperate fanatics.

I agree totally on the last part, but I dont think the US would ever go it alone in such a situation. NK is not invincible by any means and their nuke capability would be their own undoing. The US has some frightening tools that Ive only read about. If they used a nuke, there wouldnt be much of a ground war, IMO.

 

[fluff]

I agree totally on the last part, but I dont think the US would ever go it alone in such a situation. NK is not invincible by any means and their nuke capability would be their own undoing. The US has some frightening tools that Ive only read about. If they used a nuke, there wouldnt be much of a ground war, IMO.

If NK or Iran used a nuke the US would have carte blanche to use whatever tools they have, but the political fall-out would be huge and the US govt knows this and will do all it can to avoid such a situation. It's one thing to invade Iraq, another to provoke nuclear war

I would be surprised to see air strikes on Iran, but an invasion? I doubt it very much.

 

[valve bouncer]

I would be surprised to see air strikes on Iran, but an invasion? I doubt it very much.

I'd expect air strikes as well, coupled with low level special forces incursions using our blokes and yours as we're better at it than the Yanks.

 

[BurlyShirley]

I'd expect air strikes as well, coupled with low level special forces incursions using our blokes and yours as we're better at it than the Yanks.

Our guys are so good, you've never even heard of them.

 

[Changleen]

Our guys are so good, you've never even heard of them.

Americans can't do 'covert'. It's a genetic thing.

 

[The Amish]

So why does Iran not have the rights to have nuclear weapons? Please clarify this.

The US can, France can, the UK can, hell they don't complain about ISRAEL having them.

If anyone will fire nukes in anger, it's Israel. Because someone threw rocks.

YOur quite possibily the dumbest person on Rm, and thats really saying something. Know what I mean! Go back to flogging your boyfriend with a rainbow your clearly clueless to the real world.

Lets give nukes to a man who thinks the holocaust didnt happen and jews dont have the right to exist. F'n retard

 

[Transcend]

YOur quite possibily the dumbest person on Rm, and thats really saying something. Know what I mean! Go back to flogging your boyfriend with a rainbow your clearly clueless to the real world.

Lets give nukes to a man who thinks the holocaust didnt happen and jews dont have the right to exist. F'n retard

HAHA, you're a funny guy. Another self-righteous, retarded American who thinks you can dictate how the world runs. Surprise! Things are changing. Welcome to the real world, time to step out of your little delusional bubble.

You can go back to your trailer now.

 

[Changleen]

Hmm, I just read that 59% of Americans know so little about Iran that they think Iran has the ability to deliver a nuke against America.