TobiasTheViking
Resident Viking Autist
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2005
- Messages
- 6,925
i don't know yet.....
Haven't really thought enough about it(haven't really thought about it at all).
Haven't really thought enough about it(haven't really thought about it at all).
It's an active nuclear reactor, unlike the one Israel bombed in Iraq in 1981. You know, China Syndrome? Radioactive cloud? Chernobyl?
zenith-nadir
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2004
- Messages
- 4,482
Like alot of British rags do...by sheer conjecture.
The Telegraph had a story on a report about the results of such an attack.
Bear in mind their possible evolving delivery capability ...
Not bothered about the range - can't hit us at the moment and then when they can the USA will have no choice but to protect us since you lot need your listening posts in the UK for your "missile shield".
Seriously I don't know the answer, I think "we" have to make our minds up whether we do intended stopping them developing nuclear weapons or not. If we make decide to stop them I suspect there are things we could do short of an actual attack. One is to literally drop them from the world's economy (dependency on Iranian oil makes this a very drastic step). But if they have no cash then they will not be able to develop the weapons. Whether this is a better idea then just attacking I have no idea.
I suspect military action may be less disruptive and potentially less dangerous an option in the long term then some of the other options open to "us" if we decide we won't allow them to develop nuclear weapons.
Hutch
A broken man on a Halifax pier, the last of Barret
Like alot of British rags do...by sheer conjecture.
FWIW, the Telegraph is a solidly conservative, Tory-oriented broadsheet and not a 'rag' like the Daily Mail or others of that ilk.
What they are establishing is that there is no good answer to the problem, the story notes that:
So it would buy time, not put an end to it--and undoubtedly encourage Iran to pursue nuclear weapons by other meams.
The overwhelming issue for this century is that the dijiin released by Albert and Nels and Enrico and Oppie can't be put back into a bottle. The ability and number of states to join the nuclear club will continue to grow during the 21st century, and either those states will mature or we will see the use of these weapons before this century is out.
And may we all survive it.
Funny you should mention that. I'm thinking that maybe the right response to the US is simply to say that an attack on Israel means the death of every man, woman and child in the attacking country and leave it at that. People are upset when the US acts "unilaterally?" Well, let the countries in the strike zone deal with the Iranian problem. Alone.Not bothered about the range - can't hit us at the moment and then when they can the USA will have no choice but to protect us since you lot need your listening posts in the UK for your "missile shield".
Out of curiosity why do you propose Israel get special protection from the USA but no other country does?
zenith-nadir
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2004
- Messages
- 4,482
It's not really missle ranges that bother me it's that Iran's leaders are not accountable to Iranians. Iran's leaders support known terrorist groups and are frankly, nuts. Therefore Iran's leaders can slip a dirty bomb to one of their kooky jihadist groups and then play the plausible deniability game till the cows come home....after the explosion that is.
Hutch
A broken man on a Halifax pier, the last of Barret
Well, I doubt any American President would ever use terms quite that stark, but a guarantee that the United States would wage "unrestrained war" against any nation using nuclear weapons in the Middle East against a 'permanent ally by treaty' is quite possible--although the Israelis may be loathe to sign such a treaty as it would give the US too much say in their own actions.
??? This doesn't seem to track with your first sentence, manny. Clarification?
US Dept. of Energy
I don't see Iran on that list. I believe British Petroleum (BP) is dependent on Iranian oil. Not sure. I think Iran's biggest oil customer is China, though.
Hutch
A broken man on a Halifax pier, the last of Barret
Given that they would do so (and I grant that it is a possibility), isn't there a way to 'read' nuclear material that can identify what country it was produced in? I am not sure, but I seem to remember that there was a way to trace it.
To add to the mix, Ed's links noted the heavy involvement of the Russians (including Government actions). The Russ have been playing a role in the politics of this region for many centuries and not regarding their interests in this new Great Game would be unwise.
IMHO as always.
I agree with the spirit of Manny and Hutch's posts about accepting that, like the Pope, we can't stop the spread of crossbows, and deal instead in terms that are practical and understandable.
A strong public reiteration of our commitment to all our allies would do much, along with a statement suggesting that an attack on our soil will also be dealt with harshly regardless of the political niceties.
And regarding where the got the number 10,000, I don't know if they went through the process or if the number is valid, but it is entirely possible to come up with a working number of casualties for such a strike. The military does it regularly for NBC weapons. Competent Disaster Management officials in US cities and states do it, too.
A strong public reiteration of our commitment to all our allies would do much, along with a statement suggesting that an attack on our soil will also be dealt with harshly regardless of the political niceties.
And regarding where the got the number 10,000, I don't know if they went through the process or if the number is valid, but it is entirely possible to come up with a working number of casualties for such a strike. The military does it regularly for NBC weapons. Competent Disaster Management officials in US cities and states do it, too.
headscratcher4
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2002
- Messages
- 7,776
"I suspect military action may be less disruptive and potentially less dangerous an option in the long term then some of the other options open to "us" if we decide we won't allow them to develop nuclear weapons."
Only in the shortest possible terms, IMO. First, militarilly, the US is now practically over extended...so, at best it is a raid (a'la the Israeli model). And, assuming it is successful...i.e. that it is able to hit the facility sufficiently to knock out the technology (and keeping in mind that Iran, not stupid, perhaps has learned something from Iraq and made a real effort at secreting the most important "military" parts of its nuclear program...) we are than left with the global fallout.
Specifically, an Iranian government that continues to fail its people on every level but the rhetorical one, will than have the ability to ralley its people in a nationalist frenzy that will enable it to supress all challenges for decades to come. Think Cuba and how Castro uses the US as the excuse for his continuing opression and denile of human rights and freedoms.
Second, the global reaction will make the cartoon riots seem like a romp in the park.
Certainly, many in the world don't want Iran to have a bomb...especially its neighbors (it's sunni Arab neighbors). However, the act of the US knocking out that facility uniliaterally, will either, IMO, cause several marginally cooperative MiddleEastern governments to fall, or it will push many of them into a decisively anti-west "the west is at war with Islam" camp that potnetially will create all of the hidding places for terrorists that Iraq never contained.
It seems to me that economic sanctions -- given the precarious economic condition of the Irani state -- are the most effective option. The state of the economy is very precarious and, unless they are coming together to condemn the US, there is very much a split between fundumentalist factions headed by the President and traditional religious leaders led by the Ayatollah. The fundumentalist need to shake the econmy up to get it going, failing that they need to create national enemies to refocus public anger (at the West and the US). The religious party needs to keep control of the economic power they've created for themselves or refocus public anger at the West and the US.
A military option specifically and directly plays into their hands...and since we are only prepared to risk a dangerous raid-type strike -- i.e. we don't have the resourses the "liberate" Iran as we have "liberated" Iraq, it would be sett9ing a match to a fire that will be completely out of control...for example, Lebnon, Syria, Pakistan, Morocco, Kuwait, etc. could all be swept aside in street anger.
Bush thought we'd flow into Iraq, clean it up and be moving out by now. That the same team might be planning how we deal with Iran doesn't give me any comfort at all.
Only in the shortest possible terms, IMO. First, militarilly, the US is now practically over extended...so, at best it is a raid (a'la the Israeli model). And, assuming it is successful...i.e. that it is able to hit the facility sufficiently to knock out the technology (and keeping in mind that Iran, not stupid, perhaps has learned something from Iraq and made a real effort at secreting the most important "military" parts of its nuclear program...) we are than left with the global fallout.
Specifically, an Iranian government that continues to fail its people on every level but the rhetorical one, will than have the ability to ralley its people in a nationalist frenzy that will enable it to supress all challenges for decades to come. Think Cuba and how Castro uses the US as the excuse for his continuing opression and denile of human rights and freedoms.
Second, the global reaction will make the cartoon riots seem like a romp in the park.
Certainly, many in the world don't want Iran to have a bomb...especially its neighbors (it's sunni Arab neighbors). However, the act of the US knocking out that facility uniliaterally, will either, IMO, cause several marginally cooperative MiddleEastern governments to fall, or it will push many of them into a decisively anti-west "the west is at war with Islam" camp that potnetially will create all of the hidding places for terrorists that Iraq never contained.
It seems to me that economic sanctions -- given the precarious economic condition of the Irani state -- are the most effective option. The state of the economy is very precarious and, unless they are coming together to condemn the US, there is very much a split between fundumentalist factions headed by the President and traditional religious leaders led by the Ayatollah. The fundumentalist need to shake the econmy up to get it going, failing that they need to create national enemies to refocus public anger (at the West and the US). The religious party needs to keep control of the economic power they've created for themselves or refocus public anger at the West and the US.
A military option specifically and directly plays into their hands...and since we are only prepared to risk a dangerous raid-type strike -- i.e. we don't have the resourses the "liberate" Iran as we have "liberated" Iraq, it would be sett9ing a match to a fire that will be completely out of control...for example, Lebnon, Syria, Pakistan, Morocco, Kuwait, etc. could all be swept aside in street anger.
Bush thought we'd flow into Iraq, clean it up and be moving out by now. That the same team might be planning how we deal with Iran doesn't give me any comfort at all.
I agree that we should largely let the world sink or swim on it's own but an "attack" on Isreal means the complete destruction of Isreal. While sending all of Iran to Allah does have it's points, it would be a tad late.
I'm thinking in particular of France, Germany and Russia. They're supposed to be taking the lead on this and they're only now coming around to maybe thinking about a letter which suggests that in the future there might be a referral to the UN for another letter. I'm thinking (in my darker days -- not most days) that the US should announce that no, we're not going to be the military of last resort, we're not going to be the big stick that allows others to speak softly. If Iran wants to develop nuclear weapons and missiles that can hit Paris, Berlin, and Moscow than Paris, Berlin and Moscow can bloody well deal with it on their own -- we have no objection to Iran proceeding.
Last edited:
That doesn't make sense.
If Iran attacked another country then that country would also be a "particular attack interest" yet your post makes it sounds as if you wouldn't;t in those circumstances expect the USA to retaliates. So you haven't, at least with this answer, answered why you consider Israel is somehow deserving of special protection from the USA? I really am curious to understand how you arrive at your position.
Also companies are not countries - how can they be seen to represent a country?