Israeli planned strike on Iranian Nuclear facilities

Nietzschean

this whole nuclear non-proliferation treaty has turned into a bit of a farce, an excuse for america to terrorise anyone who doesn't have nukes, as soon as ye grab a few nukes you get to talk at the big boys table. What country in their right mind who's getting crap from the us isn't going to try build a few nukes?


And preempetive strikes would be possibly the worst thing isreal or the us can do, think of the plants they want to hit, the possible radiation fallout(from material on site, assuming they attack with non-nuclear weapons) could kill millions. Thats not going to go down overly well anywhere, except maybe isreal, but they are just as much fanatics as their neighbours if not more so.

I think the russians/chinese should just make a defense pact with iran, solve the entire problem, station a few nukes in iran under their control, would stabilse the region alot more than further us/isreal messing with people.


As has been pointed out, North Korea got nukes, haven't seen any detonations in tokyo yet..... and doesn't seem to be any more discussions of the us attempting another invasion...


If iran gets invaded or attacked i don't suppose we'll see a stable planet before were all well burried(possibly due to some terrorist attack).

(if anyone's read Scott Adams - The Religion War, the segrated planet described in that seems quite possible, though the outcome doubtfully so rosey)

Flame Weilder

The west will probably only be interested in the ME as long as they are a major oil supplier, when that oil runs out we probably won't give a s**t about them.

Flame me if you want but I am merely expressing my views.

Gurgle

Deleted User wrote:

I thought the same when Germany disagreed with the US on the invasion of Iran. I mean, they have no right to preach at anyone etc. etc. past deplorable crimes etc. etc.

What an absolutely ridiculous attempt at a point.
Germany has spend 50 years building one of the most comprehensively fair and peaceful democratic systems in the world, to make absolutely sure that no psychopath like Hitler ever gets into power again.

bonkey

Deleted User wrote:

Gotta break eggs to make an omelette

Yes, you do indeed.

The Nobel Peace Prize, however, is not given to the best omlette-maker.

Pazaz 21

What do people think of the double standard Bush is showing between India and Iran ? I mean he is complaining that Iran wants to build a nuclear weapon when they say all they want is to increase there power output to stimulate Industrial growth and to bring power to millions of peoples homes. India says the same thing ( we only want nuclear power plants to help the people, WE ALREADY HAVE THE BOMB) and Bush is like, ok at least they won't try to use the technology to build a bomb because, oh wait, THEY ALREADY HAVE ONE !! I mean am i missing something here, if you manage to get a nuclear weapon, one way or another, then its ok to have nuclear reactors in your country, but if you get caught trying to acquire/build one, your screwed, branded " mad men " and " Fanatics ". I'm not sure if i like the fact that Iran may have a nuclear weapon, but i'm not that happy that India have one either, or the US for that matter. At least we know that the US won't use the bomb because they know that they could never live down the use of a weapon like that in this day and age in the Western World, but i think the problem people have is that they are not sure that Iran would feel the same sense of enormity and utter outrage if a nuclear weapon was used by them as it would have in the Western World.

It comes down to a mixture of ignorance and fear, as most things in this world do !

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Captain Trips

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Reminds me of something....

Manic Moran

Pazaz 21 wrote:

I mean am i missing something here, if you manage to get a nuclear weapon, one way or another, then its ok to have nuclear reactors in your country, but if you get caught trying to acquire/build one, your screwed, branded " mad men " and " Fanatics ".

I think a lot of it is the realisation that the genie cannot be put back into the bottle. Once someone has nukes, there's little guarantee that a disarmament is effective. Of those countries that are accepted as having voluntarily gotten rid of their nukes, three of them handed theirs over to Russia (who already knew exactly how many were out there) in exchange for economic concessions, and South Africa didn't have any particularly valid threats against it. If any country that has developed or acquired nuclear weapons happens to have any blood enemies, such as India/Pakistan or Israel/Insert-Arab-Country-Here there needs to be a hell of a lot of convincing done for the programme to be revoked, and for it to be certain to have been revoked.

On an academic note, whilst there has been international co-operation in the past, such as Israel/South Africa, I'm aware of only one instance where nuclear weapons were transferred outright to the control of what at the time was another country: Canada, which had six nuclear strike squadrons based in Europe, and their Canada-based air defense fighters equipped with nuclear air-to-air missiles. I'm not sure if the ownership of the weapons was transferred along with the control or not. However, I'm pretty sure that the other nuclear assets in Canada were retained under American control (Such as the BOMARC anti-air missile)

At least we know that the US won't use the bomb because they know that they could never live down the use of a weapon like that in this day and age in the Western World,

Oh, heaven forbid that the people of the US themselves might think that nuclear weapons are terrible things that one hopes never to have to use. It's only the fear of disapproval by the Western World that has prevented the US from nuking people left, right and centre...(Notwithstanding the fact that disapproval hasn't stopped them doing other things, such as invading Iraq)

but i think the problem people have is that they are not sure that Iran would feel the same sense of enormity and utter outrage if a nuclear weapon was used by them as it would have in the Western World.

Nail, hit by hammer, on head. i.e. There is an extant fear that nukes in the hands of certain governments, most notably Iran and North Korea, are likely to be used as offensive weapons, not deterrents.

NTM

Gurgle

Pazaz 21 wrote:

At least we know that the US won't use the bomb because they know that they could never live down the use of a weapon like that in this day and age in the Western World

If only!
They remain the only country to ever have used nukes.
GWB has continuously demonstrated that the opinions of the rest of the western world are irrelevant.

Nuclear armed countries:
United States
Russia
United Kingdom
France
People's Republic of China
India
Pakistan
Israel
North Korea

The US is still the most likely to use them as they are probably the only country who could reasonably expect to be able to defend against a nuclear counter-attack.

Gurgle

Gurgle wrote:

What an absolutely ridiculous attempt at a point.

It may well seem like that to you because you missed it.

I was not having a pop at Germany, but the idea that Israel is somehow not allowed to express a valid opinion on this matter or do the right thing because they commit atrocities elsewhere or have done so in their history. The point you missed was that I was saying that would be as invalid a stance as suggesting Germany shouldn't have an opinion because of their past. It's the complete opposite of the meaning you took.

Gurgle

Deleted User wrote:

the idea that Israel is somehow not allowed to express a valid opinion on this matter or do the right thing because they commit atrocities elsewhere or have done so in their history

The difference is that the current Israeli government is the direct successor to those who committed the atrocities. They subscribe to the same predujices and priorities. They have the same basic definition of right and wrong, and the same disregard for international outrage.
The Germans have distanced themselves as far as possible from the repression and intolerance of Hitler's politics. They have earned the right to be treated as a separate entity to Hitler's Germany.

Gurgle

To deal with your points in the reverse order...

Gurgle wrote:

The Germans have distanced themselves as far as possible from the repression and intolerance of Hitler's politics. They have earned the right to be treated as a separate entity to Hitler's Germany.

I completely agree.

Gurgle wrote:

The difference is that the current Israeli government is the direct successor to those who committed the atrocities. They subscribe to the same predujices and priorities. They have the same basic definition of right and wrong, and the same disregard for international outrage.

One could argue that. But to take a totally different issue, and I'm not making a comparison or analogy here, if Israel were to donate money to a Third World country, it would be the right thing to do - their problems do not change that. The fact that they have a chequered past and present on domestic matters does not of itself render their concern about Iran building a nuclear arsenal invalid or any action they might take objectionable.

Gurgle

Deleted User wrote:

The fact that they have a chequered past and present on domestic matters does not of itself render their concern about Iran building a nuclear arsenal invalid or any action they might take objectionable.

Fair point.
Iran with nukes would be a particularly unpleasant prospect for Israel.

I fully believe that Iran needs a 'regime change', and the rest of the area needs Iran to have one. But I think the cost is too high for a change forced on a country by unsympathetic foreigners. Much as we all love to hate Bertie, how impressed would we be if the US Air Force levelled everything from Parnell street to the Dail?

The Iraqi people have suffered enormously at the hands of both the US invaders and the anti-US insurgents.

In the case of Iran, bombing any 'possible' or 'suspected' nuclear related sites will kill grunts not policy makers. Nothing short of a full scale invasion will prevent them from building nukes, and a full scale invasion would be a bloodbath on a scale 10 times greater than Iraq.
But such a strike will give them an event to point at and say "And thats why we need nukes, the US and its minions will hit anyone who doesn't have them as defence".

Manic Moran

In the case of Iran, bombing any 'possible' or 'suspected' nuclear related sites will kill grunts not policy makers. Nothing short of a full scale invasion will prevent them from building nukes, and a full scale invasion would be a bloodbath on a scale 10 times greater than Iraq.
But such a strike will give them an event to point at and say "And thats why we need nukes, the US and its minions will hit anyone who doesn't have them as defence".

I mentioned it on another thread, but there is a level in between airstrikes, which aren't a guarantee of anything, and a full-blown invasion coupled with occupation and regime change. Given the presumably dispersed and hidden nature of the Iranian nuclear programme, any raid would require boots on the ground. They do not, however, require boots on the ground over the entire country or for an extended period of time. The US and other countries have several units which are pretty suitable for this sort of hit-and-run attack.

I'll bet a substantial sum of money that some people in the Pentagon are taking a look at an airborne raid.

NTM