Tony Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 Iran hasn`t started a war for over 300 years.Remind me again how that warmongering nation is a threat to us!! Iran is just getting backed into a corner with inevitable consequences if it carries on.They have nuclear neighbours to the north,east and west.China will not stand idly by whilst their oil supply for an ever growing nation is severely disrupted. Any attack on Iran by America or Israel(and subsequent retaliation the world over with suicide bombers) would undoubtedly send millions of refugees streaming over the border into Russia which then threatens their national security and they get involved. Which nuclear nations have threatened the sovereignty of Iran so that Iran needs nuclear weapons to protect themselves? Russia doesn't have a border with Iran. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mullamad Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 Iran hasn`t started a war for over 300 years.Remind me again how that warmongering nation is a threat to us!! Iran is just getting backed into a corner with inevitable consequences if it carries on.They have nuclear neighbours to the north,east and west.China will not stand idly by whilst their oil supply for an ever growing nation is severely disrupted. Any attack on Iran by America or Israel(and subsequent retaliation the world over with suicide bombers) would undoubtedly send millions of refugees streaming over the border into Russia which then threatens their national security and they get involved. Cool let's get it done, god wills it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 On the other, if Iran is really keen to develop nuclear power for energy, why don't we do like the French and install and manage our own on their behalf?Possibly because -unlike France, wich has invested extremely heavily in nuclear power for decades- the UK doesn't have nuclear expertise to the extent of competing -successfully- on international procurement markets. A clear case of the now-very long standing (British) political immobilism/nimbyism (in matters of nuclear power) come full circle. A bit like high speed trains...and more Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 it's all bluster. A blockade would be playing into the hands of Iran's enemies and the Iranians know this. It would seen as a cassus beli by almost everybody, and even the Arab League probably. This is why I don't believe that a nuclear Iran is even less of a risk than a nuclear Israel. Even if you take Tony's point that Ahmadinejad wants to wipe Israel off the map, he wouldn't use nuclear weapons to do it - it would be futile and self defeating. If you accept the more nuanced translation, it's much more likely Iran will sponsor the assassination of Israeli politicians, in much the same way Iranian nuclear scientists have been assassinated by Israeli sponsored killers. Of course, even though her collaboration may have been limited, Iran did allow IAEA inspections until everyone got antsy again. A more accepting international attitude to Iran's nuclear ambitions would probably result in a resumption of inspections, and finally full disclosure. No-one can claim that Israel is party to international conventions on nuclear weapons, or is ever likely to be. The greater risk of a nuclear exchange seems to be the whole India/Pakistan thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mullamad Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 This is why I don't believe that a nuclear Iran is even less of a risk than a nuclear Israel. Even if you take Tony's point that Ahmadinejad wants to wipe Israel off the map, he wouldn't use nuclear weapons to do it - it would be futile and self defeating. If you accept the more nuanced translation, it's much more likely Iran will sponsor the assassination of Israeli politicians, in much the same way Iranian nuclear scientists have been assassinated by Israeli sponsored killers. Of course, even though her collaboration may have been limited, Iran did allow IAEA inspections until everyone got antsy again. A more accepting international attitude to Iran's nuclear ambitions would probably result in a resumption of inspections, and finally full disclosure. No-one can claim that Israel is party to international conventions on nuclear weapons, or is ever likely to be. The greater risk of a nuclear exchange seems to be the whole India/Pakistan thing. Very logical and well reasoned but you have forgotten religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 Very logical and well reasoned but you have forgotten religion. I'd be absolutely amazed if Ahmadinejad has any religion. He's a very clever man, and I suspect that's why he practices, not because he believes in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 Very logical and well reasoned but you have forgotten religion. Unless someone actually speaks to god, which is rare, realpolitik rules. People who actually do talk to god tend not to get into the kind of position we're talking about (pushing the red button). Leaders who profess religious inspiration, virtue & piety are using it as a tool to achieve their own aims. Not the other way round. I'd be absolutely amazed if Ahmadinejad has any religion. He's a very clever man, and I suspect that's why he practices, not because he believes in it. Unquestionably. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XXTickerXX Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 Which nuclear nations have threatened the sovereignty of Iran so that Iran needs nuclear weapons to protect themselves? Russia doesn't have a border with Iran. Stop it i`m being an armchair analyst!!. http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/01/russia-should-anything-happen-to-iran-this-will-be-a-direct-threat-to-our-national-security.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 I put it that what our media tells us of Irans nuclear capabilities and ambitions is pretty accurate. We will see a blockade of Iran and its waters soon. The reaction of other surrounding Islamic Arab states will be very telling. We won't be sending much more down there, we haven't got the capability. We've two frigates, a minehunter, a survey ship (!!) and a landing ship (!!!!). The rest are more or less tied up and anything else useful will be twiddling it's collective thumbs for the Olympics. I think the air force is cut to the quick as well. Rumors that flotilla of pedalos manned by mod civil servants with loud speakers are on route are unconfirmed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeX Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 a single US aircraft carrier has more firepower than the entire Iranian airforce combined. Iran wouldn't dare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.