Iran moves the hour hand closer to midnight Page 4

  • Page

    of 22 First / Last

  • shamblemonkee 10 Jul 2008 09:49:56 14,661 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Sorry maybe i should clarify that point, what I meant was that in light of recent exercises in neighbouring countries, a strike before capability was fully realised or a strike to destroy related facilities to delay full capability was more likely?

    At the moment it's all wargames, but with the current US administration I wouldnt put anything past them.
  • souljah 10 Jul 2008 09:51:22 4,701 posts
    Seen 2 years ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Yeah, once that genie is out of the bottle, it wont be too long before there's a Saudi bomb or Egyptian bomb.

    Just a shame then that the US is determined to finish it's 'Axis of Evil' list off and attack Iran, rather than offer some sort of Grand Bargain and lay everything out on the table, including offering non-aggression pacts and economic incentives in return for abandoning their enrichment program.

    Israel wouldn't be too happy so that's a no-no. Unfortunatly, it looks like war is inevitable.
  • chopsen 10 Jul 2008 09:52:12 16,290 posts
    Seen 9 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Ah yes, I see what you mean. Though I could imagine Israel just getting on and doing that without telling anyone about it, without US getting involved.
  • Deleted user 10 July 2008 10:48:47
    I doubt very much Israel would do anything with out covertly agreeing it with the US their number one arms dealer and backer. After all its in the US and Israels own interests to remove all threats in that region.
  • Pure-Ultra 10 Jul 2008 11:59:06 741 posts
    Seen 4 months ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    if we are assuming that Iran needs to be attacked, what sort of nukes do you think we should use and what number of casualties should we try and achieve?
  • Progguitarist 10 Jul 2008 12:13:52 10,537 posts
    Seen 11 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Pure-Ultra wrote:
    if we are assuming that Iran needs to be attacked, what sort of nukes do you think we should use and what number of casualties should we try and achieve?

    Is that a serious post? Honestly?

  • Pure-Ultra 10 Jul 2008 12:18:26 741 posts
    Seen 4 months ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Progguitarist wrote:
    Pure-Ultra wrote:
    if we are assuming that Iran needs to be attacked, what sort of nukes do you think we should use and what number of casualties should we try and achieve?

    Is that a serious post? Honestly?


    I bet that the Americans and Israeli's have a plan on this basis. Hopefully it won't get that far but I'd be interested to know what people think. For example, should we look at tactical nukes to minimise casualties or send a strong message to evil countries by dropping a 20 megaton warhead and starting Iran again in a couple of decades time?
  • Progguitarist 10 Jul 2008 12:37:17 10,537 posts
    Seen 11 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    "Evil" countries? lol

  • shamblemonkee 10 Jul 2008 12:50:59 14,661 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Without question this sort of operation will have been planned and as evidenced the other week even used in exercise.

    I would also be quite sure those plans do not include deploying nuclear weapons of our own.
  • phAge 10 Jul 2008 12:55:48 24,446 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    OTOH, nuking someone for trying to build nukes is a delicious slice of AAA irony.

    I say we go for it.
  • Quint2020 10 Jul 2008 12:56:45 3,484 posts
    Seen 2 months ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    phAge wrote:
    OTOH, nuking someone for trying to build nukes is a delicious slice of AAA irony.

    I say we go for it.

    glol.

    Agreed.
  • fletch273 10 Jul 2008 15:17:52 92 posts
    Seen 3 months ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Fozzie_bear wrote:
    Might have to start forsaking my traditional mars bar and pack of aniseed imperials, ffs.

    I LOVE aniseed imperials!
  • Khanivor 10 Jul 2008 20:30:09 41,297 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    souljah wrote:
    There is no threat from a nuclear armed Iran. None.
    For all their half-cocked talk, the top leadership are ultimatly rational people. They know that had they possession of a few nuclear weapons

    A): They certainly could not use them in a conventional manner (ie ballistic missile) as there would be little doubt as to where they came from, and within 15-20 minutes, Israeli missiles and US ICBMs would be fighting in the sky on who is going to destroy a city first.


    If Iran were to learn the location of Israel's missile silos then it's possible they could launch a missile and destroy them before Israel had a chance to launch. The distances involved is tiny. It's a possibility, but I wouldn't be surprised if Israel already has some of the most sophisticated and well integrated launch detection systems in the world.

    souljah wrote:
    B): They also couldnt smuggle it into Tel Aviv or into the US. Again, were it discovered before detonation, or it did indeed detonate, it would not take too much work to discover the source of the weapons-grade material and mushrooms are sprouting in Iran in short time.

    "Oh noes, someone stole some material from us"

    souljah wrote:
    An Iranian nuke could not be an offensive weapon as it would be a totally unbalanced equation - assured destruction of Iran with minimal to medium damage to the target country.

    Now as a weapon of last resort against an attacking nuclear power who is gaining an upper hand, that seems more likely.

    The problem isn't conventional, it's what a nuclear armed Iran could do without fear of reprisal. The tests were conducted at the Straight of Hormuz. If that's not a clear indication of the real nature of the threat than god knows what is.

    Also, if you look into the history Iran did not start developing nukes to fend of GWB. They started in the 80s. For war to be averted Iran needs to adhere to UNSC resolutions and stop enriching uranium. All threats of attack and invasion stem SOLELY from their refusal to abide by the UN and the NNPT.

    Again, Iranian oil is not of the quality that is in such high demand for fuel. The US or any other country isn't going to be keen on attacking Iran for its oil. Shit, they can just launch a commando raid and steal a bunch of tankers :)

    Iran does not need to fear an attack if it stops its nuclear program. I don't know why this simple fact is so hard for people to grasp.
  • Khanivor 10 Jul 2008 20:32:01 41,297 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    DaemonB wrote:
    I dont see the problem here. The US is the only country to have used them, why should they and its allies have the monopoly on who get into the nuclear club

    I take it you are totally against gun control and believe every individual has the right to carry full automatic weapons, no exceptions.
  • Khanivor 10 Jul 2008 20:33:40 41,297 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    DaemonB wrote:
    I doubt very much Israel would do anything with out covertly agreeing it with the US their number one arms dealer and backer. After all its in the US and Israels own interests to remove all threats in that region.

    It sure seems Israel's strike against the Syrain nuclear weapons facility was done on the sly and without US approval or even knowledge.
  • souljah 10 Jul 2008 21:18:11 4,701 posts
    Seen 2 years ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    /Ahab mode on

    Khanivor wrote:

    If Iran were to learn the location of Israel's missile silos then it's possible they could launch a missile and destroy them before Israel had a chance to launch. The distances involved is tiny. It's a possibility, but I wouldn't be surprised if Israel already has some of the most sophisticated and well integrated launch detection systems in the world.

    Destroy 200+ warheads, many of them road based ballistic missiles and aircraft based with a handful of crude nuclear devices on top of a rocket a little more accurate than those scuds that Saddam was throwing about 15 years ago?

    Come on, as soon as the ignition button is pressed, any number of US launch detection satellites, radar bases in Iraq and Israeli spy aircraft will have spotted the launch and the second the missile passes into Israeli territory, the counterstrike will already be inbound. If it detonated as a nuke, then at the very least, Tehran would no longer exist within a matter of minutes.

    Khanivor wrote:
    "Oh noes, someone stole some material from us"

    "Oh noes guys, why don't you believe us? Why are you turning our nation into molten glass?


    Khanivor wrote:
    The problem isn't conventional, it's what a nuclear armed Iran could do without fear of reprisal. The tests were conducted at the Straight of Hormuz. If that's not a clear indication of the real nature of the threat than god knows what is.

    No fear of reprisals? Taking a machiavellian look at things, Israel and the US would probably welcome the casus beli that Iran would hand them on a plate by acting as the invinsible nuclear armed country while committing hostile acts. Were Iran then to back up threats with actual use of their pitifully crude nukes then see above.

    Khanivor wrote:
    Iran does not need to fear an attack if it stops its nuclear program. I don't know why this simple fact is so hard for people to grasp.

    Pffft. All Iran have to do is look over its western border for an answer to that!
  • Carrybagma 10 Jul 2008 21:21:05 3,904 posts
    Seen 7 years ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Khanivor wrote:
    "Iran moves the hour hand closer to midnight"
    Maybe it's because it's now Iranian summer time?

    Arf. Bring on niteninja.
  • MetalDog 10 Jul 2008 21:25:03 23,920 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Khanivor wrote:
    Iran does not need to fear an attack if it stops its nuclear program. I don't know why this simple fact is so hard for people to grasp.

    Because it appears to be completely untrue. It's certainly not a fact, whichever way you slice it.

    -- boobs do nothing for me, I want moustaches and chest hair.

  • El_MUERkO 10 Jul 2008 21:27:17 17,150 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Official Capcom Guy wrote:
    exterminate the dogs!

    tut tut ocg
  • FWB 10 Jul 2008 21:31:07 45,650 posts
    Seen 9 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Iran must not be allowed to develop nukes. It's a serious problem that Pakistan already has them.
  • Khanivor 10 Jul 2008 21:38:47 41,297 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    I agree with the first point really, which is why i don't think Iran's nukes are a danger in the sense of them deciding "fuck it, let's nuke the Zionists". The danger comes from the huge shift in the balance of power and the ability Iran would have to hold the world hostage by strangling the Straight of Hormuz. I've yet to read any response to this and related situations that doesn't rely on an opinion of the US and Israel as foaming at the mouth for the opportunity to nuke Iran.

    And again, the fear is not limited to the US and Israel. Do you think the Greeks wank themselves into a stupor of fantasy over mushroom clouds over Tehran? Maybe they have more pragmatic reasons for conducting military air exercises with Israel.

    For sure there's a lot of ridiculous exageration of cockwaving on the parts of certain people in the US and Israel but I don't understand how this behaviour somehow negates any and all concerns over a nuclear-armed Iran. Why on Earth would Israel want to attack Iran, other than to destroy nuclear facilities? Why would the US wish to commit economic and military suicide by invading Iran? Honestly, go find serious people calling for attacks on Iran which are not related to its nuclear program. You may find a few suggesting something should be done about Iran's backing of the insurgency in Iraq but as their program predates the invasion by around two decades it's hard to claim defence from an unprovoked attack is a honest aim.

    Now, if Iran were to allow some nuclear material to fall into the hands of people who would use it to detonate a device then it's going to be hard to convince people in democratic nations that vaporising a few million innocent Iranians is the best response. Better off not putting both the Iranians and hundreds of millions of potential victims around the globe in that position in the first place.
  • OutpostCommand 10 Jul 2008 21:40:03 366 posts
    Seen 7 years ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    eyeran
  • captaineurogamer 10 Jul 2008 21:40:40 4,322 posts
    Seen 7 years ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    OutpostCommand wrote:
    eyeran

    The american way of saying it.
  • Khanivor 10 Jul 2008 21:40:47 41,297 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    MetalDog wrote:
    Khanivor wrote:
    Iran does not need to fear an attack if it stops its nuclear program. I don't know why this simple fact is so hard for people to grasp.

    Because it appears to be completely untrue. It's certainly not a fact, whichever way you slice it.

    Appears on what basis?
  • souljah 10 Jul 2008 21:42:16 4,701 posts
    Seen 2 years ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    FWB wrote:
    Iran must not be allowed to develop nukes. It's a serious problem that Pakistan already has them.

    They must not get their hands on CS3 either!
  • Khanivor 10 Jul 2008 21:45:17 41,297 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Aye, there is that development too. On the one hand it shows Iran is mega desperate to antagonise as much as possible, while on the other hand it helps to remind us they are sill some way from being the threat that many fear. They are apparently a few years away from having the ability to tip missiles with nuclear warheads. Makes one wonder why they are so keen on pushing the issue hard right now.
  • Shinji 10 Jul 2008 21:54:45 5,903 posts
    Seen 1 year ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Khanivor wrote:
    Aye, there is that development too. On the one hand it shows Iran is mega desperate to antagonise as much as possible, while on the other hand it helps to remind us they are sill some way from being the threat that many fear. They are apparently a few years away from having the ability to tip missiles with nuclear warheads. Makes one wonder why they are so keen on pushing the issue hard right now.

    Because they reckon that if they rattle the sabres they've got now for long enough, maybe it'll keep the wolves from the doors for long enough for them to build something really nasty.

    It's not particularly clever, but I don't think the Iranian leadership's worldview is particularly complex or intelligent. As far as they're concerned, one of their oldest and most powerful enemies (the whole Shah thing still weighs really fucking heavy on them, not to mention the Iran-Iraq war) just invaded the guys next door and has massed troops there.

    Never mind the fact that America is spread too thin as it is and doesn't have the stomach for another invasion or occupation, or that those troops are barely enough to control Iraq, let alone secretly preparing for an Iranian invasion. The Iranian leadership has shown time and again that they're paranoid and often irrational.

    But they're also belligerent, arrogant, aggressive and dangerous. Rather than going "fuck, okay, this is a bad situation - let's play nice and try to improve it", their reaction is to puff up their chests, shake out their colourful feathers and parade around with their chins in the air, hoping nobody notices how much they're sweating.

    I'm not saying it's America's fault, because it patently isn't - not directly. I'm merely saying that much of what Iran is doing is swagger because they're afraid of America.

    Ironically, of course, it's the present swagger that actually means they have something real to fear, but I doubt they see it that way.

    More importantly, one of the senior Iranian generals who was in charge of firing the missiles yesterday is called General Salami. That's fucking awesome.

  • Deleted user 10 July 2008 21:56:26
    souljah wrote:
    FWB wrote:
    Iran must not be allowed to develop nukes. It's a serious problem that Pakistan already has them.

    They must not get their hands on CS3 either!

    LOL!
  • MetalDog 10 Jul 2008 22:02:28 23,920 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Khanivor wrote:
    MetalDog wrote:
    Khanivor wrote:
    Iran does not need to fear an attack if it stops its nuclear program. I don't know why this simple fact is so hard for people to grasp.

    Because it appears to be completely untrue. It's certainly not a fact, whichever way you slice it.

    Appears on what basis?

    Iraq - with its mythical weapons of mass destruction is the obvious answer. Not to mention the phenomenal amount of 'it's 'when' not 'if'' rhetoric from both Israel and the US over the years.

    Now you can say 'that's just talk', but one of the justifications for attacking Iran is their collection of wanky, belligerant statements. What is sauce for your goose is sauce for my gander.

    It seems to me that it's going to take a huge amount of pressure from less interested parties to stop the whole china, russia, US, israel, iran thing from turning into the sort of 'Holy shit' situation we got into because of the bay of pigs fiasco.

    It is absolutely not the fault of one nation - it's not even /mostly/ the fault of one nation - the wankery has been widespread. One of the reasons this sort of situation drags on and on teetering on the brink of utter stupidity is because everyone involved is busy pointing fingers and shrieking 'he started it' instead of trying to cool it down.

    -- boobs do nothing for me, I want moustaches and chest hair.

  • Khanivor 10 Jul 2008 22:07:14 41,297 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Shinji wrote:
    Because they reckon that if they rattle the sabres they've got now for long enough, maybe it'll keep the wolves from the doors for long enough for them to build something really nasty.

    Gotta agree for the most part there. It's a policy that has worked well so far, which is why those who are of the opinion Iran either deserves nukes as much as the next man or is only in it to keep the evil yanks and Jews at arm's reach depress and annoy me.

    However,I also think the Iranian regime is more than reacting towards perceived threats. I think they realise both the US and Israel are at historically very weak points and now would be a splendid time to spread their wings and jostle for control of the region. Till we wean ourselves off of oil stability in the Gulf is in everyone's interests. It certainly appears many, many people have forgotten the crisis back in the 80s when Iran first tried to control the Straights. That's the bloody reason all those American warships went there in the first place!

    Shinji wrote:
    More importantly, one of the senior Iranian generals who was in charge of firing the missiles yesterday is called General Salami. That's fucking awesome.

    If there is a war then Iran has already won on style points :)
  • Page

    of 22 First / Last

Log in or register to reply