now there is talk of Iran

after Iraq, an article in the torygraph today is on about the yank administration wanting to target Iran if they don't respond to the nuclear issue by diplomacy.situation is slowly growing more urgent.
why did the yanks let this madman in again?
some hardliners in Iran apparently want to nuke Israel.
looks like its all kicking off.

 

What surprises me is that anyone is surprised.

Although in terms of nuclear threat, surely north korea is the number 1?

And how come "friendly" nations (to the "western world" anyway) such as India and Pakistan are allowed to develop nuclear arms? And of course, Israel having such weaponry doesn't worry anyone...

I hate politics.

 

FFS when will they stop !

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4198133.stm

Condoleezza Rice listed six countries as "outposts of tyranny" to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee - Cuba, Bura, North Korea, Iran, Belarus and Zimbabwe.

What's so wrong with Cuba, is it just the fact that it's a Communist state ?

And Belarus has borders with two EC countries.

 

Spot on. North Korea has been the no 1 threat since the fall of the Berlin wall. The reason Iraq got invaded and not north Korea is that North Korea poses a real threat. IOW, Iraq was "doable" NK is not.

 

...not forgetting the Democratic People's Republic of Korea's complete lack of SUV-fodder...

 

Yes.

 

To me Iran is almost certainly pursuing a nuclear weapons program, rather than any peaceful use of the technology - its past obstruction to IAEA inspections to me indicates this most strongly, then theres the fact that Iran as an oil rich nation is not exactly short of cheap fuel for generationg electricity. Then theres the issue of whether any extra power generating capacity is needed in the first place, is Iranian industry expanding so rapidly? The idea of Iran pursuing a nuclear program for wholely peaceful reasons seems somewhat far fetched to me.

As for the US and Europe's 'interference' in iran's affairs over this nuclear program, well whilst I can appreciate its hypocritical of us to stop other nations possessing nuclear weapons when we have nukes ourselves, I don't think a nuclear armed Iran is in our interests - with the way missile technology can proliferate from North Korea and Pakistan, Europe could soon be within range of Iran. A hardline Islamic fundamentalist regime with nuclear weapons capable of hitting us....doesn't appeal to me much, but the problem is preventing it without starting WW3

North Korea has not been invaded since it would be WW3 or at least the worst war since WW2....Seoul is within twenty or so miles of the heavily militarised border area (surrounding the narrow strip that is the DMZ) so anything kicks off and it'll end up ruined due to artilltery and missile fire even before any conflict turned nuclear. Basically to go to war with North Korea would be at such a high price that even if North Korea was defeated militarily, there wouldn't be much left afterwards...

Iran would pose a significantly greater problem for the US military than Iraq would, it has a large and highly motivated army, a relatively modern and well equipped air force, and has lots of anti-ship missiles. Using what it has along with some unconventional ('terrorist' style) tactics and the US would have a hard job on its hands to win without massive losses - a simulated excercise last year had the Iranians 'win' after sinking two US Navy carrier battle groups . The longer the Americans leave it though, the stronger Iran will become and the more likely it is to become a nuclear power. As it is though, the US military is overstretched with Iraq and as such fighting a war now would be very difficult.

Any scenario I can think of has potential to get very messy though, the Israelis won't want to even risk letting Iran become a nuclear power, and if they strike first (as I expect they'd do) the potential is there for the US to get drawn in

EDIT: Cuba is criticised for lack of press freedoms and full democratic participation, which is something of a given in a Communist state, but to the US's own measures of what makes a state good or bad means it fits into the latter category quite easily.

 

I think it should be borne in mind that only one country has ever used atomic weapons against another country, and that in highly questionable circumstances - the "Fat Man" plutonium implosion bomb used on Nagasaki seems to have been used only to see whether it worked. The implication is always that the US will behave responsibly. We now have the example of Iraq to show us that this isn't so.

Moreover, while the US pontificates on the desirability of stopping "rogue states" getting the bomb, it itself is developing a new generation of small "bunker buster" nuclear devices, i.e., small tactical weapons that could be used in a conflict. If I were Iran and heard the way the US is currently talking, I personally would want nuclear weapons in my arsenal to deter the US from any (further) stupidity.

 

Pick a war or pick a country, a rather information and fact packed site that imho shows a layperson how things may well progress in the near future.

I think Will's views are about right and that Iran will be a tough nut to crack with the plan being to "take out all that offends", after all no one is going to invade Iran for the gas and oil are they?

 

I see tones raises the old chessnut of the atom bombs dropped on Japan , personally I don't know for certain whether it was justified or not, certainly it was preferable to a full blown invasion of Japan, as to whether or not the Japanese would have surrendered without it I don't know. After years of fierce war in the pacific though I'd be wanting to end it as quickly as possible, if that meant dropping the bomb then so be it, but there is always the nagging suspicion it was as much about testing as it was about military necessity.

A nuclear deterrent obviously works to deter US military action, as seen by North Korea - but the problem is that a drive to obtain this nuclear capability by Iran increases the likelihood of action against it before it has the bomb, as the Americans are more likely to try to take preventative action before than risk nuclear war afterwards. A drive to obtain a nuclear detterrent is more likely to bring about war - actually having the deterrent decreases it, but if your weapons program is not completely secret then its actually a more dangerous move, and doesn't help protect you from the US at all IMHO.

 

I hope the 200,000 that perished in Hiroshima and Nagasaki or as a direct result thereof will find some solace in being old chestnuts.

 

Why is starting a war with Iran seen as the only option to resolve the problem? What the hell happened to diplomacy?

The fact that the US sees fit to unilaterally start a war with a country that poses no direct threat to it is frightening. The fact that other people also see this as acceptable is just as frightening. War should only ever be the absolute last resort, not the first and only one

Michael.

 

But this is nothing new. Vietnam? Korean War? Even WW2 in europe... Germany didn't pose a threat to the US, and Hitler was well known to want to avoid war with the states.

 

I didn't say it was the 'only resort' but the thread started off with a post discussing the US starting such a war, so I was discussing the military problems with such an undertaking.

Diplomacy is always preferable but given Irans past obstruction of the IAEA over its nuclear program, its hardline regime, and George Bush, I struggle to see how a diplomatic solution can be reached easily unless someone bends over backwards (and given the rhetoric coming out of both camps that seems unlikely to me). Personally I'm hoping the Europeans will try and broker some deal that helps resolve the situation, because the Americans and the Iranians don't seem too keen to talk...that may change if they realise the way events could go if hostilities did break out.

Sure Iran poses no direct threat to the US mainland, but undeniably it poses a risk to its strategic interests in the Middle East - certainly having Israel as the only nuclear power in the Middle East leaves the US and Israel in a stronger position regionally. For them it is not desirable for Iran to have Nuclear weapons...whether thats morally 'right' or not I'm not going to judge, its darned hypocritical for them thats for sure, but thats politics the world over for you.

tones, I wasn't referring to the victims as being 'old chestnuts'

 

Diplomacy is the game we're playing right now.

Think back to Iran's capturing of American hostages back in the days of Jimmy Carter. The hostages were held for months while Carter basically dithered. As soon as Reagan was elected president the Iranians released the hostages immediately. They did this because they believed that he would act.

Here we have a situation where the US is threatening action while Europe is negotiating (and don't kid yourselves that Iranian nukes are any more acceptable to the Europeans). Our hope must be that this 'good cop/bad cop' approach yields results. I think it will.

If it doesn't work, I would expect to see an aerial bombing campaign by the US. This could achieve the aim of destroying the nuclear facilities. A ground invasion seems unlikely.

As Michael said, "War should only ever be the absolute last resort..."

 

When World War II broke out in 1939, President Roosevelt declared the US a neutral party in the conflict. Both he and the American citizens felt that isolationism was in their nation's best interest. The US at this time wanted to avoid all foreign entanglements.

On December 7th 1941, Japan (who was allied with Germany) invaded Pearl Harbour, thus starting a state of war between Japan and the USA.

On the morning of December 11th, Germany declared war against the United States.

Congressional Declaration of War

You youngsters, Isaac.

 

This 'testing the bomb' thing. Did it need testing twice then?

For a 'fair test' shouldnt it be dropped serveral more times? (blindly?)

Smaller 'bunker busting' nuclear misiles should be sufficient for further tests.

Targets include the white house, camp david, the pentagon.


On a serious note (that WASNT of course).. I wonder quite honestly what it will really take to get an American presidency that truly acts with a cautious hand in foreign politics.

The sad conclusion I've tacitly come to is that a BIG American loss would be all that could achiece that. It seems the nations that truly try to avoid war are those that have suffered the horror of its consequence (Im thinking Germany, France, Japan etc)

Personally when I think of Bush, the words that come to mind are those used by Saddam when he was still in power. He called him ''The idiot son''. It still seems like the best term of reference.

 

Is that true?

 

bottleneck - the two bombs worked on different mechanisms. Fat Man was the plutonium bomb, Thin Man was the uranium bomb.

 

Steve - probably not. I was thinking more of vocal opposition to the war in Iraq. Im sure there's something there though in my theory.

Isaac, I hadnt realized that they were of different type. Thanks. I was being daft anyway, its ludicrous to suggest (IMO) that the bombs were dropped to see if they would work!!