Iran: time for a military option?
Discussion
Iran announced this week that they are to resume nuclear activities claiming this was to "fuel nuclear power stations". This is clearly complete BS since they are sitting on huge oil and gas reserves.
In light of their new ultra-conservative President (Mahmoud Ahmadinejad) and the possibility of a middle eastern arms race - Is it time to take the military option and end Iran's nuclear ambitions permanently? Do you trust Iran with nuclear weapons?
In light of their new ultra-conservative President (Mahmoud Ahmadinejad) and the possibility of a middle eastern arms race - Is it time to take the military option and end Iran's nuclear ambitions permanently? Do you trust Iran with nuclear weapons?
Unfortunately it is a bit late to put the nuclear genie back in the bottle, since both Pakistan and (possibly) North Korea already have them.
North Korea is already highly dangerous and (with a change of government) Pakistan could be too.
The only option for the West is missile defences.
>> Edited by JagLover on Thursday 4th August 09:20
North Korea is already highly dangerous and (with a change of government) Pakistan could be too.
The only option for the West is missile defences.
>> Edited by JagLover on Thursday 4th August 09:20
CupraR said:
Iran announced this week that they are to resume nuclear activities claiming this was to "fuel nuclear power stations". This is clearly complete BS since they are sitting on huge oil and gas reserves.
Do you trust Iran with nuclear weapons?
No more than I trust the French not to let them off in the South Pacific, but you don't see anyone suggesting we invade them.
Also, I though the UK had pretty healty supplies of oil and gas, yet we have nuclear power stations. so why shouldn't Iran?
Can you point to any countries thay have invaded recently?
Yeah, because invading ANOTHER middle eastern country would really enamour the Western world to society, wouldn't it?
Why is it that we have to start interfering with other countries decisions about what they do inside their own borders? I really just don't get it?!?
Are the Iranians threatening to attack us? Invade the port of Dover after treking across Europe per chance?
The gung-ho, world police attitude has to stop at some point, preferably quickly, before the rest of the world hates us as much as the Iraqi and Afghan nations do.
Why is it that we have to start interfering with other countries decisions about what they do inside their own borders? I really just don't get it?!?
Are the Iranians threatening to attack us? Invade the port of Dover after treking across Europe per chance?
The gung-ho, world police attitude has to stop at some point, preferably quickly, before the rest of the world hates us as much as the Iraqi and Afghan nations do.
CupraR said:
Iran announced this week that they are to resume nuclear activities claiming this was to "fuel nuclear power stations". This is clearly complete BS since they are sitting on huge oil and gas reserves.
Perhaps they're just being Eco-friendly?
Any Sandalista will tell you that we're rapidly running out of fossil fuels.JagLover said:
The only option for the West is missile defences.
Which will be totally useless...if you can smuggle immigrants into the UK time after time, a suitcase bomb will be no trouble at all!
The only option for the West is to start trying to engage these nations not ostracise them!
racefan_uk said:
Yeah, because invading ANOTHER middle eastern country would really enamour the Western world to society, wouldn't it?
Why is it that we have to start interfering with other countries decisions about what they do inside their own borders? I really just don't get it?!?
Are the Iranians threatening to attack us? Invade the port of Dover after treking across Europe per chance?
The gung-ho, world police attitude has to stop at some point, preferably quickly, before the rest of the world hates us as much as the Iraqi and Afghan nations do.
Agreed.....
Morally, the UK would be in a better position to lay down the law to other countries, if it was nuclear free itself, however it has possesed nuclear weapons since the late forties..........
Obviously the world would be a much safer place without them, but they aren't going to uninvent them are they?????
havoc said:
The only option for the West is missile defences.
Which will be totally useless...if you can smuggle immigrants into the UK time after time, a suitcase bomb will be no trouble at all!
The only option for the West is to start trying to engage these nations not ostracise them!
Yes they would be able to smuggle a bomb in fairly easily with current border defences. After all only a laughably small proportion of containers entering America are checked.
That is though with current border defences. Once the first Biological/Chemical/Nuclear device is set off in a western country by Muslim terrorists we will see how long the current lax border controls last.
And as for trying to engage with these nutcases they have no interest in engagement or debate, they wish only to destroy the western way of life.
Wacky Racer said:
Yeah, because invading ANOTHER middle eastern country would really enamour the Western world to society, wouldn't it?
Why is it that we have to start interfering with other countries decisions about what they do inside their own borders? I really just don't get it?!?
Are the Iranians threatening to attack us? Invade the port of Dover after treking across Europe per chance?
The gung-ho, world police attitude has to stop at some point, preferably quickly, before the rest of the world hates us as much as the Iraqi and Afghan nations do.
Agreed.....
Morally, the UK would be in a better position to lay down the law to other countries, if it was nuclear free itself, however it has possesed nuclear weapons since the late forties..........
Obviously the world would be a much safer place without them, but they aren't going to uninvent them are they?????
Dont bring morals into this..
Its about keeping us and allies stong and those they are not so friendly weak. That is it isnt it.
Wacky Racer said:
Morally, the UK would be in a better position to lay down the law to other countries, if it was nuclear free itself, however it has possesed nuclear weapons since the late forties...?
Indeed, but we're not a bunch of religious nutters swearing vengeance on anything that doesn't agree with them.
I don't think they'd use them on us - they can't even set off chemical bombs properly - but on each other, trying to settle their ancient differences. And if Iran, N. Korea, Pakistan, India got involved in a nuclear punch-up it would certainly mess up the world. That's why the more sensible countries have an interest to police them.
simpo two said:
Indeed, but we're not a bunch of religious nutters swearing vengeance on anything that doesn't agree with them.
Err, sounds like George W Bush to a tee to me...
simpo two said:
That's why the more sensible countries have an interest to police them.
No, you're confusing that with the desperation to get their hands on the oil and gas reserves.
"They aren't threatening anyone yet" is not much of an argument. Comparing France's weapons to those of Iran isn't very sensible either.
France has a system of government that doesn't concentrate power in a small group. Its institutions of State (for example the judiciary, police and armed forces) are loyal to the State and its constitution. This means the lunatics are highly unlikely to be able to take over the asylum and start playing with the nukes.
Iran is currently fairly stable, thank God, but its system of government is intrinsically far weaker than that of France. It would be great if it matured into a stable, Islamic and democratic state in the coming years, but it is just as likely to slide into a theocratic dictatorship proped up by a self-serving military. The risk of the lunatics taking over the asylum is far to great to allow the country to have nuclear weapons.
The military option can not be ruled out, though it is obviously a dire step. Process would no doubt involve taking the issue to the UN Security Council (which is the underlying threat if the current negotiations stall) and, if that failed to bring them to heel, I would expect their nuclear facilities to be bombed. Wouldn't be the first time.
France has a system of government that doesn't concentrate power in a small group. Its institutions of State (for example the judiciary, police and armed forces) are loyal to the State and its constitution. This means the lunatics are highly unlikely to be able to take over the asylum and start playing with the nukes.
Iran is currently fairly stable, thank God, but its system of government is intrinsically far weaker than that of France. It would be great if it matured into a stable, Islamic and democratic state in the coming years, but it is just as likely to slide into a theocratic dictatorship proped up by a self-serving military. The risk of the lunatics taking over the asylum is far to great to allow the country to have nuclear weapons.
The military option can not be ruled out, though it is obviously a dire step. Process would no doubt involve taking the issue to the UN Security Council (which is the underlying threat if the current negotiations stall) and, if that failed to bring them to heel, I would expect their nuclear facilities to be bombed. Wouldn't be the first time.
_dan_ said:
Why are we (as the west) allowed them but no-one else is??
I don't see other countries waging war on us because we have a stack of nuclear bombs behind our back.
Because most countries signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, including Iran. Only the United States, Russian Federation, United Kingdom, France, and China are nuclear-weapon states.
_dan_ said:
Why are we (as the west) allowed them but no-one else is??
I don't see other countries waging war on us because we have a stack of nuclear bombs behind our back.
The reason why states such as Iran and North Korea should be denied them if possible is twofold.
Firstly they might use them against us, and the doctrine of MAD will not deter them, because they are not ruled by rational people.
Secondly they are quite capable of giving these weapons to terrorist groups.
>> Edited by JagLover on Thursday 4th August 09:55
IvIark said:Under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty a country is allowed, under inspection by the IAEA, to enrich uranium to a level needed to make fuel for nuclear power. But for eighteen years Iran hid an effort to develop uranium enrichment technology without telling the IAEA. Only when they were threatened with being reported to the Security Council did they suspend enrichment.
Why are we (as the west) allowed them but no-one else is??
I don't see other countries waging war on us because we have a stack of nuclear bombs behind our back.
Because most countries signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, including Iran. Only the United States, Russian Federation, United Kingdom, France, and China are nuclear-weapon states.
JagLover said:
[quote=JagLover]The only option for the West is missile defences.
And as for trying to engage with these nutcases they have no interest in engagement or debate, they wish only to destroy the western way of life.
yes, they also hate western games like football...
so much in fact, that they are preparing for the 2006 World Cup.
there are extremist parties as well as reformist moderates in Iran - perhaps it would be a good idea to engage with the latter, and help them achieve some stable benign government
...or we could do it the Dubya way.
Nuclear weapons are not a direct threat to the west until the likes of Iran and North Korea can develop reliable delivery systems. The issue with Iran is whether it will spark a destabilising arms race. The Sunni/Wahabbi led Saudis are not going to stand by while a Shia led country nearby develops nuclear weapons. This is likely to put political pressure on the West, as Saudi oil underpins our economies we have an interest in looking after saudi, kuwaiti and now iraqi security. Iran, if it becomes the only nuclear power in the region would threaten that security. Expect the USA trying to push some (more) sanctions through the UN some time soon. I also expect that US miltary bases in the east of iraq will become more busy over the next 2 years.....
JagLover said:
The reason why states such as Iran and North Korea should be denied them if possible is twofold.
Firstly they might use them against us, and the doctrine of MAD will not deter them, because they are not ruled by rational people.
Err, and you have first hand experience of this, do you? Or is that a broad sweeping generalisation? Just wondering, as there are mad and unstable people in every walk of life in every country around the world, I mean look at the fruit loop they've got in power currently in the US...
JagLover said:
Secondly they are quite capable of giving these weapons to terrorist groups.
As are Russians, Chinese, Americans, British... it only takes one looney, from whichever country to hand something they shouldn't over to someone they didn't really ought to.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff