Page 1 of 13 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 185

Thread: Nuclear strike against Iran due end of March

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Kingston
    Posts
    1,269

    Default Nuclear strike against Iran due end of March


  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    brixton, london
    Posts
    1,870

    Default

    does anyone think this is likely or just net rumours? i find the idea of this very worrying.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    w.yorkshire
    Posts
    2,500

    Default

    i think we have every reason to be worried marc- remember bush and his cronies want nuclear war because it will hasten their ascent to heaven


    from znet.org:

    Newsweek: Where do you put George W. Bush in the pantheon of American presidents?

    Chomsky: He's more or less a symbol, but I think the people around him are the most dangerous administration in American history. I think they're driving the world to destruction. There are two major threats that face the world, threats of the destruction of the species, and they're not a joke. One of them is nuclear war, and the other is environmental catastrophe, and they are driving toward destruction in both domains. They're compelling competitors to escalate their own offensive military capacityóRussia, China, now Iran. That means putting their offensive nuclear missiles on hair-trigger alert.

    The Bush administration has succeeded in making the United States one of the most feared and hated countries in the world. The talent of these guys is unbelievable. They have even succeeded at alienating Canada. I mean, that takes genius, literally.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    5,899

    Default

    repeated here
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...920074,00.html

    but interested to know where their sources come from for sure..

    denied here but discussed
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4240261.stm
    Last edited by mms; 10-01-2006 at 05:31 PM.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    7,643

    Default

    It's difficult, on the one hand a nuclear Iran is surely a bad thing and ought to be avoided if possible (there is another whole debate there about why one country should be allowed nuclear weapons and not another but if there are some that shouldnít then Iran is one of them at present (as is the US)) but a pre-emptive nuclear strike can surely never be justified.
    One of the main arguments used by those in favour of a nuclear deterrent is that no one would ever attack a country with such a powerful defence and there would therefore be no war; if countries with nuclear weapons can strike pre-emptively then this completely breaks down. If Iran does in fact already have nuclear weapons then the knowledge that it was about to face a nuclear attack would be the perfect reason to use them, what Iím trying to say is that if you have an admitted policy of pre-emptive nuclear strike that actually reverses the idea of mutually-assured-destruction and means that countries facing countries with nuclear power would be more, not less likely to attack.
    You would hope that even the even the present US administration would hesitate before changing the present balance but Iím not that confident to be honest.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Kingston
    Posts
    1,269

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bassnation
    does anyone think this is likely or just net rumours? i find the idea of this very worrying.
    It is worrying. I'm not sure the new 32-inch High Definition TV I've ordered will arrive in time to catch the show.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    brixton, london
    Posts
    1,870

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HMGovt
    It is worrying. I'm not sure the new 32-inch High Definition TV I've ordered will arrive in time to catch the show.
    best not book that holiday i had planned in april i guess. by then we'll all be living underground and mutating from all that radiation.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Kingston
    Posts
    1,269

    Default

    I live within 25 miles of a big US airbase and I've noticed a definite increase in activity in the past month - dozens of F-15s heading to the base for a start - never saw any before December and I've lived here for a while - plus various large transport planes.

    And my god, have you seen the latest Army recruitment ads? There was a one during a Big Brother commercial break last night. THE most militarised Armed forces ad i've ever seen. No more manning checkpoints, digging kids out of rubble or touchy feely stuff like that - no, the army is now looking for mechanised infantry, who'll leap out of troop carriers, teeth bared, guns drawn.

    I visited the 'secret nuclear bunker' at Kelvedon Hatch last week, maybe it's skewed my judgement.
    Last edited by HMGovt; 10-01-2006 at 03:02 PM.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    7,643

    Default

    Those news stories both predate Sharon's aneurysm. I would have thought that the Israelis might find it difficult to get too involved in something like this until they know who is running the country, so with a bit of luck you might get the tv in time.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    leicester
    Posts
    1,756

    Default

    sounds very far fetched to me

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    brixton, london
    Posts
    1,870

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by don_quixote
    sounds very far fetched to me
    not sure about the nuclear side of things, but an airstrike on their uranium enrichment sites is more than possible.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    7,643

    Default

    Yeah, why would it need to be a nuclear strike? Not that I'm totally comfortable with a unilateral "conventional" strike either. On the other hand, I'm not comfortable with Iran having the bomb and I don't see them just agreeing to halt work unlesss they believe that they are actually under threat, maybe that's what it's all about, brinkmanship.

  13. #13
    droid Guest

    Default

    One lesson that all developing nations have learned since the invasion of Iraq (and not North Korea), is that the only sure-fire deterrent to US and British aggression is the development of nuclear strike capabilities.

    Even if Iran wasnt being run by a bunch of psychopathic facists and had a responsible and democratic government - building a bomb would still be the smart thing to do tactically... how else are you to defend yourself from all those nuclear armed nations that have been after your oil for the last 60 years or so?

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    7,643

    Default

    "Even if Iran wasnt being run by a bunch of psychopathic facists and had a responsible and democratic government - building a bomb would still be the smart thing to do tactically"

    No disagreement there, it's in Iran's interest to have the bomb. Equally it's in the rest of the world's interest for them not to have it.
    I don't want Iran to have the bomb because they are being run by a bunch of psychopathic fascists who are likely to use it whereas the US and British governments' don't want them to have it because they prefer the status quo as it is but we want the same thing on this one I think.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    brooklyn
    Posts
    1,273

    Default

    not only is there a lot of oil in iran, the country also has a very large share of the world's natural gas resources

    natural gas will be the "bridge" fuel b/w the oil economy and some kind of post-natural resource economy

    an independent iran therefore poses a threat to the so-called american way of life -- and it's only by having a nuclear capacity that iran can be independent

    so even if iran were not run by what someone upthread refers to as "psychopathic fascists," a nuclear iran would be very difficult for an energy-hungry america (and the rest of the west -- face it, we're all complicit b/c we all enjoy the benefits relative to others) to deal with

    but i find it hard to believe that u.s. would resort to tactical nukes to eliminate iran's nuclear capacity -- that would be upping the ante several times over in terms of inviting a wmd attack against nyc or some other american city

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •