Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Kilkrazy wrote:

LordofHats wrote:Iran's problem is that if it stopped developing nuclear technology Israel and the US and their allies would no longer see Iran as a threat. The idea that Iran needs the weapon to deter aggression is circular logic. They're developing a WMD and everyone is their enemy, so they need a WMD to defend against all these enemies.

The US and Israel have been Iran's enemies for decades before they started nuclear development.

Israel has? Really? I missed that war.

Come come.

You of all people are old enough to remember this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis

Frazzled wrote:
Israel has? Really? I missed that war.

There was no war, but like essentially every other Western nation, Israel has been hostile to Iran since the fall of the Shah (and vice versa, of course).

purplefood wrote:

Hulksmash wrote:I'd point out that N. Korea gets away with more not just because of it's proximity to China but also because they practically hold S. Korea hostage. Any type of strike on N. Korea would not be fast enough to prevent them from destroying millions with just their ready weaponry.

As for the Iran issue as a whole I suspect that if Iran moves against Israel our chance as the US in becoming involved becomes a certainty.

Regarding the drone I have no problem with drones invading their air space and keeping tabs. We lose one it happens. Not like they don't fall out of the sky on their own anyway....

If you managed to kill them all in one go...
They might notice that kind of build up though.

North Korea has the largest artillery contingent of any army in the world, within easy striking range of Seoul. Although some hawks in the US government were calling for military action against NK after Bush's 'Axis of evil' speech, pretty much every commentator on the subject has remarked that a war would not be a terribly good idea for either side, and most specifically for the Koreans who would likely see 50 years of growth and hard work destroyed and the country blasted back into the 3rd world. Now that China is finally moving its political presence on the world stage to match it's economic power, fortunately (for all of us) the prospect of war is even less likely.

LordOfHats wrote:Iran's problem is that if it stopped developing nuclear technology Israel and the US and their allies would no longer see Iran as a threat. The idea that Iran needs the weapon to deter aggression is circular logic. They're developing a WMD and everyone is their enemy, so they need a WMD to defend against all these enemies.

Like that worked for Iraq you mean?

While their is a political motivation for war, respective governments will always find a motivation for it. Look at Britain declaring war on China because a drunken British sailor had killed someone and was being held in a Chinese jail. The precedents in history are many.
For an Iran-centric perspective, I can entirely understand why they might want to develop nuclear weapons. The US has a history of never having made a military action against a nuclear-capable country, and if they think that will help protect them then the government is fulfilling the primary obligation of the state, which is to protect its citizens.

Melissa wrote:But someone stealing it from Iran and detonating it somewhere else, I can see that happening given the nation's corruption.

To be fair this has been a problem ever since the first bombs were created. The break--up of the Soviet Union increased the chance of a rogue state or organisation obtaining a nuclear device tenfold. For example, think back to the train that left Russia on its way to elsewhere (I think the Ukraine), carrying a nuclear warhead, yet never arrived. A lot of paperwork has been misplaced during the upheavals of the early 90s.

There have been several 'close calls', moments which could quite have easily lead to Nuclear obliteration or at the very least massive loss of life, which were only prevented by the way the dice fell. The problem is that while these terrible weapons exist, sooner or later our luck will run out. I think really for the sake of our survival as a species and our civilization, we will never be truly safe until the weapons are banned altogether. Sadly I can't see that happening any time soon. And ultimately it won't matter who was responsible, or why, if they are used because the chances are that none of us will be around on Dakka to talk about it afterwards anyway.

Pacific wrote:

North Korea has the largest artillery contingent of any army in the world, within easy striking range of Seoul. Although some hawks in the US government were calling for military action against NK after Bush's 'Axis of evil' speech, pretty much every commentator on the subject has remarked that a war would not be a terribly good idea for either side, and most specifically for the Koreans who would likely see 50 years of growth and hard work destroyed and the country blasted back into the 3rd world. Now that China is finally moving its political presence on the world stage to match it's economic power, fortunately (for all of us) the prospect of war is even less likely.

Not to mention the amount of resources that would have to go into reconstructing N. Korea..theres a reason S. Korea doesn't want N. Korea

purplefood wrote:They could walk...

Yeah, Xenophon and Alexander did it all by walking.

Huffy wrote:

Pacific wrote:

North Korea has the largest artillery contingent of any army in the world, within easy striking range of Seoul. Although some hawks in the US government were calling for military action against NK after Bush's 'Axis of evil' speech, pretty much every commentator on the subject has remarked that a war would not be a terribly good idea for either side, and most specifically for the Koreans who would likely see 50 years of growth and hard work destroyed and the country blasted back into the 3rd world. Now that China is finally moving its political presence on the world stage to match it's economic power, fortunately (for all of us) the prospect of war is even less likely.

Not to mention the amount of resources that would have to go into reconstructing N. Korea..theres a reason S. Korea doesn't want N. Korea

Actually, that's not true. I lived there for a couple of years, and while there are exceptions I would say most people probably want the country to be one again. They are a single race after all.

The real concern is not that iran is pursuing nuclear weapons for whatever reason. (Because they are). What IS a problem is they have, quite literally, a psychopath for a leader who wants another 'Holocaust'.

dogma wrote:The West had no problem with the Iranian nuclear program when the Shah was in power, so I think its safe to say that the issue isn't really that Iran is developing nuclear technology, but that the present government of Iran is not looked upon kindly by the West. In essence, it isn't the nuclear program that has turned the world against the Iranian state.

The way nuclear weapons are looked at have changed since then. Besides, the Iranian Revolution actually ended the Shah's research program. They started it up again in the 1980's in response to Iraq's program. If we want to throw around the history ball, Iraq got invaded because of their weapons program (Persial Gulf invasion) so the idea that Iran has learned that having one will protect you falls on its face. Iran is either stupid or their smart. Which is it? I think their smart, but defending themselves isn't why they want nukes so that's a pointless argument. If they wanted to defend themselves they'd drop the program thats making them so many enemies.

The US and Israel have been Iran's enemies for decades before they started nuclear development.

No. Were we friendly? No. There was their mining of the Persian Gulf in the 1980's, and the Embassy incident, but by and large we never talked about invading Iran (no western power did) and deposing their government until their nuclear program was renewed in the late 80's. Even then, Cold War politics changed the way we dealt with nuclear proliferation and Iraq also had a development program so we were less inclined to complain about it because it seemed like Iran had a legitimate reason.

That isn't true anymore. Why does Iran want nukes? Its not to defend themselves. They want them as a point of national pride. Israel didn't care until Iran did a face turn on their stance with the Palestine conflict in the 80's. We only started caring after Iraq was disarmed following the Gulf war and Iran continued to heat up its international rhetoric (threatening to wipe out Israel) and when their weapons program became destabilizing to the region. If Iran ceased development, we'd stop caring. The US isn't going to invade them and risk Iraq 2.0, the international politics nightmare.

Why do people persist in saying that Ahmedinajad threatened to wipe Israel off the map? That isn't what he said.

Albatross wrote:Why do people persist in saying that Ahmedinajad threatened to wipe Israel off the map? That isn't what he said.

Ahmedinajad has made such threats, as have numerous other Iranian officials.

And the translation controversy is a bunch of word games. Wiped out, vanish from the pages of time, etc whatever. His intention is clear and no matter how the speech gets translated it's threatening or insulting and clearly antagonistic. Couple it with his views on the Holocaust and Ahmedinajad is about as much of a joke of a president as Bush was when it comes to public speaking.

LordofHats wrote:

Albatross wrote:Why do people persist in saying that Ahmedinajad threatened to wipe Israel off the map? That isn't what he said.

Ahmedinajad has made such threats, as have numerous other Iranian officials.

And the translation controversy is a bunch of word games.

Yeah, feth words. Words and their inconvenient meanings... Who needs 'em?

Seriously though, he didn't threaten to wipe Israel off the map, though he regularly agitates for a single unified Palestinian state in which people of all faiths have equal democratic representation. What a monster!

United States of America
United Kingdom
Russia
China
Isre......disregard
Iran...inprocess
Pakistan
India
North Korea...maybe (Purple)

So who do you think will launch a nuke round first...

What about North Korea?
I swear they have nukes... or at least 1.

Jihadin wrote:United States of America
United Kingdom
Russia
China
Isre......disregard
Iran...inprocess
Pakistan
India
North Korea...maybe (Purple)

So who do you think will launch a nuke round first...

You left out France...wait I see what you did there.

If they get them then Iran, otherwise North Korea...

Albatross wrote:

LordofHats wrote:

Albatross wrote:Why do people persist in saying that Ahmedinajad threatened to wipe Israel off the map? That isn't what he said.

Ahmedinajad has made such threats, as have numerous other Iranian officials.

And the translation controversy is a bunch of word games.

Yeah, feth words. Words and their inconvenient meanings... Who needs 'em?

Seriously though, he didn't threaten to wipe Israel off the map, though he regularly agitates for a single unified Palestinian state in which people of all faiths have equal democratic representation. What a monster!

Exactly HOW does he agitate for that unified Palestine, let me dig in my bag of...here it is.


"Palestine's issue cannot be resolved through talks with the enemies of the Palestinian nation. Resisting is the only way to rescue the Palestinians," Ahmadinejad told worshippers at Tehran University in a live broadcast to mark the annual Al-Quds (Jerusalem) Day in the Islamic Republic.

"The nations of the region are able to eliminate the Zionist regime from the face of the earth," said Ahmadinejad, adding the Israeli "regime has no future. Its life has come to an end."

Yep, hopefully someday he'll be a Nobel Peace laureate, like Arafat.

Wait a second...
I'm fairly sure he is being sarcastic,,,

Albatross wrote:Seriously though, he didn't threaten to wipe Israel off the map, though he regularly agitates for a single unified Palestinian state in which people of all faiths have equal democratic representation. What a monster!

No he advocates for Jews to be removed from the region (EDIT: he's proposed violent removal and non-violent in different speeches) and Palestinians given control of the country. Of course Ahmadinejad also advocates that Israel's government is going to collapse (which is unlikely anytime in the near future) and that the United States is run by Zionist.

Really, if the Neo-Nazi's didn't hate "Arabs" they'd probably get along pretty well with him.

More developments, including possible CIA involvement, from Sky news:

The US military has said a missing unmanned spyplane was involved in a joint CIA military operation on Afghanistan's border with Iran.

The Pentagon has admitted the RQ 170 Sentinel drone is lost somewhere in Iran.

But the US disputes Iranian claims to have shot down the state-of-the-art spy aircraft.

News of the CIA involvement is causing controversy in Washington.


Congressman Dennis Kucinich told Sky News the involvement of America's spy agency was a worrying development.

"We have to be very careful that we don't stumble into a wider war here. If we are in Iran's airpace with anything that belongs to the US, that's a provocation," he said.

The revelation coincides with speculation a covert war is being waged in Iran by America and Israel to thwart Iranian nuclear ambitions.

A series of events remain unexplained. Iranian scientists have been assassinated, in one case by a bomb strapped to his vehicle by a hit team on a motorbike.

A huge explosion at a top secret missile base in the Iranian desert appears to have killed the lead scientist on missile development.


Mr Kucinich said he is worried these events mean the region is sliding towards greater conflict.

"The events have been confirmed, so when you start to connect the dots, those dots start to spell the word war," he said.

The US has justified the use of drones in Afghan airspace as necessary to keep watch over American forces, but CIA involvement seems to confirm their use to gather intelligence beyond the border with Iran.

The Sentinel drone, thought to be 65ft in wingspan, is one of the world's most secret aircraft. Packed with surveillance electronics, it is capable of staying in the air for days.

Albatross wrote:

LordofHats wrote:

Albatross wrote:Why do people persist in saying that Ahmedinajad threatened to wipe Israel off the map? That isn't what he said.

Ahmedinajad has made such threats, as have numerous other Iranian officials.

And the translation controversy is a bunch of word games.

Yeah, feth words. Words and their inconvenient meanings... Who needs 'em?

Seriously though, he didn't threaten to wipe Israel off the map, though he regularly agitates for a single unified Palestinian state in which people of all faiths have equal democratic representation. What a monster!

Actions speak louder then words and Iran takes numerous aggressive acts against Israel which include:
A.) Arming, training, and organizing Hamas and Hezbollah to murder Israeli civilians (both of which violate international law and intl. agreements, see the Oslo Accords and UN Resolution 1701), Not to mention a warcrime as these armaments are deliberately uesd against civilians on a mass scale
B.) Striking at Jewish targets in general. Currently Iran's defense minister is wanted by INTERPOL for blowing up a Jewish center in Argentina in retaliation for Israel killing the leader of Hezbollah
C.) Directly running and overseeing Hezbollah in addition to arming and financing it. Iran has regular field commanders that work in Hezbollah and IRGC crews man Hezbollah's Zelzal missiles & C-802 coastal missiles.

Note that this constitutes pure aggression and in the case of Hezbollah, neo-imperialism on Iran's part. There is no legitimate way to justify why Iran acts the way it does towards Israel as the two were on good terms until Khomeini began antagonizing them out of religious conviction. If you claim "it's for the poor Palestinians!" then you are supportive of intervening on an issue unrelated to you without international mandate, in which case you are also supportive of the US invasion of Iraq and the whole concept of cowboy diplomacy. Not to mention you are supporting warcrimes as Hamas and its ilk really only attempt to kill Israeli civilians and little else.

And stop with Ahmadinejad being some champion of democracy. Look at what he's doing in Syria right now and try to say that again. Denying the right of the Syrian people to have their own real democracy and end the Assad dynasties racial hierarchy that has the Allawite minority on top and everyone else as second class citizens. , not to mention what he oversees in Iran itself.

And for those claiming North Korea can blast SK away into the stone age or hit Seoul or whatever, their conventional tube artillery really can't and is too far away, though Scud missiles complicate the matter. I advise reading through this to clarify:

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?162240-Bluffer-s-Guide-North-Korea-strikes!-(2009)

LordofHats wrote:
The way nuclear weapons are looked at have changed since then.

Not really. Nonproliferation has been a significant issue since nuclear weapons were first developed, its simply the grounds on which its justified that have changed. Ultimately we're still perfectly happy to aid nations perceived as friendly in the acquisition of nuclear technology (India), while trying to restrict it from nations perceived as either not friendly or unstable (Iran, Pakistan). Its why we wouldn't share nuclear secrets with the French or the Soviets during the Cold War.

LordofHats wrote:
Besides, the Iranian Revolution actually ended the Shah's research program. They started it up again in the 1980's in response to Iraq's program.

That's splitting hairs. Nuclear research stopped in 1979 due to the Revolution, but was promptly re-initiated following the installation of a new Iranian government in the middle of 1981. It was the same program, under new management, without foreign sources of nuclear fuel.

LordofHats wrote:
If we want to throw around the history ball, Iraq got invaded because of their weapons program (Persial Gulf invasion) so the idea that Iran has learned that having one will protect you falls on its face. Iran is either stupid or their smart. Which is it? I think their smart, but defending themselves isn't why they want nukes so that's a pointless argument. If they wanted to defend themselves they'd drop the program thats making them so many enemies.

Iraq was invaded because of a desire to institute democracy, and thereby stabilize the region according to a variant of the domino effect theory, the supposed weapons program was window dressing.

That aside, Iran is in a situation that is nothing like the one in which Iraq found itself. It actually has full control over its territory, a loyal and reasonably competent military. and is 4 times the size. Their nuclear program may be a focus of Western rhetoric at the moment, but ultimately that isn't the issue here. The issue is that the Iranian government is itself anti-Western, which effectively renders much of the West (primarily the US and Israel) anti-Iranian. The nuclear program, and more importantly any weapons that come about as a result, are an attempt to develop a deterrent against any attempt at regime change.

The weapons program is a savvy move because the alternative is, essentially, acquiescing to Western demands, which is something that would fundamentally compromise the identity of the Iranian state.

dogma wrote:That aside, Iran is in a situation that is nothing like the one in which Iraq found itself.

That's what I said but people still make the comparison.

Their nuclear program may be a focus of Western rhetoric at the moment, but ultimately that isn't the issue here. The issue is that the Iranian government is itself anti-Western, which effectively renders much of the West (primarily the US and Israel) anti-Iranian.

Plenty of governments are anti-western but no one talks about going to war with any of them.

The nuclear program, and more importantly any weapons that come about as a result, are an attempt to develop a deterrent against any attempt at regime change.

I'm sure that's what Iran thinks but it's drawing unnecessary aggression. Iran would get no more notice than anyone else save for their weapons program.

The weapons program is a savvy move because the alternative is, essentially, acquiescing to Western demands, which is something that would fundamentally compromise the identity of the Iranian state.

We don't bully around every anti-western state in the world. Why is Iran different?

LordofHats wrote:
And the translation controversy is a bunch of word games. Wiped out, vanish from the pages of time, etc whatever. His intention is clear and no matter how the speech gets translated it's threatening or insulting and clearly antagonistic.

There's a big difference between being threatening, and being insulting. And a bigger difference between being merely antagonistic, and explicitly calling for genocide. No one is going to argue that Ahmadinejad is hostile towards Israel, the question is whether or not that hostility extends to an express military threat, which is what the translation controversy is about.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LordofHats wrote:
Plenty of governments are anti-western but no one talks about going to war with any of them.

Well, except the Syrians, the Sudanese, the Cubans, the North Koreans, the Yemeni, the Libyans, and the Somalians.

LordofHats wrote:
I'm sure that's what Iran thinks but it's drawing unnecessary aggression. Iran would get no more notice than anyone else save for their weapons program.

I sincerely doubt that their material position would change. The majority of sanctions in place against Iran are the result of their classification as a state sponsor of terrorism.

LordofHats wrote:
We don't bully around every anti-western state in the world. Why is Iran different?

What explicitly anti-Western nations do we not adopt a position of material opposition to? Venezuela is the only one I can think of.

There is one, and only one, reason the western nations are so proactively anti-Iranian. Oil.

Look at the map. Where do we get a hefty percentage of our oil? The Persian Gulf. PERSIAN. It was Persia for a thousand years, before it got split into Iran and Iraq. Now, where is Iran? Dominating the whole northern shore of the Persian Gulf. In position at the entrance to the Persian Gulf. With long-range anti-ship missiles bought from the Russians. With a pretty sizable air force from the same source.

They also have by far and away the most populous nation on the gulf. If America and the western powers weren't in the game, Iran probably wouldn't have too much trouble sweeping through the rest of the Gulf States.

So, here is this nation that isn't particularly fond of us, sitting adjacent to the main thoroughfare for the fuel that runs the western world, with the weapons and forces to make a credible attempt at cutting that fuel off. At the very LEAST, they could make oil so expensive it would crash EVERY western economy.

Personally, I think it's the best possible reason to develop alternate fuel sources but what the heck do I know?

dogma wrote:Well, except the Syrians, the Sudanese, the Cubans, the North Koreans, the Yemeni, the Libyans, and the Somalians.

No one actual considers going to war with Syria, even now. Or Sudan. We didn't even get involved during the Darfur genocide. We haven't gone to war with Yemen, and even with all the piracy we aren't at war with Somalia (then again one has to wonder if one can be at war with a non-state). Being Anti-western just means no one in the West likes you which is different from wanting to go to war with you.

LordofHats wrote:What explicitly anti-Western nations do we not adopt a position of material opposition to? Venezuela is the only one I can think of.

Opposition is different from actually talking about war. Look at Zimbabwae. Probably one of the vilest governments on the planet. Anti-western, poised for genocide, and it never gets a mention.

Zimbabwe has the support of the African Union/South Africa, who deflects any criticism of Mugabe by the West with accusations of Neo-Imperialism. It's the same game the AU played with Gadaffi until finally the Arab League turned on him.

And Vulcan, Iran actually doesn't have any Russian anti-ship missiles. Right now their primary anti-ship missiles are reverse-engineered Chinese C-802's, Silkworms, and C-701's.

Actually, that's not true. I lived there for a couple of years, and while there are exceptions I would say most people probably want the country to be one again. They are a single race after all.

Yeah they want unity but they sure as hell want someone else to pay for it!

Iraq was invaded because of a desire to institute democracy, and thereby stabilize the region

Nope.
It´s called oil dollar. Iraq was invaded because Hussein wanted to start selling his oil in another currency then the dollar, something that would be an utter disaster for the US.

Guess what iran wants to do now?
Apparently monkeyboy didnt get the memo about what happens when you try to substitute the dollar as the worlds oil currency for the euro or yen.

Interesting

http://www.eia.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html



Crude Oil Imports (Top 15 Countries)
(Thousand Barrels per Day)
Country Sep-11 Aug-11 YTD 2011 Sep-10 YTD 2010

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CANADA 2,324 2,240 2,157 1,937 1,971

SAUDI ARABIA 1,465 1,075 1,180 1,082 1,072

MEXICO 1,099 1,150 1,113 1,108 1,132

VENEZUELA 759 806 893 919 928

NIGERIA 529 854 826 1,107 1,018

COLOMBIA 510 365 364 308 328

IRAQ 403 637 473 422 464

ECUADOR 299 303 203 229 215

ANGOLA 283 311 323 404 413

RUSSIA 275 252 246 286 295

BRAZIL 163 213 225 177 270

KUWAIT 145 165 164 172 204

ALGERIA 139 140 204 366 337

CHAD 74 32 54 30 14

OMAN 72 52 39 0 0

Total Imports of Petroleum (Top 15 Countries)
(Thousand Barrels per Day)
Country Sep-11 Aug-11 YTD 2011 Sep-10 YTD 2010

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CANADA 2,829 2,637 2,670 2,479 2,537

SAUDI ARABIA 1,479 1,075 1,187 1,093 1,086

MEXICO 1,192 1,185 1,218 1,254 1,260

VENEZUELA 806 906 979 1,008 1,007

RUSSIA 592 585 609 648 624

NIGERIA 580 892 876 1,174 1,053

COLOMBIA 529 395 395 363 360

IRAQ 404 637 473 422 464

ECUADOR 305 309 205 229 217

ANGOLA 304 331 335 417 422

ALGERIA 291 298 396 543 512

VIRGIN ISLANDS 189 185 189 302 261

BRAZIL 188 228 240 181 289

ARUBA 149 81 79 0 0

KUWAIT 145 165 165 172 206

Jihadin wrote:Interesting

http://www.eia.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html



Crude Oil Imports (Top 15 Countries)
(Thousand Barrels per Day)
Country Sep-11 Aug-11 YTD 2011 Sep-10 YTD 2010

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CANADA 2,324 2,240 2,157 1,937 1,971

SAUDI ARABIA 1,465 1,075 1,180 1,082 1,072

MEXICO 1,099 1,150 1,113 1,108 1,132

VENEZUELA 759 806 893 919 928

NIGERIA 529 854 826 1,107 1,018

COLOMBIA 510 365 364 308 328

IRAQ 403 637 473 422 464

ECUADOR 299 303 203 229 215

ANGOLA 283 311 323 404 413

RUSSIA 275 252 246 286 295

BRAZIL 163 213 225 177 270

KUWAIT 145 165 164 172 204

ALGERIA 139 140 204 366 337

CHAD 74 32 54 30 14

OMAN 72 52 39 0 0

Total Imports of Petroleum (Top 15 Countries)
(Thousand Barrels per Day)
Country Sep-11 Aug-11 YTD 2011 Sep-10 YTD 2010

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CANADA 2,829 2,637 2,670 2,479 2,537

SAUDI ARABIA 1,479 1,075 1,187 1,093 1,086

MEXICO 1,192 1,185 1,218 1,254 1,260

VENEZUELA 806 906 979 1,008 1,007

RUSSIA 592 585 609 648 624

NIGERIA 580 892 876 1,174 1,053

COLOMBIA 529 395 395 363 360

IRAQ 404 637 473 422 464

ECUADOR 305 309 205 229 217

ANGOLA 304 331 335 417 422

ALGERIA 291 298 396 543 512

VIRGIN ISLANDS 189 185 189 302 261

BRAZIL 188 228 240 181 289

ARUBA 149 81 79 0 0

KUWAIT 145 165 165 172 206

Why how funny...we don't import oil from Iran..