Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Akhoza)
    Great:rolleyes:
    These rumours are just going to increase the hatred in the middle-eastt towards the west
    Is that possbile?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    they changed the law a year back -ish
    So that they could use tactical nuclear weapons 'pre-emptively'

    I remember following it at the time. I think eveyone even then thought this must be for Iran
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    Why would the Arabs hate us more for attacking their historic arch-enemy?
    True to an extent, but I feel the balance of feeling in the Middle East is leading in such a way that traditional enemies feel it is expedient to ally, on the diplomatic nation state level anyway. At lower levels they seem to hate each other as much as ever (as what has happened in Iraq shows), but in some ways it seems that in the last 20 years Shia-Sunni rivalry has become more important that Arab-Persian rivalry. I would posit the notion that this has been due to the increased intensity of religious feeling in the area.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ferrus)
    True to an extent, but I feel the balance of feeling in the Middle East is leading in such a way that traditional enemies feel it is expedient to ally, on the diplomatic nation state level anyway. At lower levels they seem to hate each other as much as ever (as what has happened in Iraq shows), but in some ways it seems that in the last 20 years Shia-Sunni rivalry has become more important that Arab-Persian rivalry. I would posit the notion that this has been due to the increased intensity of religious feeling in the area.
    That's not what I've been hearing. The Shia Persians don't treat the Shia Iraqis as their equals, since they think Persians are superior to Arabs. This has been causing a lot of resentment at Iran from the Iraqi Shia.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    That's not what I've been hearing. The Shia Persians don't treat the Shia Iraqis as their equals, since they think Persians are superior to Arabs. This has been causing a lot of resentment at Iran from the Iraqi Shia.
    Interesting... so does Iran have less leverage in terms of conducting the actions of Iraqi and Lebanese Shi'a than is commonly assumed?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ferrus)
    Interesting... so does Iran have less leverage in terms of conducting the actions of Iraqi and Lebanese Shi'a than is commonly assumed?
    I think the relationship is mostly pragmatic (don't forget Iran has almost as much influence over the Sunni Islamic Jihad and Hamas as it does over Hezbullah). Hezbullah needs Iran for arms and funds, and Iran needs Hezbullah to make life miserable for Israel. The likes of al-Sadr make pro-Iran statements (in the English media; they make quite anti-Persian statements in Arabic) to put pressure on the US and its Iraqi allies, not because they're Iranian puppets. People who think the Iraqi Shia leaders will be puppets to the Iranians will be in for a big surprise once the US leaves. There are simply too much room for conflict. Of course, traditionally Iraq's biggest enemies were Saudi Arabia and Jordan (and Iran obviously), which means any Iraqi government will probably try to play Iran and the Arabs off each other, thus letting some of the analysts to think their views are vindicated.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    i think its a tad hypocritical if america says iran cant use nuclear weapons because it might use them, and then the US using them on iran ???

    thats just silly
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kornkamper)
    i think its a tad hypocritical if america says iran cant use nuclear weapons because it might use the,, and them the US using them on iran ???

    thats just silly
    The nuclear weapons the US would be using are bunker busters meant to destroy underground weapons stores, not Hiroshima-style "Ahhh, I've been vaporized"--nuclear weapons. Iran's nukes wouldn't be so descriminating.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by psychic_satori)
    The nuclear weapons the US would be using are bunker busters meant to destroy underground weapons stores, not Hiroshima-style "Ahhh, I've been vaporized"--nuclear weapons. Iran's nukes wouldn't be so descriminating.

    i see but theres always gonna be collateral dude

    thell prob end up hitting some poor farmers sheep farm leading to half the village starving, leaving the poor son with one arm and one leg or some sh!t like that.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    A missile strike or bombing campaign of some sort, whether it is nuclear or conventional would be the best choice if it came to military action. Iran is not the same as iraq, the US and Britain cannot go in there with troops and change the government, as it has been duly elected, and besides most of our troops are allready tied down. A Bunker-Buster strike on stratiegic locations and facilities seems like the best option, although this may cause an escalation of tensitons between iran and israel, a war between these two nations may be the spark that is needed to set off the whole middle east crisis. I worry that there may be a war on the horison that is bigger than US regime change...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kornkamper)
    i see but theres always gonna be collateral dude

    thell prob end up hitting some poor farmers sheep farm leading to half the village starving, leaving the poor son with one arm and one leg or some sh!t like that.
    was that a rebuttal, or was I magically transported to a beach in SoCal?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Straw is right: it IS nuts. First off, it would be as hypocrite as it can get. If you want to prevent a nuclear war and that is your objective than of course you're not going to start one yourself. How dumb is that? Secondly, there isn't even any evidence Iran has warheads (remember Iraq). Thirdly, even if Iran would have warheads it would be pretty minor comparing to what the U.S. has. It isn't even worth going to war for and killing tens of thousands of civilians more. Moreover, there are so many other ways of forcing Iran to give up their uranium enrichment. One way is economically. How about to block their exports by making a deal with their greatest export partners giving them other ways of getting their products and maybe subsidizing those who turn down (economic) favors from Iran.

    (Original post by Bismarck)
    Err, it doesn't look like you know what you're talking. The nuclear strikes in question are tactical bunker-busting nukes. Their only purpose is to destroy underground installations (which can't be reached by normal bombs).
    If the U.S. is going for a military strike, then better believe they will take down the regime to establish (of what they perceive :rolleyes: ) a democracy.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Medieval Spoon)
    It isn't even worth going to war for and killing tens of thousands of civilians more.
    Yes, because tens of thousands of civillians work in the secret nuclear facilities that would be targeted.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    You don't just go around nuking a country because you have issues with them. Who would be next? The US?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    Err, it doesn't look like you know what you're talking. The nuclear strikes in question are tactical bunker-busting nukes. Their only purpose is to destroy underground installations (which can't be reached by normal bombs).

    And do keep in mind that this is mostly a diplomatic tool. It's meant to show Iran that the military option is on the table to make Iran realize the costs of not cooperating. Otherwise, it would make no sense to release this information, since the US has contingency plans for attacks against most major countries (including Russian and China), so it's a given that it has one against Iran.
    Aha. I asked in another thread whether bunker-busters were nuclear based, but nobody answered. Thanks. That's obviously the link in this case between sensationalist reporting and reality. I hadn't previously realised the difference between "nuclear weapons" in general and THE BOMB.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Agent Smith)
    Aha. I asked in another thread whether bunker-busters were nuclear based, but nobody answered. Thanks. That's obviously the link in this case between sensationalist reporting and reality. I hadn't previously realised the difference between "nuclear weapons" in general and THE BOMB.
    ICBM's (intercontinental ballistic missiles) are known as strategic nuclear weapons. Bunker busters are known as sub-strategic nuclear weapons, because they have a much lower yield than the warheads in the ICBM’s.

    It’s not the American reaction we need to watch, it’s the Israeli reaction….
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Why watch the Israeli reaction and not the American?
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JonathanH)
    Why watch the Israeli reaction and not the American?
    Because Israel have in the past taken counter-proliferation action in the Middle East – and will do so again if there is evidence that Iran is in the process of developing a nuclear weapon capability.

    If anyone will “attack” Iran over this, it’ll be Israel.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    They'd only do it with either implicit or explicit American support or in concert with America. That's if they're involved at all and the US doesn't just go it alone.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Taking out a Iranian research facility with a full sclae H-Bomb would be a gross waste of US military resources anyway, so of course they will use the bunker busters.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.