Iran can launch WMD in 30 mins!!! Watch

Poll: Do you believe the 30 mins WMD
Yes (9)
17.65%
No (32)
62.75%
Not Sure (10)
19.61%
ArthurOliver
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#21
Report 12 years ago
#21
(Original post by Cadre_Of_Storms)
iran can launch in 30 mins.

and how long would it take the UK and US to launch
First we'd have to invite tenders from nu-labour friendly consultancies, then we'd open up the bidding to nu-labour friendly pfi partners, then we'd have an ignored and ridiculed public consultation which said the public had no beef with Iran, then we'd start all over again as the nu-conservatives are voted in...

or

Iran can't launch anyway and wouldn't if it could, so who cares except the neocons who ought to be totally discredited after their Iraq adventure which 'aint finished yet and won't finish the way they would like.
0
quote
reply
bikerx23
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#22
Report 12 years ago
#22
(Original post by Cadre_Of_Storms)
iran can launch in 30 mins.

and how long would it take the UK and US to launch
US...one wink from a stupid texan.

UK - probably months, what with all the beaurocratic malaise they would have to wade their way through - probably lots of risk assesment forms... :rolleyes:
0
quote
reply
dave777
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#23
Report Thread starter 12 years ago
#23
(Original post by esx77)
lets face it the only real target iran would have in mind is israel who also secretly got hold of nuclear weapons. Perhaps a strong arsenal of weapons in the hands of the iranians will make the israelis treat the palestinians fairly and stop the all to common daily killings of innocent civilians
That is very good point.

Israel are the only country in middle east to have Nukes and they have started a arms race :eek:

Israel were provided with the nukes by Zionsist influence in America :mad:
0
quote
reply
dave777
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#24
Report Thread starter 12 years ago
#24
(Original post by ArthurOliver)
Hi Biz,

I wonder though how many US and British soldiers will have to die, only for their comrades to find there was no threat, and then to have to lie to themselves about how their govt lied to them? It's not impossible:If Iran is a threat, argue that we should bomb the sites which pose the threat by all means, but if you really believe Iran is a threat to the West, when the war breaks out I expect to see you join up and give the guys who've already served in Iraq for **** all reason a break.
That is valid point.

Saddam hated Muslims fanatics!

Ask yourself WHY they were lied to about Iraq :rolleyes:

They did not lie by accident it was on deliberate!
0
quote
reply
Bismarck
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#25
Report 12 years ago
#25
(Original post by Rusty33)
That, and using nuclear weapons would not be in the best interests of Iran. Considering that they would only have 1 or 2 to use to begin with.

Let's say, hypothetically, they launched 2 nuclear missiles at Israel. Aside from the horror that would reside there, what do we have? We have a country with zero nuclear weapons and a very small army, comparably, that now has to answer to the entire Western world. Not the position I would want to put myself in.

Careful. Don’t go generalizing Islam, or discrediting the ambitions of the Iranian government.
As I said, the main use of nuclear weapons is to provide diplomatic leverage. Having the ability to launch even one or two nukes would provide Iran a far greater say in how we deal with it and how seriously we take its views into account regarding the Middle East. Why should we willingly allow them to become more powerful?

(Original post by Cadre_Of_Storms)
iran can launch in 30 mins.

and how long would it take the UK and US to launch
What's your point? Are you expecting to nuke yourself?
0
quote
reply
Vienna
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#26
Report 12 years ago
#26
(Original post by dave777)
Did we not hear this from Phoney Blair about Iraq and their 45 mins chemical weapons attack? You would they would not unlease a even greater lie than the 45 mins rubbish. Even I know that it takes a lot of logistics to fire a missle as you do not just press a button and away you go.

I have done a poll to see if this lie fools the masses (like the 45 lie did)
There was no 45 minute lie.
0
quote
reply
Agent Smith
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#27
Report 12 years ago
#27
The point that's been raised that if Iran DOES launch a nuclear strike it will then be left unable to defend itself is a good one. It suggests that maybe any Iranian nukes WILL be solely for last-ditch defence purposes.

Vienna, are you denying the 45-minute claim that was the focus of such attention two years ago? Well, three, perhaps.
0
quote
reply
Rusty33
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#28
Report 12 years ago
#28
(Original post by Agent Smith)
The point that's been raised that if Iran DOES launch a nuclear strike it will then be left unable to defend itself is a good one. It suggests that maybe any Iranian nukes WILL be solely for last-ditch defence purposes.

Vienna, are you denying the 45-minute claim that was the focus of such attention two years ago? Well, three, perhaps.
You're telling me that if Iran launches it nuclear tactical missles, that it has enough military might to stand up to the United States, Europe, China, and Russia? There is no way.
0
quote
reply
bikerx23
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#29
Report 12 years ago
#29
(Original post by Rusty33)
You're telling me that if Iran launches it nuclear tactical missles, that it has enough military might to stand up to the United States, Europe, China, and Russia? There is no way.
no - he quite clearly isn't.
0
quote
reply
Agent Smith
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#30
Report 12 years ago
#30
(Original post by Rusty33)
You're telling me that if Iran launches it nuclear tactical missles, that it has enough military might to stand up to the United States, Europe, China, and Russia? There is no way.
Exactly. I'm saying if it launches the one or two missiles it might eventually get, it's then royally b*ggered as regards the international response, because its actual army is pretty small. Which is the polar opposite of what you seem to have understood me as saying.
0
quote
reply
dave777
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#31
Report Thread starter 12 years ago
#31
(Original post by Vienna)
There was no 45 minute lie.
Yes there was :mad:

Blair said Saddam could launch a massive WMD strike in 45 mins :eek:

Saddam would take 45 mins to get dressed in the morning:p:

I shall back up what i say with facts :yy:

One of Britain's senior intelligence advisers has defended the claim that Iraq could launch weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes.

Former MI6 chief John Scarlett, now chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee, said the 45 minutes claim came from a single source quoting a senior Iraq military official - suggesting the information was second-hand.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3181605.stm
0
quote
reply
Rusty33
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#32
Report 12 years ago
#32
(Original post by Agent Smith)
Exactly. I'm saying if it launches the one or two missiles it might eventually get, it's then royally b*ggered as regards the international response, because its actual army is pretty small. Which is the polar opposite of what you seem to have understood me as saying.
I'm sorry!

I assumed that, "The point that's been raised that if Iran DOES launch a nuclear strike it will then be left unable to defend itself is a good one," meant that you were implying it was an outlandish theory. I thought good one = good joke. :stupido2:
0
quote
reply
Rusty33
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#33
Report 12 years ago
#33
(Original post by dave777)
Yes there was :mad:

Blair said Saddam could launch a massive WMD strike in 45 mins :eek:

Saddam would take 45 mins to get dressed in the morning:p:

I shall back up what i say with facts :yy:




http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3181605.stm
If Donald Rumsfeld told you the United States was going to launch nuclear weapons at China, how seriously would you take him?
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/flash/endofworld.html^o)
0
quote
reply
Agent Smith
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#34
Report 12 years ago
#34
(Original post by Rusty33)
I'm sorry!

I assumed that, "The point that's been raised that if Iran DOES launch a nuclear strike it will then be left unable to defend itself is a good one," meant that you were implying it was an outlandish theory. I thought good one = good joke. :stupido2:
No worries.

As to the nuking-China thing - I'd take it with a sack of salt, because that's how I treat everything.
0
quote
reply
Rusty33
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#35
Report 12 years ago
#35
(Original post by Agent Smith)
No worries.

As to the nuking-China thing - I'd take it with a sack of salt, because that's how I treat everything.
Nah. It was only a joke. It goes along with the flash video in the link.
0
quote
reply
Bismarck
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#36
Report 12 years ago
#36
(Original post by Agent Smith)
Exactly. I'm saying if it launches the one or two missiles it might eventually get, it's then royally b*ggered as regards the international response, because its actual army is pretty small. Which is the polar opposite of what you seem to have understood me as saying.
Nice of you to ignore my point. What happens if Iran attacks or funds attacks against someone else in the region? What options would we have then?
0
quote
reply
Agent Smith
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#37
Report 12 years ago
#37
I didn't ignore it - at least not deliberately - I just didn't see it. *looks back over thread*

OK. Well, if Iran does get nukes and then starts funding terrorists etc. under the impression that it is now immune from attack, surgical strikes are always an option. Take out its nuke bases, and the problem is solved. Then you can go in with normal ground troops.

Rusty33: I love that animation!!
0
quote
reply
Bismarck
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#38
Report 12 years ago
#38
(Original post by Agent Smith)
I didn't ignore it - at least not deliberately - I just didn't see it. *looks back over thread*

OK. Well, if Iran does get nukes and then starts funding terrorists etc. under the impression that it is now immune from attack, surgical strikes are always an option. Take out its nuke bases, and the problem is solved. Then you can go in with normal ground troops.
Give me a break; you don't really believe that's possible do you? How will we know where all the nukes are? It's hard enough to destroy Iran's nuclear program before Iran gets nukes; it will be impossible once it does have them. Will anyone really want to risk a nuclear war to prevent say Iran from invading Afghanistan?
0
quote
reply
Rusty33
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#39
Report 12 years ago
#39
(Original post by Agent Smith)
Rusty33: I love that animation!!
It's one of my all-time favorites.
0
quote
reply
Agent Smith
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#40
Report 12 years ago
#40
(Original post by Bismarck)
Give me a break; you don't really believe that's possible do you? How will we know where all the nukes are? It's hard enough to destroy Iran's nuclear program before Iran gets nukes; it will be impossible once it does have them. Will anyone really want to risk a nuclear war to prevent say Iran from invading Afghanistan?
How good is satellite surveillance? That's what it hinges on, really.
0
quote
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Did you get less than your required grades and still get into university?

Yes (77)
29.96%
No - I got the required grades (147)
57.2%
No - I missed the required grades and didn't get in (33)
12.84%

Watched Threads

View All