IRAN Nuclear Crisis News and Discussions

Status
Not open for further replies.

coolieno99

New Member
Re: Iran: Here come the US Bombers

Other than the last letter, Iran is not Iraq. Militarily, Iran is much stronger than Iraq. Iran's population is 2.5 times larger than Iraq. Its land area is 3 times larger than Iraq. Much of its terrain is mountainous, not flat like Iraq. It has a relatively small standing army of 540,000 men, but its militia(reserve) stands at 9,000,000 men. Its armament is much more modern than Iraq's. Geographically it can control the Strait of Hormuz(mouth of the Persian Gulf where 40% of the world's oil flow) by setting up shore launched AshM missile batteries(Exocet type, made in Iran) facing across the Strait. In short, that's why the U.S. is not going to attack Iran.
 

KGB

New Member
Re: Iran: Here come the US Bombers

coolieno99 said:
Other than the last letter, Iran is not Iraq. Militarily, Iran is much stronger than Iraq. Iran's population is 2.5 times larger than Iraq. Its land area is 3 times larger than Iraq. Much of its terrain is mountainous, not flat like Iraq. It has a relatively small standing army of 540,000 men, but its militia(reserve) stands at 9,000,000 men. Its armament is much more modern than Iraq's. Geographically it can control the Strait of Hormuz(mouth of the Persian Gulf where 40% of the world's oil flow) by setting up shore launched AshM missile batteries(Exocet type, made in Iran) facing across the Strait. In short, that's why the U.S. is not going to attack Iran.
This might be a bit off topic but if what is above is correct, why did the Iran-Iraq war end in stalemate?
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Re: Iran: Here come the US Bombers

KGB said:
This might be a bit off topic but if what is above is correct, why did the Iran-Iraq war end in stalemate?
At the time of the conflict they more or less had parity. They also had beaten each other into a standstill because they were still fighting at a WW2 type model of force majeur upon force majeur.

the Iranians did have air and naval superiority. the Iraqis had a far more comprehensive heavy armour/artillery model in place. - although the Iranians had better tanks and were better trained.

either way they lost a million men for minimal achievment.

you also need to look at where they had their military engagements in relation to their capabilities.

ie they bludgeoned each other. nothing like warfare as demonstrated in 1991 (which was an RMA for everyone sitting and watching)
 

coolieno99

New Member
Re: Iran: Here come the US Bombers

KGB said:
This might be a bit off topic but if what is above is correct, why did the Iran-Iraq war end in stalemate?
That was then(1980-1988), Iran and Iraq did fought to a stalemate. Both were well armed and at roughly equal parity. But since Iraq lost Gulf War I(1991), its military infrastructure took a nosedive due to actual losses in the war itself and economic sanctions and military embargoes. While in the meantime, Iran had build up its military infrastructure with help from Russia, China, and North Korea, and its own homegrown military industrial complex over a 15 year period. Some of the bigger acquisitions included at least 2 Kilo class subs from Russia. China help them build Exocet type anti-shipping missiles. North Korea help them built tactical ballistic missiles(Shahab series). They do make a lot of the weapons themselves. ... and so on ... The most interesting acquisition is the Steyr .50 cal sniper rifles. Iran bought 800 of them from Austria. Usually .50 cal rifles have effective range about 1500 yds. Probably can penetrate "bullet proof" armoured vests like the kind worn by U.S. soldiers.
 

knightrider4

Active Member
Re: Iran: Here come the US Bombers

Does anyone have any info or tell me where I can find any regarding Irans air defence system?
 

fieldmarshal

New Member
Nuclear War against Iran

Remember the soothsayer's warning to Julius Caesar, "Beware the Ides of March". Some of the claims made in the article maybe farfetched but with IOB set to go into opp in march so Iran needs to be aware of the "Ides of March".

Nuclear War against Iran

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=%20CH20060103&articleId=1714

The launching of an outright war using nuclear warheads against Iran is now in the final planning stages.
Coalition partners, which include the US, Israel and Turkey are in "an advanced stage of readiness".
Various military exercises have been conducted, starting in early 2005. In turn, the Iranian Armed Forces have also conducted large scale military maneuvers in the Persian Gulf in December in anticipation of a US sponsored attack.
Since early 2005, there has been intense shuttle diplomacy between Washington, Tel Aviv, Ankara and NATO headquarters in Brussels.
In recent developments, CIA Director Porter Goss on a mission to Ankara, requested Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan "to provide political and logistic support for air strikes against Iranian nuclear and military targets." Goss reportedly asked " for special cooperation from Turkish intelligence to help prepare and monitor the operation." (DDP, 30 December 2005).



In turn, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has given the green light to the Israeli Armed Forces to launch the attacks by the end of March:
All top Israeli officials have pronounced the end of March, 2006, as the deadline for launching a military assault on Iran.... The end of March date also coincides with the IAEA report to the UN on Iran's nuclear energy program. Israeli policymakers believe that their threats may influence the report, or at least force the kind of ambiguities, which can be exploited by its overseas supporters to promote Security Council sanctions or justify Israeli military action.


The US sponsored military plan has been endorsed by NATO, although it is unclear, at this stage, as to the nature of NATO's involvement in the planned aerial attacks.
"Shock and Awe"
The various components of the military operation are firmly under US Command, coordinated by the Pentagon and US Strategic Command Headquarters (USSTRATCOM) at the Offutt Air Force base in Nebraska.
The actions announced by Israel would be carried out in close coordination with the Pentagon. The command structure of the operation is centralized and ultimately Washington will decide when to launch the military operation.



US military sources have confirmed that an aerial attack on Iran would involve a large scale deployment comparable to the US "shock and awe" bombing raids on Iraq in March 2003:

American air strikes on Iran would vastly exceed the scope of the 1981 Israeli attack on the Osiraq nuclear center in Iraq, and would more resemble the opening days of the 2003 air campaign against Iraq. Using the full force of operational B-2 stealth bombers, staging from Diego Garcia or flying direct from the United States, possibly supplemented by F-117 stealth fighters staging from al Udeid in Qatar or some other location in theater, the two-dozen suspect nuclear sites would be targeted. Military planners could tailor their target list to reflect the preferences of the Administration by having limited air strikes that would target only the most crucial facilities ... or the United States could opt for a far more comprehensive set of strikes against a comprehensive range of WMD related targets, as well as conventional and unconventional forces that might be used to counterattack against US forces in Iraq

(See Globalsecurity.org at http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iran-strikes.htm



In November, US Strategic Command conducted a major exercise of a "global strike plan" entitled "Global Lightening". The latter involved a simulated attack using both conventional and nuclear weapons against a "fictitious enemy".
Following the "Global Lightening" exercise, US Strategic Command declared an advanced state of readiness (See our analysis below)
While Asian press reports stated that the "fictitious enemy" in the Global Lightening exercise was North Korea, the timing of the exercises, suggests that they were conducted in anticipation of a planned attack on Iran.
Consensus for Nuclear War
No dissenting political voices have emerged from within the European Union.
There are ongoing consultations between Washington, Paris and Berlin. Contrary to the invasion of Iraq, which was opposed at the diplomatic level by France and Germany, Washington has been building "a consensus" both within the Atlantic Alliance and the UN Security Council.
Moreover, a number of frontline Arab states are now tacit partners in the US/ Israeli military project. A year ago in November 2004, Israel's top military brass met at NATO headqaurters in Brtussels with their counterparts from six members of the Mediterranean basin nations, including Egypt, Jordan, Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria and Mauritania. A NATO-Israel protocol was signed. Following these meetings, joint military exercises were held off the coast of Syria involving the US, Israel and Turkey. and in February 2005, Israel participated in military exercises and "anti-terror maneuvers" together with several Arab countries.
The media in chorus has unequivocally pointed to Iran as a "threat to World Peace".
The antiwar movement has swallowed the media lies. The fact that the US and Israel are planning a Middle East nuclear holocaust is not part of the antiwar/ anti- globalization agenda.
The "surgical strikes" are presented to world public opinion as a means to preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
.
Mini-nukes: "Safe for Civilians"
The press reports, while revealing certain features of the military agenda, largely serve to distort the broader nature of the military operation, which contemplates the preemptive use of tactical nuclear weapons.
The war agenda is based on the Bush administration's doctrine of "preemptive" nuclear war under the 2002 Nuclear Posture Review.
Media disinformation has been used extensively to conceal the devastating consequences of military action involving nuclear warheads against Iran. According to a 2003 Senate decision, the new generation of tactical nuclear weapons or "low yield" "mini-nukes", with an explosive capacity of up to 6 times a Hiroshima bomb, are now considered "safe for civilians" because the explosion is underground.



Through a propaganda campaign which has enlisted the support of "authoritative" nuclear scientists, the mini-nukes are being presented as an instrument of peace rather than war. The low-yield nukes have now been cleared for "battlefield use", they are slated to be used in the next stage of America's "war on Terrorism" alongside conventional weapons:
Administration officials argue that low-yield nuclear weapons are needed as a credible deterrent against rogue states.[Iran, North Korea] Their logic is that existing nuclear weapons are too destructive to be used except in a full-scale nuclear war. Potential enemies realize this, thus they do not consider the threat of nuclear retaliation to be credible



In an utterly twisted logic, nuclear weapons are presented as a means to building peace and preventing "collateral damage". The Pentagon has intimated, in this regard, that the ‘mini-nukes’ (with a yield of less than 5000 tons) are harmless to civilians because the explosions ‘take place under ground’..

The earth-penetrating capability of the [nuclear] B61-11 is fairly limited, however. Tests show it penetrates only 20 feet or so into dry earth when dropped from an altitude of 40,000 feet. Even so, by burying itself into the ground before detonation, a much higher proportion of the explosion energy is transferred to ground shock compared to a surface bursts. Any attempt to use it in an urban environment, however, would result in massive civilian casualties.
The military manuals state that this new generation of nuclear weapons are "safe" for use in the battlefield. They are no longer a weapon of last resort. There are no impediments or political obstacles to their use. "Making the World safer" is the justification for launching a military operation which could potentially result in a nuclear holocaust.


But nuclear holocausts are not front page news! In the words of Mordechai Vanunu,
The Israeli government is preparing to use nuclear weapons in its next war with the Islamic world. Here where I live, people often talk of the Holocaust. But each and every nuclear bomb is a Holocaust in itself. It can kill, devastate cities, destroy entire peoples. (See interview with Mordechai Vanunu, December 2005).



Space and Earth Attack Command Unit
A preemptive nuclear attack using tactical nuclear weapons would be coordinated out of US Strategic Command Headquarters at the Offutt Air Force base in Nebraska, in liaison with US and coalition command units in the Persian Gulf, the Diego Garcia military base, Israel and Turkey.
Under its new mandate, USSTRATCOM has a responsibility for "overseeing a global strike plan" consisting of both conventional and nuclear weapons. In military jargon, it is slated to play the role of "a global integrator charged with the missions of Space Operations; Information Operations; Integrated Missile Defense; Global Command & Control; Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance; Global Strike; and Strategic Deterrence.... "
In January 2005, at the outset of the military build-up directed against Iran, USSTRATCOM was identified as "the lead Combatant Command for integration and synchronization of DoD-wide efforts in combating weapons of mass destruction."

To implement this mandate, a brand new command unit entitled Joint Functional Component Command Space and Global Strike, or JFCCSGS was created.
JFCCSGS has the mandate to oversee the launching of a nuclear attack in accordance with the 2002 Nuclear Posture Review, approved by the US Congress in 2002. The NPR underscores the pre-emptive use of nuclear warheads not only against "rogue states" but also against China and Russia.

Since November, JFCCSGS is said to be in "an advance state of readiness" following the conduct of relevant military exercises. The announcement was made in early December by U.S. Strategic Command to the effect that the command unit had achieved "an operational capability for rapidly striking targets around the globe using nuclear or conventional weapons."

'After assuming several new missions in 2002,
'The command's performance during Global Lightning demonstrated its preparedness to execute its mission of proving integrated space and global strike capabilities to deter and dissuade aggressors and when directed, defeat adversaries through decisive joint global effects in support of STRATCOM,' he added without elaborating about 'new missions' of the new command unit that has around 250 personnel.


CONCEPT PLAN (CONPLAN) 8022
JFCCSGS is in an advanced state of readiness to trigger nuclear attacks directed against Iran or North Korea.



The operational implementation of the Global Strike is called CONCEPT PLAN (CONPLAN) 8022. The latter is described as "an actual plan that the Navy and the Air Force translate into strike package for their submarines and bombers,' (Ibid).
CONPLAN 8022 is 'the overall umbrella plan for sort of the pre-planned strategic scenarios involving nuclear weapons.'
'It's specifically focused on these new types of threats -- Iran, North Korea -- proliferators and potentially terrorists too,' he said. 'There's nothing that says that they can't use CONPLAN 8022 in limited scenarios against Russian and Chinese targets.'(According to Hans Kristensen, of the Nuclear Information Project, quoted in Japanese economic News Wire, op cit)



The mission of JFCCSGS is to implement CONPLAN 8022, in other words to trigger a nuclear war with Iran.
The Commander in Chief, namely George W. Bush would instruct the Secretary of Defense, who would then instruct the Joint Chiefs of staff to activate CONPLAN 8022.



CONPLAN is distinct from other military operations. it does not contemplate the deployment of ground troops.
CONPLAN 8022 is different from other war plans in that it posits a small-scale operation and no "boots on the ground." The typical war plan encompasses an amalgam of forces -- air, ground, sea -- and takes into account the logistics and political dimensions needed to sustain those forces in protracted operations....

The Role of Israel

Since late 2004, Israel has been stockpiling US made conventional and nuclear weapons systems in anticipation of an attack on Iran. This stockpiling which is financed by US military aid was largely completed in June 2005. Israel has taken delivery from the US of several thousand "smart air launched weapons" including some 500 'bunker-buster bombs, which can also be used to deliver tactical nuclear bombs.
The B61-11 is the "nuclear version" of the "conventional" BLU 113, can be delivered in much same way as the conventional bunker buster bomb.
Moreover, reported in late 2003, Israeli Dolphin-class submarines equipped with US Harpoon missiles armed with nuclear warheads are now aimed at Iran. (See Gordon Thomas, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/THO311A.html
Late April 2005. Sale of deadly military hardware to Israel. GBU-28 Buster Bunker Bombs:

Coinciding with Putin's visit to Israel, the US Defence Security Cooperation Agency (Department of Defense) announced the sale of an additional 100 bunker-buster bombs produced by Lockheed Martin to Israel. This decision was viewed by the US media as "a warning to Iran about its nuclear ambitions."
The sale pertains to the larger and more sophisticated "Guided Bomb Unit-28 (GBU-28) BLU-113 Penetrator" (including the WGU-36A/B guidance control unit and support equipment). The GBU-28 is described as "a special weapon for penetrating hardened command centers located deep underground.​

Extension of the War
Tehran has confirmed that it will retaliate if attacked, in the form of ballistic missile strikes directed against Israel (CNN, 8 Feb 2005). These attacks, could also target US military facilities in Iraq and Persian Gulf, which would immediately lead us into a scenario of military escalation and all out war.
At present there are three distinct war theaters: Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine. The air strikes against Iran could contribute to unleashing a war in the broader Middle East Central Asian region.
Moreover, the planned attack on Iran should also be understood in relation to the timely withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon, which has opened up a new space, for the deployment of Israeli forces. The participation of Turkey in the US-Israeli military operation is also a factor, following last year's agreement reached between Ankara and Tel Aviv.



More recently, Tehran has beefed up its air defenses through the acquisition of Russian 29 Tor M-1 anti-missile systems. In October, with Moscow`s collaboration, "a Russian rocket lifted an Iranian spy satellite, the Sinah-1, into orbit." (see Chris Floyd)
The Sinah-1 is just the first of several Iranian satellites set for Russian launches in the coming months.
Thus the Iranians will soon have a satellite network in place to give them early warning of an Israeli attack, although it will still be a pale echo of the far more powerful Israeli and American space spies that can track the slightest movement of a Tehran mullah’s beard. What’s more, late last month Russia signed a $1 billion contract to sell Iran an advanced defense system that can destroy guided missiles and laser-guided bombs, the Sunday Times reports. This too will be ready in the next few months. (op.cit.)



Ground War
While a ground war is not envisaged under CONPLAN, the aerial bombings could lead through the process of escalation into a ground war.
Iranian troops could cross the Iran-Iraq border and confront coalition forces inside Iraq. Israeli troops and/or Special Forces could enter into Lebanon and Syria.



In recent developments, Israel plans to conduct military exercises as well as deploy Special Forces in the mountainous areas of Turkey bordering Iran and Syria with the collaboration of the Ankara government:
Ankara and Tel Aviv have come to an agreement on allowing the Israeli army to carry out military exercises in the mountainous areas [in Turkey] that border Iran.
[According to] ... a UAE newspaper ..., according to the agreement reached by the Joint Chief of Staff of the Israeli army, Dan Halutz, and Turkish officials, Israel is to carry out various military manoeuvres in the areas that border Iran and Syria. [Punctuation as published here and throughout.] [Dan Halutz] had gone to Turkey a few days earlier.
Citing certain sources without naming them, the UAE daily goes on to stress: The Israeli side made the request to carry out the manoeuvres because of the difficulty of passage in the mountain terrains close to Iran's borders in winter.
The two Hakari [phonetic; not traced] and Bulo [phonetic; not traced] units are to take part in the manoeuvres that have not been scheduled yet. The units are the most important of Israel's special military units and are charged with fighting terrorism and carrying out guerrilla warfare.
Earlier Turkey had agreed to Israeli pilots being trained in the area bordering Iran. The news [of the agreement] is released at a time when Turkish officials are trying to evade the accusation of cooperating with America in espionage operations against its neighbouring countries Syria and Iran. Since last week the Arab press has been publishing various reports about Ankara's readiness or, at least, agreement in principle to carry out negotiations about its soil and air space being used for action against Iran.
(E'temad website, Tehran, in Persian 28 Dec 05, BBC Monitoring Services Translation)



 

coolieno99

New Member
Re: Nuclear War against Iran

Sounds like a Tom Clancy novel. There's not even a plan for a conventional war on Iran, let alone a nuclear one.:coffee
 

Wild Weasel

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Re: Nuclear War against Iran

There likely dozens of plans to attack Iran with both nuclear, and conventional forces. Wargames against any and all potential threats, including domestic threats are constantly being played out using the most up to date intelligence data available. From these, US military war planners develop operational plans. That is one of things the Pentagon does.

If the President is told one morning that country-X just attacked American-allied country-Y with WMD... that President will want to know what his military options are. You'd better believe that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is going to have several, or possibly dozens of such plans available for the President to consider.

Now consider that Iran has publically been called one of the "Axis of Evil" nations by the current US President, and it's not very hard to believe that there are more than a few plans to attack Iran sitting in the White House war room. This one is definately a no-brainer.

That said- I'm not going out on a limb to suggest that the United States will attack Iran this spring. President Bush has publically stated that, "Iran will not be allowed to accquire a nuclear weapon."
Until such time that Iran claims to possess, or it can be reasonbly suspected to possess a nuclear weapon- I don't think there is the slightest justification behind a US-led attack. I do think Iran is playing a dangerous game, but at the moment, I wouldn't be scrambling to evacuate Tehran.

Of course, Isreal doesn't have to play by those rules, either.
 

coolieno99

New Member
Re: Nuclear War against Iran

I should make a distinction between contingent military plans and state dept. intention. I don't disagreed that there are contingent military plans. What I meant that there is no political will or intent to attack Iran. The question is not just a military one. Economics plays a role as well. An attack on Iran would probably end up with the stoppage of oil flowing out of the Persian Gulf, since Iran controls one side of the Strait of Hormuz(mouth of the Persian Gulf). Gas price might easily jump up to $6 /gal or higher at the pump.
 

fieldmarshal

New Member
Re: Nuclear War against Iran

coolieno99 said:
I should make a distinction between contingent military plans and state dept. intention. I don't disagreed that there are contingent military plans. What I meant that there is no political will or intent to attack Iran. The question is not just a military one. Economics plays a role as well. An attack on Iran would probably end up with the stoppage of oil flowing out of the Persian Gulf, since Iran controls one side of the Strait of Hormuz(mouth of the Persian Gulf). Gas price might easily jump up to $6 /gal or higher at the pump.
I dont agree with u assesment.
Yes iran poses a threat n america will take care of that threat. the launch of the iranain oil bourse poses a grave threat to the us eco. This measure in a very short span of time threatens to take away the stability of the us currency (for starters). N america has gone to war to protect its economic interests before (iraq) n will go to war again to protect its eco.
The iranian threat to oil interests in the gulf is very real but at the same time it can be overwelmed and nutralized in a very short span of time.
 

Rich

Member
Re: Iran: Here come the US Bombers

Iran is probably in-capable of fighting a modern war. If we have staging rights in the theatre the outcome is academic. The longer we wait, the harder it will get. On the positive the Arabs hate and fear a powerful Iran even more then they hate and fear each other, whom they hate and fear even more so then Israel.

Of course the real fear is should Iran get nukes, and advanced IRBMs, that they will use them. Israel is a small country, 80% of their economy and population is in Tel Aviv, and for geographical and security reasons she can only base her nuclear forces in only a few places. One or two submarines with cruise missiles might be the only survivable retalitory assets she has left after a Iranian first strike. And Irans mullahs might figure whatever retaliation Israel has left over is worth it for getting rid of Israel.
 

coolieno99

New Member
Re: Iran: Here come the US Bombers

Iran has 3 Kilo class subs. They are currently refitted to carried the Club-S sub launched anti-shipping missiles. The missiles are a direct threat to U.S. aircraft carriers stationed in the Persian Gulf/Arabian Sea.
 

coolieno99

New Member
Re: Nuclear War against Iran

fieldmarshal said:
The iranian threat to oil interests in the gulf is very real but at the same time it can be overwelmed and nutralized in a very short span of time.
It would be very difficult to neutralized Iran's army in a very short time. The terrain of western Iran is not like the flat featureless desert of Iraq. many part of it is mountainous, negating the advantages of fast moving armour column. Even if its regular army of 540,000 men is defeated, then its 9,000,000 men militia would probably launched a protracted guerilla warfare against any invasion force.
 

Berserk Fury

New Member
Re: Nuclear War against Iran

coolieno99 said:
It would be very difficult to neutralized Iran's army in a very short time. The terrain of western Iran is not like the flat featureless desert of Iraq. many part of it is mountainous, negating the advantages of fast moving armour column. Even if its regular army of 540,000 men is defeated, then its 9,000,000 men militia would probably launched a protracted guerilla warfare against any invasion force.
Well, that's why we're supplying Israel with some top notch military tech including, I think, Patriots ABM's which should be able to knock down primitive nukes.
Though arming a anti-ship missile with a nuclear warhead and firing them at a carrier would be a possibility albeit maybe not a good one.
If the US ever decides to invade, they obviously wouldn't be able to handle such a force though I doubt the US will do that. The mostly likely possibility would be to bomb strategic assets and to supply its neighboring countries which is a bad method obviously seen throughout history (e.g. Afghanistan and Iraq) either way it's a dilema.
 

coolieno99

New Member
Re: Iran: Here come the US Bombers

I doubt the Russians would hand nuclear weapons to the Iranians(at least we hope not). Those Club-S are most likely armed with conventional warheads... but if the U.S. starts to use nuclear bunker-busting bombs ... then it's time to write another Tom Clancy novel ... :unknown
 

LancerMc

New Member
Re: Iran: Here come the US Bombers

From my point of view the U.S. has been letting the E.U. lead the effort in dealing with Iran. The U.S. has been vocal about it's concerns with Iran enrichment program but the E.U. has been in control of the talks. It would not suprise me if the U.S. has a plan to attack these facilities, but any attack would have to have the assistance of the E.U. The E.U. is the most at risk for reprisal attacks with WMD's.

I remember the Prime Minister of France a few months ago talking about how Iran was threatening to pull of the U.N. agreement. He threatened on CNN to have the French military take out these nuclear facilities so Iran could not produce a nuclear weapon if the started their program again. It was the first time I have seen any E.U. member threaten military action so directly.

So personally any military action taken against Iran will be done most likely by the E.U. members with the assistance of the U.S.
 

Izzy1

Banned Member
Re: Iran: Here come the US Bombers

The EU will never have a concensus among it to launch such a strike.
 

KGB

New Member
Re: Iran: Here come the US Bombers

In the interest of nonproliferation, the existing nuclear powers could make a treaty to attack any other country that tries to develop nuclear weapons of their own. Politics aside, there are too many fingers and too many red buttons as it is.
 

turin

New Member
Re: Iran: Here come the US Bombers

Such a treaty would not be realistic because of different political agendas. Would the US agree on a strike against Israel? Certainly not. Would China agree on a strike against Iran or North Korea, without imminent threat scenario? Nope. The official nuclear powers have certain interests which are connected to such countries and right now we are entering a new era where esp. the US, Russia and China are very keen on keeping each other at bay concering certain spheres of influence.
An alliance among western countries for such purposes may be more realistic, however such a alliance lacks international credibility and may even contribute to deterioration of world politics.

The EU will never have a concensus among it to launch such a strike.
Well, military operations are not necessarily decided upon on EU level. So theoretically France and/or the UK _could_ do that. A strike on part of some european player may be an elegant move if military action is not avoidable, since both the US and esp. Israel may face very drastic responses by Iran or parts of the islamic community in general. But in a way I am in doubt about the political will power and capabilities of european countries to go that way. Iran is not Kosovo. Therefore IMO any such move would see the US in charge.
 

Berserk Fury

New Member
Re: Iran: Here come the US Bombers

A treaty such as that would be potentially dangerous causing instability especially with countries such as N. Korea with nuclear weapons. Plus, this treaty could set an example for other countries making things even worse.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top