Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

LETS START A WAR! START A NUCLEAR WAR! [IRAN]

matt has a problemmatt has a problem Six pack on a dickRegistered User regular
edited January 2012 in Debate and/or Discourse
The threats have been flying in the past few weeks. Flying unlike a missing US military drone, which Iran has enjoyed showing off...

Drone_Captured_Iran_2_Reuters.jpg

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43819984/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/reports-us-drone-shot-down-over-iran-nuke-site/

You can say, yeah, sure, everybody gets lucky once, Yugoslavia managed to knock out an F-117 too, but... Not happy with Iran's persistence at getting in on the atomic age, the US decided to throw down with some new sanctions on Iranian oil exports, backed by France, Britain and a few other countries that tend to tag along. Adding insult to injury, China, while not backing the sanctions, has cut its imports of Iranian oil by about half too, and is demanding lower prices.

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/12/29/opinion/nasr-iran-oil-hormuz/index.html

Which caused the Rial to drop sharply, although it recovered.

Iran, predictably, has a problem with this. With partial control over the Strait of Hormuz:

Strait_of_Hormuz.jpg

...through which a good 20% of the world's oil flows, they decide to pull out all the stops: Mess with us, and we'll block the oil. In fact, we're going to run a few military "exercises" while we're at it. And show off our new cruise missile that is definitely not a 'shop job.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/03/world/middleeast/iran-tests-naval-cruise-missile.html

With a range of 125 miles, they can now hit US warships stationed in the Persian Gulf.

And a slap fight ensues! The US says "Try it."

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-12-28/middleeast/world_meast_iran-us-hormuz_1_strait-iran-hormuz?_s=PM:MIDDLEEAST

Iran says "We took a few pictures."

http://news.yahoo.com/iran-says-recorded-video-us-aircraft-carrier-112952565.html

Pictures of the USS Stennis as it left the Persian Gulf, on a routine trip. Not exactly hard, since it wasn't trying to hide in the first place. While they're at it, they decide to make another threat.

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/01/03/world/meast/iran-u-s-/index.html

That's right. Bring it back and there will be trouble.

Enjoying the limelight, they went on to announce:

In+Rod+We+Trust.jpg

Theirs isn't inanimate and carbon, it's Uranium and currently in a test reactor.

http://articles.cnn.com/2012-01-01/middleeast/world_meast_iran-nuclear-rod_1_talks-with-world-powers-nuclear-fuel-nuclear-program?_s=PM:MIDDLEEAST

Of course, one uranium fuel rod does not a nuclear arsenal make, but it shows they've managed to recover from any damage the Stuxnet worm may have done, and that they have no intention of deviating from their usual response to the rest of the world when the rest of the world tries to tell Iran what to do:

tm8nD.jpg

h1DI1.jpg
All my fuckin life I lived a normal fuckin life
«13456718

Posts

  • syndalissyndalis Getting Classy On the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Products regular
    I usually like to fall back on the fact that Iran has too much to lose in situations like this, and very little to gain.

    They can puff their chest and proclaim that they will rain fire down from the skies, but as soon as they ACTUALLY do it, all of their so-called allies are going to take three steps back as the collective forces of the western world ruin their shit. And they will, because if there is one thing every goddamned country in the world doesn't like, it is unstable powers with world-altering weaponry.

  • DeebaserDeebaser Alpha Teemo Fake Board GamerRegistered User regular
    AT THE GAY BAR
    GAY BAR
    GAY BAR

    ...had to be done...

  • DiannaoChongDiannaoChong Registered User regular
    edited January 2012
    If they try to use it, what are the most likely ways?

    Destroy trade routes permanently as a fuck you?

    try to actually hit an announced enemy?

    I doubt it would be to smuggle something into the US to use. Not that its the only thing that would really hurt us.

    I dont see a nuclear retaliation for much less then what we had planned with Russia, it's for MAD and deterrance. Even if iran snuck something over here and detonated I see a full on invasion and not nuclear response unless they started hitting allies nearby.

    DiannaoChong on
    steam_sig.png
  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    That's an ugly goddamn drone.

    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
  • VanguardVanguard The system was breaking down. Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Let's not forget that a US District Court just ruled that Iran was behind 9/11

    http://www.bloomberg.com/article/2011-12-23/aYoOcZ6NT3wo.html

    Basically, this is going to get ugly. Nuclear war ugly? I think not, but our next war is going to be with Iran.

  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    syndalis wrote:
    I usually like to fall back on the fact that Iran has too much to lose in situations like this, and very little to gain.

    They can puff their chest and proclaim that they will rain fire down from the skies, but as soon as they ACTUALLY do it, all of their so-called allies are going to take three steps back as the collective forces of the western world ruin their shit. And they will, because if there is one thing every goddamned country in the world doesn't like, it is unstable powers with world-altering weaponry.

    This.

    There's no MAD here. There's just AD. Assured Destruction. The only thing Iran has going for it, is that the west (the US specifically) isn't willing to lose an aircraft carrier or a division to a tactical nuclear strike, let alone a city in a neighboring ally.

    But that's it. That's all they've got. One potentially nuclear armed missile so much as get's fueled, and that's all over.

  • CantidoCantido Registered User regular
    Synthesis wrote:
    That's an ugly goddamn drone.

    I think it's just pwecious.

    steam_sig.png
  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    Cantido wrote:
    Synthesis wrote:
    That's an ugly goddamn drone.

    I think it's just pwecious.

    It looks like it was made for a five-second scene in Logan's Run. Or as the butt of a joke in Futurama.

    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    Synthesis wrote:
    Cantido wrote:
    Synthesis wrote:
    That's an ugly goddamn drone.

    I think it's just pwecious.

    It looks like it was made for a five-second scene in Logan's Run. Or as the butt of a joke in Futurama.

    Real life military technology doesn't look awesome compared to movies. It is however, a lot more effective.

  • matt has a problemmatt has a problem Six pack on a dick Registered User regular
    edited January 2012
    Synthesis wrote:
    Cantido wrote:
    Synthesis wrote:
    That's an ugly goddamn drone.

    I think it's just pwecious.

    It looks like it was made for a five-second scene in Logan's Run. Or as the butt of a joke in Futurama.

    Real life military technology doesn't look awesome compared to movies. It is however, a lot more effective.


    Whoops, take that back, it's a Lockheed RQ-170.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_RQ-170_Sentinel

    matt has a problem on
    h1DI1.jpg
    All my fuckin life I lived a normal fuckin life
  • matt has a problemmatt has a problem Six pack on a dick Registered User regular
    edited January 2012
    stupid double post

    Although the X-47B is an unmanned combat drone going through testing now, which is basically a scaled down B-2.

    oh4ee1caa5.jpg

    matt has a problem on
    h1DI1.jpg
    All my fuckin life I lived a normal fuckin life
  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    It is an unflattering angle.

    Damn you, Iran!

    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
  • CantidoCantido Registered User regular
    edited January 2012
    Why is it white and have a vent in the front?
    Adding insult to injury, China, while not backing the sanctions, has cut its imports of Iranian oil by about half too, and is demanding lower prices.

    I need to hear the details of this, because it blows my mind. I thought China's policy was "sell us oil, we pay more and you can be as genocidal as you want and we wont ask questions."

    Cantido on
    steam_sig.png
  • SammyFSammyF Registered User regular
    edited January 2012
    Every time Ahmadinejad worries that his authority is being undermined by his own unpopularity among elements of the domestic population, he starts talking up Western and American aggression and suggests that war is imminent. Talking about stuff going on outside Iran gives the Iranian people something to do that isn't talking about what's going on inside Iran, and it helps solidify support for the existing government by propping up an external foe they're all supposed to rally against.

    Hugo Chavez does the same thing, often picking on one of his neighbors as an antagonist and framing that nation state's supposed aggression as a proxy for American Imperialism every time people start asking why Communism hasn't transformed Venezuela yet.

    I don't think that Iran's going to take that extra step necessary to actually provoke a war. Most of their blathering is about domestic interests rather than international interests. Whatever leaders America elects both in this election and beyond need to understand, however, that we have a difficult balancing act to achieve. While we need to be strategically postured to defend our own interests, any overt hostility we display towards Iran plays into Ahmadinejad's hands by supporting his assertion that we're out to annihilate them.

    SammyF on
  • matt has a problemmatt has a problem Six pack on a dick Registered User regular
    edited January 2012
    Cantido wrote:
    Why is it white and have a vent in the front?
    Adding insult to injury, China, while not backing the sanctions, has cut its imports of Iranian oil by about half too, and is demanding lower prices.

    I need to hear the details of this, because it blows my mind. I thought China's policy was "sell us oil, we pay more and you can be as genocidal as you want and we wont ask questions."

    www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/03/russia-crude-china-idUSL3E8C31W120120103

    They're basically fighting over prices for it, and buying it from Russia and Vietnam to make up for the shortage.

    matt has a problem on
    h1DI1.jpg
    All my fuckin life I lived a normal fuckin life
  • CantidoCantido Registered User regular
    Cantido wrote:
    Why is it white and have a vent in the front?
    Adding insult to injury, China, while not backing the sanctions, has cut its imports of Iranian oil by about half too, and is demanding lower prices.

    I need to hear the details of this, because it blows my mind. I thought China's policy was "sell us oil, we pay more and you can be as genocidal as you want and we wont ask questions."

    www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/03/russia-crude-china-idUSL3E8C31W120120103

    They're basically fighting over prices for it, and buying it from Russia and Vietnam to make up for the shortage.

    My mind = blown.

    steam_sig.png
  • override367override367 Registered User regular
    edited January 2012
    There is no quicker way to be assured of getting your shit absolutely wrecked than to fuck with the world's oil supplies

    If Iran blocks the straits, it'd be another persian gulf war (the first one) except this time China will help

    override367 on
    XBLIVE: Biggestoverride
    League of Legends: override367
  • BubbaTBubbaT Registered User regular
    syndalis wrote:
    I usually like to fall back on the fact that Iran has too much to lose in situations like this, and very little to gain.

    They can puff their chest and proclaim that they will rain fire down from the skies, but as soon as they ACTUALLY do it, all of their so-called allies are going to take three steps back as the collective forces of the western world ruin their shit. And they will, because if there is one thing every goddamned country in the world doesn't like, it is unstable powers with world-altering weaponry.

    Getting a working nuke is the only thing that can save Iran at this point.

    For all the talk in the West about how we all dislike North Korea, there's a single reason no one actually does anything about it. For all the talk in the West about how Pakistan is a traitor to NATO (not my position, but a widely popular one), there's a single reason no one does anything about it. Heck, if Gaddafi had a working nuke he'd still be in power.

    The Iranian government faces ruin from not possessing a working nuke, rather than from pursuing one. To do otherwise is to rely solely on the good graces of the West to not simply topple them whenever it's felt they've outlived their usefulness - something Iran has fairly recent experience with. A nuclear deterrent is the only thing that truly commands the West's respect in foreign policy.

  • Captain MarcusCaptain Marcus Right here in River CityRegistered User regular
    BubbaT wrote: »
    Getting a working nuke is the only thing that can save Iran at this point.

    For all the talk in the West about how we all dislike North Korea, there's a single reason no one actually does anything about it.

    Huh? From what I understand, is that they have a small nuke or two, but no effective delivery systems. Their aircraft are all old and the last missile they tested fell into the sea.

    Remember the Maine, Plymouth Rock, and the Golden Rule!
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    BubbaT wrote:
    syndalis wrote:
    I usually like to fall back on the fact that Iran has too much to lose in situations like this, and very little to gain.

    They can puff their chest and proclaim that they will rain fire down from the skies, but as soon as they ACTUALLY do it, all of their so-called allies are going to take three steps back as the collective forces of the western world ruin their shit. And they will, because if there is one thing every goddamned country in the world doesn't like, it is unstable powers with world-altering weaponry.

    Getting a working nuke is the only thing that can save Iran at this point.

    For all the talk in the West about how we all dislike North Korea, there's a single reason no one actually does anything about it. For all the talk in the West about how Pakistan is a traitor to NATO (not my position, but a widely popular one), there's a single reason no one does anything about it. Heck, if Gaddafi had a working nuke he'd still be in power.

    The Iranian government faces ruin from not possessing a working nuke, rather than from pursuing one. To do otherwise is to rely solely on the good graces of the West to not simply topple them whenever it's felt they've outlived their usefulness - something Iran has fairly recent experience with. A nuclear deterrent is the only thing that truly commands the West's respect in foreign policy.

    I don't agree with this. If you have a working - deliverable nuke, then you have to start playing grown-up politics. Nobody believes North Korea can actually deliver a nuke to a target. But everybody believes it would be a Vietnam/Iraq level catastrophe to do anything about them (no oil to promise an "easy rebuild" and well, its a country full of asians - countries full of asians have done pretty well against the US historically).

  • KalkinoKalkino Buttons Londres Registered User regular
    Any OP that references that band is ok with me!

    Freedom for the Northern Isles!
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    BubbaT wrote:
    syndalis wrote:
    I usually like to fall back on the fact that Iran has too much to lose in situations like this, and very little to gain.

    They can puff their chest and proclaim that they will rain fire down from the skies, but as soon as they ACTUALLY do it, all of their so-called allies are going to take three steps back as the collective forces of the western world ruin their shit. And they will, because if there is one thing every goddamned country in the world doesn't like, it is unstable powers with world-altering weaponry.

    Getting a working nuke is the only thing that can save Iran at this point.

    For all the talk in the West about how we all dislike North Korea, there's a single reason no one actually does anything about it. For all the talk in the West about how Pakistan is a traitor to NATO (not my position, but a widely popular one), there's a single reason no one does anything about it. Heck, if Gaddafi had a working nuke he'd still be in power.

    The Iranian government faces ruin from not possessing a working nuke, rather than from pursuing one. To do otherwise is to rely solely on the good graces of the West to not simply topple them whenever it's felt they've outlived their usefulness - something Iran has fairly recent experience with. A nuclear deterrent is the only thing that truly commands the West's respect in foreign policy.

    I don't agree with this. If you have a working - deliverable nuke, then you have to start playing grown-up politics. Nobody believes North Korea can actually deliver a nuke to a target. But everybody believes it would be a Vietnam/Iraq level catastrophe to do anything about them (no oil to promise an "easy rebuild" and well, its a country full of asians - countries full of asians have done pretty well against the US historically).

    1-1-1 and however you count the Philippines?

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • 3lwap03lwap0 Registered User regular
    edited January 2012
    Unless Iran elects to start a war by shooting at us, the U.S. won't be going to war with Iran. Its' an election year, and any conflict with Iran will hike oil prices by a fair bit - which looks bad for Obama.

    On the other hand, Iran is run by hard-liner anti-Israel/Western religious nut jobs, who are losing power amongst the many internal players in Iranian society. A nice war with the west can help cement and unite those factions, at least for a while. Ultimately, Iran's regime is living on borrowed time no matter how you slice it. Such is the way of most totalitarian regimes.

    Most of Iran's weaponry is purchased from Russia and China. They have some very capable anti-ship missiles, and AAA. All that will amount to jack shit against the U.S. Navy, if things get ugly. They can posture and drill all they want. In the end, unless they get a super dose of the crazies, they'll mind their p's and q's until either a) The economic sanctions crush their economy and force them to the table, or b) they get The Bomb, and threaten Israel with it.

    3lwap0 on
    I think Pringles original intention was to make tennis balls... but on the day the rubber was supposed to show up a truckload of potatoes came. Pringles is a laid-back company, so they just said, "Fuck it, cut em up!".
  • VanguardVanguard The system was breaking down. Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    BubbaT wrote:
    syndalis wrote:
    I usually like to fall back on the fact that Iran has too much to lose in situations like this, and very little to gain.

    They can puff their chest and proclaim that they will rain fire down from the skies, but as soon as they ACTUALLY do it, all of their so-called allies are going to take three steps back as the collective forces of the western world ruin their shit. And they will, because if there is one thing every goddamned country in the world doesn't like, it is unstable powers with world-altering weaponry.

    Getting a working nuke is the only thing that can save Iran at this point.

    For all the talk in the West about how we all dislike North Korea, there's a single reason no one actually does anything about it. For all the talk in the West about how Pakistan is a traitor to NATO (not my position, but a widely popular one), there's a single reason no one does anything about it. Heck, if Gaddafi had a working nuke he'd still be in power.

    The Iranian government faces ruin from not possessing a working nuke, rather than from pursuing one. To do otherwise is to rely solely on the good graces of the West to not simply topple them whenever it's felt they've outlived their usefulness - something Iran has fairly recent experience with. A nuclear deterrent is the only thing that truly commands the West's respect in foreign policy.

    I don't agree with this. If you have a working - deliverable nuke, then you have to start playing grown-up politics. Nobody believes North Korea can actually deliver a nuke to a target. But everybody believes it would be a Vietnam/Iraq level catastrophe to do anything about them (no oil to promise an "easy rebuild" and well, its a country full of asians - countries full of asians have done pretty well against the US historically).

    In the post-Nuclear era, we have never gone to war with any country that has nuclear capabilities.

  • Pi-r8Pi-r8 Registered User regular
    edited January 2012
    syndalis wrote:
    I usually like to fall back on the fact that Iran has too much to lose in situations like this, and very little to gain.

    They can puff their chest and proclaim that they will rain fire down from the skies, but as soon as they ACTUALLY do it, all of their so-called allies are going to take three steps back as the collective forces of the western world ruin their shit. And they will, because if there is one thing every goddamned country in the world doesn't like, it is unstable powers with world-altering weaponry.

    But don't forget, it's not just Iran vs. the US. The Iranian government is also facing internal pressure from their population, which is increasingly liberal and unhappy at being ruled by a dictatorial theocracy. One of the ways their government can maintain its power is by saber rattling- it looks really, really bad for them to have to surrender to any western demand. People love it when they do shit like this. So they'll continue to rattle their sabers as hard as they can, right up until the brink of war, and one of these days they might just go a little too far.

    Pi-r8 on
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    Isn't blockading the Strait of Hormuz what got Israel attacking Egypt et al in one of their various wars?

  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    edited January 2012
    I don't agree with this. If you have a working - deliverable nuke, then you have to start playing grown-up politics. Nobody believes North Korea can actually deliver a nuke to a target.

    Wouldn't South Korea be an easy target for a nuke?

    Harry Dresden on
  • SammyFSammyF Registered User regular
    Pi-r8 wrote:
    syndalis wrote:
    I usually like to fall back on the fact that Iran has too much to lose in situations like this, and very little to gain.

    They can puff their chest and proclaim that they will rain fire down from the skies, but as soon as they ACTUALLY do it, all of their so-called allies are going to take three steps back as the collective forces of the western world ruin their shit. And they will, because if there is one thing every goddamned country in the world doesn't like, it is unstable powers with world-altering weaponry.

    But don't forget, it's not just Iran vs. the US. The Iranian government is also facing internal pressure from their population, which is increasingly liberal and unhappy at being ruled by a dictatorial theocracy. One of the ways their government can maintain its power is by saber rattling- it looks really, really bad for them to have to surrender to any western demand. People love it when they do shit like this. So they'll continue to rattle their sabers as hard as they can, right up until the brink of war, and one of these days they might just go a little too far.

    Basically this.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Thanatos wrote:
    Isn't blockading the Strait of Hormuz what got Israel attacking Egypt et al in one of their various wars?

    Um, geography? They did fight a war along with the British and French to seize the Suez Canal which I'm guessing is what you're thinking of.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • DiannaoChongDiannaoChong Registered User regular
    I think they want south korea to unite into them as a "win" more then destroying it. I could be wrong though.

    steam_sig.png
  • VeritasVRVeritasVR Registered User regular
    CoH_infantry.jpg
    Let 'em eat fucking pineapples!
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    Thanatos wrote:
    Isn't blockading the Strait of Hormuz what got Israel attacking Egypt et al in one of their various wars?
    Um, geography? They did fight a war along with the British and French to seize the Suez Canal which I'm guessing is what you're thinking of.
    Yeah, you're right, it was the Suez Canal I was thinking of.

  • s7apsters7apster Registered User regular
    The OP says that about 20% pf the world's oil comes through the strait of Hormuz, but it's actually more like 40%. That's according to Dylan Ratigan.

    That is all.

  • [Tycho?][Tycho?] Registered User regular
    Thanatos wrote:
    Thanatos wrote:
    Isn't blockading the Strait of Hormuz what got Israel attacking Egypt et al in one of their various wars?
    Um, geography? They did fight a war along with the British and French to seize the Suez Canal which I'm guessing is what you're thinking of.
    Yeah, you're right, it was the Suez Canal I was thinking of.

    Actually, its probably the Straits of Tiran, which is Israel's sea access to the Red Sea. Egypt blokaded it in the run up to the 6 Day War of '67.

    But of course the Suez has been done too. Doesn't have the word Strait in it though!

    ragesig.jpg

  • [Tycho?][Tycho?] Registered User regular
    ...I probably do this too often, but once again I must point out we already have a Middle East Thread. Its kind of my baby, and I'd love for everyone to come talk in there, too!
    http://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/137497/the-middle-east-thread-now-featuring-a-primer-in-the-op#Item_2617

    But its probably good for this to have its own thread, the threat of war is in my mind greater than it has been since the rhetoric started post 9/11.

    ragesig.jpg

  • MarauderMarauder Registered User regular
    While technically the 40% number is more accurate for surface tonnage, closer to 20% is the number that HAS to go through the strait logistically. Exports could be transited over land by rail and truck, but that adds significant cost as well to the finished good, meaning that it is still effectively a 30 to 40% reduction in world oil supply if the Straits are closed off. As stated in the ME thread there are pipelines that will still supply regional nations, and we could see some resale and logistical rerouting of the supplies, but god damn if the price of crude wouldnt go through the roof before that happens. Brent prices already spiked on this dick measuring going on...cant imagine what various global prices would end up at over the 4 to 6 month period it would take the logistics to shake out. Definitely see 5$ and 6$ gasoline, and very likely shortages all over the country.

    As much as I know what a gut blow it would be to the economy at this particular moment, I really think the general American schmuck needs to be made fully aware of how fully dependent our first world status and all of our wonderful first world technology is on fossilized dinosaurs. So just like watching a car wreck unfold, I nefariously almost want it to happen, which scares me. And thats knowing the geopolitical ramifications of it, i.e. becoming even bigger chums with Saudi Arabia and its only slightly worse chucklefucks.

    Because we need, and entirely deserve, a 1970's oil embargo style wake up call.

    If it comes up, talk about your goals and how you plan to achieve them. It's better to hear that someone has a goal and is actively working towards them than that they are sitting at home jerking off and watching the Price Is Right.

    Hopefully not at the same time.
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    [Tycho?] wrote:
    Thanatos wrote:
    Thanatos wrote:
    Isn't blockading the Strait of Hormuz what got Israel attacking Egypt et al in one of their various wars?
    Um, geography? They did fight a war along with the British and French to seize the Suez Canal which I'm guessing is what you're thinking of.
    Yeah, you're right, it was the Suez Canal I was thinking of.
    Actually, its probably the Straits of Tiran, which is Israel's sea access to the Red Sea. Egypt blokaded it in the run up to the 6 Day War of '67.

    But of course the Suez has been done too. Doesn't have the word Strait in it though!
    Okay, I was thinking Six-Day war, but I wasn't sure. I knew they'd blockaded a strait somewhere, and Israel had used it as a justification for war.

  • CptKemzikCptKemzik Registered User regular
    edited January 2012
    This in-depth piece by Chooomsky is a good primer of the recent geo-political developments vis-a-vis Iran.

    Also as deplorable as the Iranian theocracy is, it should not be forgotten that it is a vicious by-product of the US and UK fucking with Iran circa the cold war, and we've reaped what we had sown. As much as people may like to think that the regime is getting into a tight squeeze with the saber rattling and internal protesting/dysfunction, imposing even more sanctions and allowing US/Israeli war-hawks to trip over themselves and spew more trigger-finger rhetoric does not help with dialogue and diplomacy to encourage its people to continue protesting their government.

    Basically there is a certain irony that US hawks continue to keep yelling "IRAN!" yet there goes the government selling more jet fighters to Saudi Arabia. But that's cool, cause like the Bushes were pals with Saudi royals.. or something.

    CptKemzik on
  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    I don't agree with this. If you have a working - deliverable nuke, then you have to start playing grown-up politics. Nobody believes North Korea can actually deliver a nuke to a target. But everybody believes it would be a Vietnam/Iraq level catastrophe to do anything about them (no oil to promise an "easy rebuild" and well, its a country full of asians - countries full of asians have done pretty well against the US historically).

    Dude, get real. An ICBM is a difficult delivery vehicle to manufacture, because:

    1) Your telemetry data has to be very good in order to hit a city rather than an open field in Bumfuck Nowhere.

    2) You have to build a multi-stage rocket in order to get the thing across the ocean.

    A 'short-range' (tens to hundreds of kilometers) missile is easy to build and deploy. Hell, you don't even have to build them - you can just buy old SCUD missiles from former bloc states. Do some rudimentary math, put in a reasonably accurate pendulum timer so it drops on the city you want to hit (just like the in old V2 rockets on which the long range missile concept is based), and you're done. Install the warhead and call it a day.

    NK's 'problem' has been that they want a missile that can hit Washington D.C. (theoretically decapitating a U.S. response by landing a large enough payload on top of the White House & Pentagon, assuming they caught enough of the executive in the blast), and not even the Soviets were able to build something with that kind of reach (they had to rely on submarines and, eventualy, the base in Cuba to get the U.S. in their crosshairs) - so their nuclear program is going to be eternally stalled because it's chasing an impossible goal.

    Iran just seems to want power to project against it's neighboring countries, which is more worrisome because it's simple to achieve. We know that Ahmedinjad is completely crazy (he's already attempted to blow-up a restaurant & embassy in D.C. last year, if you recall, which could've sparked a war that would've been disastrous for him & his country), so talking about him like he's a rational actor is nonsense (the Mullahs are probably somewhat less crazy, in that they clearly like the current status quo, and in theory they have more legal power than Ahmedinejad. In practice, Ahmedinejad has the loyalty of the military, and has all of the clout with the police forces that the Mullahs use to keep the population suppressed. It's an unstable relationship) - he really seems to think that if he can just draw some blood from the west, Muslim fanatics will rally and destroy our sinful & hedonistic empire.

    What will really happen, of course, is that Iran will make some stupid & horrifying act of war (blowing a ship out of the water, attacking a neighboring ally, etc), and the west will bring the hammer down, and Iran will be find itself caught in the lovely regime change cycle that we seem to enjoy putting the Persian Gulf through (rather than supporting popular movements when they spring-up).

    TOG Solid wrote:
    If that guy wasn't white he would have gotten popped by so many tasers simultaneously that Marvel could use that as the new origin for Electro.
  • LanlaornLanlaorn Registered User regular
    The Ender wrote:
    I don't agree with this. If you have a working - deliverable nuke, then you have to start playing grown-up politics. Nobody believes North Korea can actually deliver a nuke to a target. But everybody believes it would be a Vietnam/Iraq level catastrophe to do anything about them (no oil to promise an "easy rebuild" and well, its a country full of asians - countries full of asians have done pretty well against the US historically).
    NK's 'problem' has been that they want a missile that can hit Washington D.C. (theoretically decapitating a U.S. response by landing a large enough payload on top of the White House & Pentagon, assuming they caught enough of the executive in the blast), and not even the Soviets were able to build something with that kind of reach (they had to rely on submarines and, eventualy, the base in Cuba to get the U.S. in their crosshairs) - so their nuclear program is going to be eternally stalled because it's chasing an impossible goal.

    Wait, what? Soviet ICBMs could hit Washington, D.C. ICBMs can literally hit anywhere in the world, they actually leave the atmosphere and come back down, delivery to anywhere you want in 30 minutes or less.

«13456718
Sign In or Register to comment.