Iran threatening USA carrier group

[disco1]

rich1231 said:

The were fought to a standstill by the Iraq forces that were oh so much of an issue for the US and its allies to dispose of.

Not quite true, the Iraqis invaded Iran without warning on 3 fronts but were stopped quickly by the Iranian forces.

The Iranians won the air and then pushed the Iraqis back to Iraq which is where the war bogged down and became trench warfare. Despite both sides signing a treaty the Iranians pummelled Iraq.

The Americans are crazy to think they can take the Iranians when they didn't even finish the job in Iraq!!!

[Ozzie Osmond]

Sounds like a job for the "Middle East Envoy".....

[FeatherZ]

Iran can't be far from nuclear power now??? They are stupid enough to use it too.

How long until we see a big war, I mean East vs West is it possible?

[Frankeh]

FeatherZ said:

Iran can't be far from nuclear power now??? They are stupid enough to use it too.

I find both very unlikely, unless you count a test as a use. Either way, why shouldn't Iran have nukes?
Are they any more scary than Israel? Not really, imo.

Only difference is that Israel is our nutter whereas Iran is their own nutter.

[Streps]

I wonder if Iran's F14s today are actually capable or firing anything (phoenix?)
or are they just used for propaganda.

I'm surprised they are still flying with all the sanctions.

[Marf]

Frankeh said:

Only difference is that Israel is our nutter whereas Iran is their own nutter.

Yeah but our nutter doesnt have nukes nudge nudge wink wink

NNPT? Whassat guv?

[Frankeh]

Marf said:

Frankeh said:

Only difference is that Israel is our nutter whereas Iran is their own nutter.

Yeah but our nutter doesnt have nukes nudge nudge wink wink

NNPT? Whassat guv?

Well they never signed it, to be fair. That's why the US can take the moral high ground with Iran but totally lets Israel do whatever the hell it wants.

Just because one signed a piece of paper and the other didn't, as if that makes any fking difference whatsoever.

Also, Iran sees the US is basically Israels bh in the region, and it's all because they have nukes. You want to be a world player or taken seriously at all, you need to have nukes. It's as true as it's ever been.

Edited by Frankeh on Tuesday 3rd January 15:23

[Marf]

Bit confused there Frankeh, are you saying Israel is a signatory?

[roachcoach]

Frankeh said:

FeatherZ said:

Iran can't be far from nuclear power now??? They are stupid enough to use it too.

I find both very unlikely, unless you count a test as a use. Either way, why shouldn't Iran have nukes?
Are they any more scary than Israel? Not really, imo.

Only difference is that Israel is our nutter whereas Iran is their own nutter.

Were I a betting man, I'd wager the first unsolicited mushroom clouds would start about 1000 miles east of Iran. Or thereabouts.

[Frankeh]

Marf said:

Bit confused there Frankeh, are you saying Israel is a signatory?

No, the opposite. I'm saying Irans not allowed nukes because it signed it, yet the US turns a blind eye to all of Israels nukes because they didn't sign.
Neither should have nukes, imo. But if one has nukes, it's hardly fair that the other doesn't.

[Marf]

Understood

Sorry, "first day back" brainfade in full effect

[The Black Flash]

Frankeh said:

No, the opposite. I'm saying Irans not allowed nukes because it signed it, yet the US turns a blind eye to all of Israels nukes because they didn't sign.
Neither should have nukes, imo. But if one has nukes, it's hardly fair that the other doesn't.

What's fair got to do with it? There are no prizes for sportsmanship in international affairs, much less war.

[Marf]

The Black Flash said:

Frankeh said:

No, the opposite. I'm saying Irans not allowed nukes because it signed it, yet the US turns a blind eye to all of Israels nukes because they didn't sign.
Neither should have nukes, imo. But if one has nukes, it's hardly fair that the other doesn't.

What's fair got to do with it? There are no prizes for sportsmanship in international affairs, much less war.

In which case roll on Iranian nuclear capability?

[Frankeh]

That's the best thing, if Iran get nukes that's all this tit for tat bickering over. No one fks with nations that have nuclear weapons. No more air strikes from Israel and the iranians can sleep safe in the knowledge that anything the US says from that day on is posturing and nothing more.

A great situation to be in and it's the reason so many bloody countries have nukes already.

When was the last time two nuclear powers actually fought each other?

[Apache]

Trouble is, Israel has been rehearsing for just this to happen. They'll be all over Iran like a rash if they suspect they are close to being able to deliver

[GeraldSmith]

Frankeh said:

When was the last time two nuclear powers actually fought each other?

India and Pakistan, 1999?

[Frankeh]

GeraldSmith said:

Frankeh said:

When was the last time two nuclear powers actually fought each other?

India and Pakistan, 1999?

That's undermined my argument greatly.

[hairykrishna]

Frankeh said:

FeatherZ said:

Iran can't be far from nuclear power now??? They are stupid enough to use it too.

I find both very unlikely, unless you count a test as a use. Either way, why shouldn't Iran have nukes?
Are they any more scary than Israel? Not really, imo.

Only difference is that Israel is our nutter whereas Iran is their own nutter.

I suspect that they're a long way from a deliverable nuke. I'd say 'deliverable' in this context is something that could be mounted on a long-ish ranged missile. They might cobble together a straight fission bomb that could be dropped from a heavy bomber or rolled out of the back of a cargo plane but the chances of them getting to hit anything that doesn't belong to them with such a thing would be slim.

"Shouldn't have nukes" is a difficult thing to argue. They probably won't, because we (i.e. countries that already have nukes) can stop them. Morals are moot. We'll stop anyone we can - it's a trade off of their security against ours. The Israelis only got away with it because they built a bunch before anyone even knew they were trying. Despite our slightly uneasy 'friendship' with them, we would have tried to stop them I think.

[hairykrishna]

Frankeh said:

That's the best thing, if Iran get nukes that's all this tit for tat bickering over. No one fks with nations that have nuclear weapons. No more air strikes from Israel and the iranians can sleep safe in the knowledge that anything the US says from that day on is posturing and nothing more.

A great situation to be in and it's the reason so many bloody countries have nukes already.

When was the last time two nuclear powers actually fought each other?

That argument only works with MAD I think. Nukes aren't enough - there needs to be a large quantity of nukes along with ICBMs. Basically enough that a large fraction of the world is fked if the sovereignty of the country in question is threatened.

[Frankeh]

hairykrishna said:

"Shouldn't have nukes" is a difficult thing to argue. They probably won't, because we (i.e. countries that already have nukes) can stop them. Morals are moot. We'll stop anyone we can - it's a trade off of their security against ours. The Israelis only got away with it because they built a bunch before anyone even knew they were trying. Despite our slightly uneasy 'friendship' with them, we would have tried to stop them I think.

Exactly, and they got away with it. Now they're chums with the US and they can pretty do whatever they want, including getting the US to veto anything involving Palestine.
If I was Iran I'd be doing anything I could to get nuclear weapons, although I think I'd tone down the Israel hate and extermination talk until after I'd got the weapons made.

That's when I could say and do anything I wanted short of dropping the bomb.