Gulf of Oman incidents
Discussion
ecsrobin said:
Earthdweller said:
The RN has 6 destroyers and a dozen frigates in total
I wonder how many are operational and available
My guess is not many at all
The numbers may be low but the capability of each ship must be equal to many ships 20 years ago. I wonder how many are operational and available
My guess is not many at all
And there’s the small issue of the Navy having enough sailors to crew them
Oh, and engines that don’t work in warmer climes
At least in the 80’s when they had 65+Destroyers and frigates active plus 5 carriers and many others they could actually have a considerable presence
According to the web there are currently 4 actively deployed worldwide
Earthdweller said:
ecsrobin said:
Earthdweller said:
The RN has 6 destroyers and a dozen frigates in total
I wonder how many are operational and available
My guess is not many at all
The numbers may be low but the capability of each ship must be equal to many ships 20 years ago. I wonder how many are operational and available
My guess is not many at all
Countdown said:
IanH755 said:
Countdown said:
You say "problem with the JCPOA" - do you genuinely believe that ANY country (let alone Iran) is going to permanently give up the ability to build nukes when that is one of the few proven methods for not getting invaded
I believe South Africa is the only country to voluntarily go through nuclear disarmament.IanH755 said:
Countdown said:
IanH755 said:
Countdown said:
You say "problem with the JCPOA" - do you genuinely believe that ANY country (let alone Iran) is going to permanently give up the ability to build nukes when that is one of the few proven methods for not getting invaded
I believe South Africa is the only country to voluntarily go through nuclear disarmament.rxe said:
The only reason they want to enrich uranium is to build nuclear weapons. It would be much cheaper to buy in fuel for reactors than go to all the effort of making it yourself. They'll only enrich it for civilian purposes blah blah, but the technology to enrich it further is the same - you spend 15 years perfecting the capability, have a healthy economy and wh-ey, in 2035 you're testing fission bombs. Actually you're probably testing fusion bombs because you just need to buy a few electric cars to get a load of lithium to wrap the fission core.
If they were serious about this the would have signed up to a treaty that said "we'll buy our reactor fuel in from (say) Russia and get them to reprocess it". Cheaper and easier. They went the other way because they want bombs.
The deal, which they were complying with, almost totally eliminated their stock of enriched uranium and severely restricted their ability to produce more. If they were serious about this the would have signed up to a treaty that said "we'll buy our reactor fuel in from (say) Russia and get them to reprocess it". Cheaper and easier. They went the other way because they want bombs.
We were in a much better place when they were complying.
gregs656 said:
rxe said:
The only reason they want to enrich uranium is to build nuclear weapons. It would be much cheaper to buy in fuel for reactors than go to all the effort of making it yourself. They'll only enrich it for civilian purposes blah blah, but the technology to enrich it further is the same - you spend 15 years perfecting the capability, have a healthy economy and wh-ey, in 2035 you're testing fission bombs. Actually you're probably testing fusion bombs because you just need to buy a few electric cars to get a load of lithium to wrap the fission core.
If they were serious about this the would have signed up to a treaty that said "we'll buy our reactor fuel in from (say) Russia and get them to reprocess it". Cheaper and easier. They went the other way because they want bombs.
The deal, which they were complying with, almost totally eliminated their stock of enriched uranium and severely restricted their ability to produce more. If they were serious about this the would have signed up to a treaty that said "we'll buy our reactor fuel in from (say) Russia and get them to reprocess it". Cheaper and easier. They went the other way because they want bombs.
We were in a much better place when they were complying.
Burwood said:
Naive. The agreement allowed to get closer to their end game. Nuclear weapons. They have a theological imperative which many of you idealists will never understand.
You’re going to have to explain that. Look at what they were doing before the deal and what they were doing under the deal and tell me it wasn’t an improvement.
I am not being an idealist, you seem to have this back to front.
Burwood said:
Naive. The agreement allowed to get closer to their end game. Nuclear weapons. They have a theological imperative which many of you idealists will never understand.
No it didn’t. The JCPOA moved them back several years and stopped them making any progress. What it didn’t do was prevent them permanently from getting nukes, something they would never agree to. The only way that is going to happen is via military action, a complete replacement of the current regime and installing somebody more compliant in place. Similar to what has been achieved in Afghanistan, Libya, and Iraq.gregs656 said:
The deal, which they were complying with, almost totally eliminated their stock of enriched uranium and severely restricted their ability to produce more.
We were in a much better place when they were complying.
It eliminated a great chunk of their uranium enriched to civilian grade. It allowed them to progress with enrichment technology, while growing their economy with international trade. We were in a much better place when they were complying.
If they wanted civilian grade fuel to power their reactors, then this agreement makes no sense - they had it already, they could fuel reactors with it. The agreement should have said “fuel you reactors with the stuff you have, and pack in enrichment”. Instead it said “crack on with researching enrichment technology, just don’t do too much, hmmmkay”. Basically it gets them to a place where they can rapidly go to weapons grade.
They want bombs. The JCPOA gives them bombs, they just have to wait 15 years for them.
Burwood said:
You read as an idealist. That’s fine. I make no judgement on that. You say ‘they comply’ and I believe they have no intention of doing so. War is coming in my opinion.
No I am saying they were complying, then they stopped after the US pulled the plug and put sanctions on them. It was much better when they were complying.
rxe said:
It eliminated a great chunk of their uranium enriched to civilian grade. It allowed them to progress with enrichment technology, while growing their economy with international trade.
If they wanted civilian grade fuel to power their reactors, then this agreement makes no sense - they had it already, they could fuel reactors with it. The agreement should have said “fuel you reactors with the stuff you have, and pack in enrichment”. Instead it said “crack on with researching enrichment technology, just don’t do too much, hmmmkay”. Basically it gets them to a place where they can rapidly go to weapons grade.
They want bombs. The JCPOA gives them bombs, they just have to wait 15 years for them.
It greatly limited their capacity to produce enriched uranium and rolled them back years. If they wanted civilian grade fuel to power their reactors, then this agreement makes no sense - they had it already, they could fuel reactors with it. The agreement should have said “fuel you reactors with the stuff you have, and pack in enrichment”. Instead it said “crack on with researching enrichment technology, just don’t do too much, hmmmkay”. Basically it gets them to a place where they can rapidly go to weapons grade.
They want bombs. The JCPOA gives them bombs, they just have to wait 15 years for them.
If they were prepared to do this deal, why do you think they would be reluctant to do another? If they wanted to build nukes they could have carried on their program and not had to wait 15 years.
It is not unusual for these things to have a fixed term.
gregs656 said:
No I am saying they were complying, then they stopped after the US pulled the plug and put sanctions on them.
It was much better when they were complying.
It was much better when they were complying.
I know it's the idealist in you which hopes that people are honest and doing what they say they are but, as has been proven time and time again, Iran desperately wants nukes as they see that as the only way they can prevent themselves being destroyed by the US and Israel, and there is no "agreement" in the world that will ever change that way of thinking for the current regime where nukes = safety!
Edited by IanH755 on Saturday 13th July 23:18
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff