Gulf of Oman incidents
Discussion
IanH755 said:
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
gregs656 said:
There is no evidence they weren’t complying.
Why would they want enrichment technology? (and after 8 years of the deal they’re allowed as much as the like in terms of centrifuge capacity). Building your own enrichment capability is as economically sensible as buying a combine harvester, windmill and bakery, just so you can make a loaf of bread for breakfast.
If they didn’t want bombs, they would have gone for an agreement that allowed them to get nuclear fuel at a decent price and shut down all the research capability. It’s not like they can justify it “because science”, this science was pretty much nailed in the 50s.
‘
rxe said:
If they didn’t want bombs,
They DO want bombs. The JCPOA was a quid pro quo - you stop trying to make news and we will do XYZ. Iran agreed and complied with the rules. Trump comes along and says “we’re NOT going to do XYZ but YOU’RE still obliged to comply with the Rules.”He’s a “great” deal-maker. It’s his way or the highway, and when everything turns to s
t he walks away, blaming others.Countdown said:
rxe said:
If they didn’t want bombs,
They DO want bombs. The JCPOA was a quid pro quo - you stop trying to make news and we will do XYZ. Iran agreed and complied with the rules. Trump comes along and says “we’re NOT going to do XYZ but YOU’RE still obliged to comply with the Rules.”He’s a “great” deal-maker. It’s his way or the highway, and when everything turns to s
t he walks away, blaming others.Burwood said:
The reality is he can do what he likes. No government plays by the rules. Ours is no different. They only wish they had Executive Power.
He can’t do what he likes, much as he wishes he could do. This is a perfect example; Iran hasn’t bent over and accepted what Trump and the NeoCons demanded - they’ve gone back to trying to build nukes. And if they succeed you can bet your bottom dollar that the Saudis will want their own nukes as well (which they’ll buy in from Pakistan). Now that will make the entire region even more unstable. It’s another example (if one was needed) of how completely out of his depth and open to manipulation Trump is. He really is a moron and, sadly, i think we’ll be standing “shoulder to shoulder”.
Countdown said:
They DO want bombs. The JCPOA was a quid pro quo - you stop trying to make news and we will do XYZ. Iran agreed and complied with the rules. Trump comes along and says “we’re NOT going to do XYZ but YOU’RE still obliged to comply with the Rules.”
He’s a “great” deal-maker. It’s his way or the highway, and when everything turns to st he walks away, blaming others.
They’re a signatory to the NPT. They’re not allowed to have bombs. Quite frankly I don’t care whether it is fair, but we can’t live in a world where regimes like that have nuclear weapons. If they carry on building enrichment capability, then they will probably get a MOAB though the front entrance of their tunnel and it will all be over. He’s a “great” deal-maker. It’s his way or the highway, and when everything turns to s
t he walks away, blaming others.Yes, unfair, it would be better if nuclear bombs didn’t exist, but they do. Most countries in the world get by just fine without nuclear weapons.
rxe said:
They’re not allowed to have bombs.
Says who? Countries have the right to do whatever they want to do as long as it doesn’t impact on somebody else. I’m not particular keen on XYZ having nukes. Does that mean that the Brits/US/anybody else has the right to stop them? rxe said:
Quite frankly I don’t care whether it is fair, but we can’t live in a world where regimes like that have nuclear weapons. If they carry on building enrichment capability, then they will probably get a MOAB though the front entrance of their tunnel and it will all be over.
Yes, unfair, it would be better if nuclear bombs didn’t exist, but they do. Most countries in the world get by just fine without nuclear weapons.
That’s hypocrisy at its finest, but it does exemplify EXACTLY why people dont want the Iranians to have nukes. Not because they’re ever likely to be first-users but because, at the moment, countries like Israel and the US can (and have) attacked them at will, without fearing the consequences of retaliation. Thank goodness for the liberal, democratic, freedom-loving values that we in the West have.Yes, unfair, it would be better if nuclear bombs didn’t exist, but they do. Most countries in the world get by just fine without nuclear weapons.
Your neighbour has a massive gun (and he’s used it a couple of times on other neighbours, but specifically NOT those that have their own guns). You decide that you want a gun. He says you cant have one and if you try to get one he’s going to shoot you. What do you do?
Edited by Countdown on Sunday 14th July 11:45
gregs656 said:
IanH755 said:
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
They believe that the fate of their entire nation rests on having these weapons, so I personally don't believe that, with Iran's entire safety dependant on those weapons, they would genuinely 100% comply with the agreement.
As to "no evidence", think about this (may be right, maybe wrong) - the western politicians involved in the creation of this agreement have all gained good PR from being "the ones who made Iran stop nuclear work" - Do you really believe that any of those people (or countries) would easily give all that up by exposing all the lying that Iran may/may not be doing, making themselves look foolish for believing the Iranians in the first place and compromising intelligence capabilities in the second?
I know I'm a huge cynic but I would rather be wrong as a cynic and find that Iran has stopped rather than wrong as an idealist and find that Iran now has a nuke that we could/should have prevented.
The monitoring agencies, tasked by the P6 + 1 confirmed repeatedly that Iran was complying with the JCPOA. Even the US has never suggested that Iran wasn’t in compliance. Today’s newspaper reports suggest that it was because Trump wanted to spite Obama - that shows you how mature he is.
IanH755 said:
gregs656 said:
IanH755 said:
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
They believe that the fate of their entire nation rests on having these weapons, so I personally don't believe that, with Iran's entire safety dependant on those weapons, they would genuinely 100% comply with the agreement.
As to "no evidence", think about this (may be right, maybe wrong) - the western politicians involved in the creation of this agreement have all gained good PR from being "the ones who made Iran stop nuclear work" - Do you really believe that any of those people (or countries) would easily give all that up by exposing all the lying that Iran may/may not be doing, making themselves look foolish for believing the Iranians in the first place and compromising intelligence capabilities in the second?
I know I'm a huge cynic but I would rather be wrong as a cynic and find that Iran has stopped rather than wrong as an idealist and find that Iran now has a nuke that we could/should have prevented.
Countdown said:
Your neighbour has a massive gun (and he’s used it a couple of times on other neighbours, but specifically NOT those that have their own guns). You decide that you want a gun. He says you cant have one and if you try to get one he’s going to shoot you. What do you do?
You missed out the bit where you have continually called for the destruction of your neighbour, his family and his.house.Edited by Countdown on Sunday 14th July 11:45
Down and out said:
You missed out the bit where you have continually called for the destruction of your neighbour, his family and his.house.
Do you mean the people who moved into your former neighbours house, kicked them out into the back yard, and said the house had been promised to them 2000 years ago? The same people who regularly use THEIR gun because of their inalienable right to exist? In that scenario I’d want to make sure they couldn’t kick me out of MY house as well.Countdown said:
Do you mean the people who moved into your former neighbours house, kicked them out into the back yard, and said the house had been promised to them 2000 years ago? The same people who regularly use THEIR gun because of their inalienable right to exist? In that scenario I’d want to make sure they couldn’t kick me out of MY house as well.
If they were regularly throwing rocks and killing their kids they'd have every right to use their gun.rxe said:
Why would they want enrichment technology? (and after 8 years of the deal they’re allowed as much as the like in terms of centrifuge capacity).
For leverage. Let’s not pretend Iran didn’t get anything out of the deal. I don’t think that’s right regarding centrifuges. From where I am sitting the deal didn’t create a nuclear program, it limited an existing one. Clearly that isn’t perfect, but it did provide some stability to the area and I don’t think there was any appetite for another Iraq.
Countdown said:
Down and out said:
You missed out the bit where you have continually called for the destruction of your neighbour, his family and his.house.
Do you mean the people who moved into your former neighbours house, kicked them out into the back yard, and said the house had been promised to them 2000 years ago? The same people who regularly use THEIR gun because of their inalienable right to exist? In that scenario I’d want to make sure they couldn’t kick me out of MY house as well.gregs656 said:
For leverage. Let’s not pretend Iran didn’t get anything out of the deal. I don’t think that’s right regarding centrifuges.
From where I am sitting the deal didn’t create a nuclear program, it limited an existing one. Clearly that isn’t perfect, but it did provide some stability to the area and I don’t think there was any appetite for another Iraq.
It allowed an existing programme to continue while also giving Iran the benefits of integration into the global economy.From where I am sitting the deal didn’t create a nuclear program, it limited an existing one. Clearly that isn’t perfect, but it did provide some stability to the area and I don’t think there was any appetite for another Iraq.
Nuclear weapons are not what is stopping the US intervening in countries. Say (for example) that the US and Israel had a big falling out. Is the US in anyway concerned about Israeli nukes? Not in the slightest. They have no first strike capability, and no second strike capability. Would the presence of nukes in Iran stop the US doing whatever it wanted? Nope - within reason, the stuff that drops ordinance is pretty immune to nukes, so Iran could be flattened and have no way of responding.
rxe said:
It allowed an existing programme to continue while also giving Iran the benefits of integration into the global economy.
It didnt. From memory Iran had to give up something like 97% of the uranium it had enriched. There were also numerous other sanctionshttps://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-mideast-iran-usa...
rxe said:
Nuclear weapons are not what is stopping the US intervening in countries. Say (for example) that the US and Israel had a big falling out. Is the US in anyway concerned about Israeli nukes? Not in the slightest. They have no first strike capability, and no second strike capability. Would the presence of nukes in Iran stop the US doing whatever it wanted? Nope - within reason, the stuff that drops ordinance is pretty immune to nukes, so Iran could be flattened and have no way of responding.
If you think Israel doesn’t have both a first strike and a second strike capability you do need to do a lot of reading. They had this as far back as 1973 and were very close to using it during the Yom Kippur war.In terms of nukes not stopping the US doing what it wants - Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and Libya vs North Korea are prime examples of what the US will/will not do if a country has nukes. In any war situation it would be close to impossible for the US to ensure that the Iranians weren’t able to launch one of their SRBMs against Israel or Saudi Arabia, which Iran would do if it faced defeat.
Countdown said:
If you think Israel doesn’t have both a first strike and a second strike capability you do need to do a lot of reading. They had this as far back as 1973 and were very close to using it during the Yom Kippur war.
In terms of nukes not stopping the US doing what it wants - Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and Libya vs North Korea are prime examples of what the US will/will not do if a country has nukes. In any war situation it would be close to impossible for the US to ensure that the Iranians weren’t able to launch one of their SRBMs against Israel or Saudi Arabia, which Iran would do if it faced defeat.
First strike as in an ability to hit the continental US. Jericho 3 might be able to do it since 2008, but the Israelis aren’t in a hurry to release the specs of their warheads or missiles. In terms of nukes not stopping the US doing what it wants - Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and Libya vs North Korea are prime examples of what the US will/will not do if a country has nukes. In any war situation it would be close to impossible for the US to ensure that the Iranians weren’t able to launch one of their SRBMs against Israel or Saudi Arabia, which Iran would do if it faced defeat.
That is of course the other angle on this - the Iranians need a launch vehicle that can (say) hit the US. Access to the global economy gives them more chance of this capability.
You’re coming at this from a position that thinks every country should have the right to defend itself with nuclear weapons, and that if countries like Iran want nukes they should have them. So should the Palestinians, the Syrians and all the rest. I think that non-proliferation is one of the few things worth going to war to protect. We’ll have to agree to disagree on this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countdown_to_Looking...
all starts off exactly where the issues are just now....
all starts off exactly where the issues are just now....
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff