Iran possible undergroundish nuclear bomb test?
Discussion
Jimbeaux said:
Yes. In the "look down the road", we could just let China have that region. We can get oil elsewhere. They could deal with the problems. However, they would just smoke the place instead of worrying about public opinion. I believe what will happen is that a decades-long stalemate, aka cold war style, will emerge. China is having internal problems, economic and otherwise, emerging at an alarming rate, they will have their hands full with themselves for a while.
I agree, an excellent post, even for a sceptic 
The middle East and central Asian region is going to be more unstable in the next 40 years than in the preceding 40. You have a heady mix of religious, ideological and pragmatic resource needs which is turning the region into a huge powder keg. China will not stand for nonsense on their patch now, they are flexing their muscle a lot, and the PLA are a separate tier of government in China, not answerable to, but equal to the party.
square earth said:
Thats not what you said. You stated it would be a easy war
make your mind up.
And the American are not quick learners
I would imagine America would send more than just 1 American to war....make your mind up.
And the American are not quick learners
Also, how is the Afghan or Iarq 2.0 the same? they are fighting invisible armies who can just as soon put down a gun and become a farmer after shooting at them and they can't do a thing about it. add that to the fact they have to have ANP permission to go on to property or it seems even fight back. It's a hearts and minds war they are fighting and not a conventional war that it would be with Iran. I would suspect a conventional war to be a quick victory for Allied forces if it were.
But, it will never happen Russia and China about.
To go back to the point of the suspected Nuclear wepons of Iran, i doubt they would make it public knowledge, if they did i would expect a full scale pre-emptive Israeli strike within 10 minutes of the press conference.
Jimbeaux said:
The difference is that most of those people do not like what their government is doing. To that point, they don't deserve a beat down IMO. I say work behind the scenes, circle the place, and let the people finnaly fix it themselves.
Wow! Is that compassion right there?!!!! Towards muslims?!!!! I agree but I think it will be long time in the making that way, must keep up with these mysterious explosions if we are to prevent them getting the bomb first. anonymous said:
[redacted]
One of the good things about a state that has a large population that are dissatisfied with the current state of things is that its not hard to gte them to spy for you, no-matter who you are. So I think the western powers and even Israel have a pretty good idea of what is going on in Iran.
Iran has been the play thing of western governments for years, until it reached a point that the revolution happened in 1979. It is well documented that We believed control over Iran was seen as the key to controlling the Middle East, not just because of the oil or indeed other mineral wealth but because of it's strategic position (to launch against former USSR) and coastline (allowing control of the gulf). The interesting thing is that the ayetollah's were in most part all being shielded in Europe by our allies and were not even seen as a threat before hand, indeed I seem to recall reading somewhere that Khomeini was a guest of the French government for a while before coming to power after the Shah had abdicated. Irony being that post revolution, having seen what the Ayetollahs were like, we in the west blew so much wind up Saddam's arse to convince him into going to war with Iran. At the time, the Iranian army was equipped reasonably well, they had a hand full of american fighter jets left over from when the Shah was one of the "boys", although I think most of their equipment was of soviet origin. Iraq on the other hand had modern weapons supplied by ourselves and our allies (read US, France)including a variety of WMD (mustard gas, nerve agents etc), and yet despite this technological advantage, there was a stalemate in the 8 year war that followed. Over a million men died on the Iranian side alone never mind the number of injuries and indeed the psychological damage caused..........the effects which are still being felt to this day. The Iranian people don't deserve another war that they did not ask for. That is before even considering that we would not want to see our soldiers (or indeed economy) committed to yet another pointless war, with the same consequences.
There is a level of distrust of the west in Iran because of all the suffering they have faced due to our actions over the years, but please don't think that that equates to a support for the current regime. As already mentioned, 90% of Iranians are educated to a decent level and are very forward thinking, much more so than any of their middle eastern neighbours (read Saudi,UAE,etc etc). They want to see the back of the Ayatollahs as much as we do, the people we saw at the embassy are all hired/brainwashed help, often called the "basij" (men) and the "sisters of morality" or something like that(women).. These people operate at the behest of the regime, demonstrating when they are told to, kicking off when they are told to etc.. What is sad is that off the back of the actions of a few, the whole population will suffer as we sanction the crap out of them. The Regime has dug itself in and will try and resist any and all means of relinquishing power, they will not be moved by sanctions, nor by bombs as loss of civilian life to them is a minor irritation.
There is lots of talk about on here about we should go in and just bomb the s
t out of them, I personally don't see how we as civilised individuals can think like that. Jimbeaux and I have had a number of discussions about this and we see it differently (in his defence I don't recall him actually saying we should bomb the st out of them, though as an ex military man, he firmly believes in a military resolution), but IMO war is never the answer.
Iran IMO will end up being a pawn in the chess game between ourselves in the west and a resurgent Russia/Powerful China. It will as someone mentioned probably be the frontier of a new cold war, with all sides flexing their muscles at the cost of Iranian peoples lives and basic human rights.
Personally, I think that Pakistan (who is already a nuclear power might I add) is a much bigger threat to world peace as their "government" is littered with extremists and they take the meaning of their religion far more literally than 95% of Iranians do.
Jam
There is a level of distrust of the west in Iran because of all the suffering they have faced due to our actions over the years, but please don't think that that equates to a support for the current regime. As already mentioned, 90% of Iranians are educated to a decent level and are very forward thinking, much more so than any of their middle eastern neighbours (read Saudi,UAE,etc etc). They want to see the back of the Ayatollahs as much as we do, the people we saw at the embassy are all hired/brainwashed help, often called the "basij" (men) and the "sisters of morality" or something like that(women).. These people operate at the behest of the regime, demonstrating when they are told to, kicking off when they are told to etc.. What is sad is that off the back of the actions of a few, the whole population will suffer as we sanction the crap out of them. The Regime has dug itself in and will try and resist any and all means of relinquishing power, they will not be moved by sanctions, nor by bombs as loss of civilian life to them is a minor irritation.
There is lots of talk about on here about we should go in and just bomb the s
t out of them, I personally don't see how we as civilised individuals can think like that. Jimbeaux and I have had a number of discussions about this and we see it differently (in his defence I don't recall him actually saying we should bomb the st out of them, though as an ex military man, he firmly believes in a military resolution), but IMO war is never the answer. Iran IMO will end up being a pawn in the chess game between ourselves in the west and a resurgent Russia/Powerful China. It will as someone mentioned probably be the frontier of a new cold war, with all sides flexing their muscles at the cost of Iranian peoples lives and basic human rights.
Personally, I think that Pakistan (who is already a nuclear power might I add) is a much bigger threat to world peace as their "government" is littered with extremists and they take the meaning of their religion far more literally than 95% of Iranians do.
Jam
Jam Rock said:
...
Iran IMO will end up being a pawn in the chess game between ourselves in the west and a resurgent Russia/Powerful China. It will as someone mentioned probably be the frontier of a new cold war, with all sides flexing their muscles at the cost of Iranian peoples lives and basic human rights.
Personally, I think that Pakistan (who is already a nuclear power might I add) is a much bigger threat to world peace as their "government" is littered with extremists and they take the meaning of their religion far more literally than 95% of Iranians do.
A strategic alliance between Iran/Russia (or China) will bring about a nice stalemate - peace for all. Pakistan is the wildcard.Iran IMO will end up being a pawn in the chess game between ourselves in the west and a resurgent Russia/Powerful China. It will as someone mentioned probably be the frontier of a new cold war, with all sides flexing their muscles at the cost of Iranian peoples lives and basic human rights.
Personally, I think that Pakistan (who is already a nuclear power might I add) is a much bigger threat to world peace as their "government" is littered with extremists and they take the meaning of their religion far more literally than 95% of Iranians do.
Jam Rock said:
Sober and considered stuff and therefore unwelcome on PH
Stop talking sense! 
I agree with most of that, excepting that you imply that the Iranian government is homogeneous and implacably against the west(fundamentalist); it isn't, it's riddled with factionalism which Handmade Dinnerjacket, in common with politicians everywhere, has to manage in order to stay in power. Neither side has control, the liberals and the 'old men with beards' tussle and Mahmoud spends his time dodging the crossfire. The rent-a-mob which stormed the british embassy was probably at the behest of the 'old men with beards'(conspiracy hat on - it was organised by dark forces out to discredit the 'old men with beards' and make them look reactionary!). Mahmoud probably didn't know about it until after the queen's portrait was shown on TV being flung over the wall.
Jam Rock said:
Iran has been the play thing of western governments for years, until it reached a point that the revolution happened in 1979. It is well documented that We believed control over Iran was seen as the key to controlling the Middle East, not just because of the oil or indeed other mineral wealth but because of it's strategic position (to launch against former USSR) and coastline (allowing control of the gulf). The interesting thing is that the ayetollah's were in most part all being shielded in Europe by our allies and were not even seen as a threat before hand, indeed I seem to recall reading somewhere that Khomeini was a guest of the French government for a while before coming to power after the Shah had abdicated. Irony being that post revolution, having seen what the Ayetollahs were like, we in the west blew so much wind up Saddam's arse to convince him into going to war with Iran. At the time, the Iranian army was equipped reasonably well, they had a hand full of american fighter jets left over from when the Shah was one of the "boys", although I think most of their equipment was of soviet origin. Iraq on the other hand had modern weapons supplied by ourselves and our allies (read US, France)including a variety of WMD (mustard gas, nerve agents etc), and yet despite this technological advantage, there was a stalemate in the 8 year war that followed. Over a million men died on the Iranian side alone never mind the number of injuries and indeed the psychological damage caused..........the effects which are still being felt to this day. The Iranian people don't deserve another war that they did not ask for. That is before even considering that we would not want to see our soldiers (or indeed economy) committed to yet another pointless war, with the same consequences.
There is a level of distrust of the west in Iran because of all the suffering they have faced due to our actions over the years, but please don't think that that equates to a support for the current regime. As already mentioned, 90% of Iranians are educated to a decent level and are very forward thinking, much more so than any of their middle eastern neighbours (read Saudi,UAE,etc etc). They want to see the back of the Ayatollahs as much as we do, the people we saw at the embassy are all hired/brainwashed help, often called the "basij" (men) and the "sisters of morality" or something like that(women).. These people operate at the behest of the regime, demonstrating when they are told to, kicking off when they are told to etc.. What is sad is that off the back of the actions of a few, the whole population will suffer as we sanction the crap out of them. The Regime has dug itself in and will try and resist any and all means of relinquishing power, they will not be moved by sanctions, nor by bombs as loss of civilian life to them is a minor irritation.
There is lots of talk about on here about we should go in and just bomb the st out of them, I personally don't see how we as civilised individuals can think like that. Jimbeaux and I have had a number of discussions about this and we see it differently (in his defence I don't recall him actually saying we should bomb the st out of them, though as an ex military man, he firmly believes in a military resolution), but IMO war is never the answer.
Iran IMO will end up being a pawn in the chess game between ourselves in the west and a resurgent Russia/Powerful China. It will as someone mentioned probably be the frontier of a new cold war, with all sides flexing their muscles at the cost of Iranian peoples lives and basic human rights.
Personally, I think that Pakistan (who is already a nuclear power might I add) is a much bigger threat to world peace as their "government" is littered with extremists and they take the meaning of their religion far more literally than 95% of Iranians do.
Jam
Actually, as seeing most Iranians hate their own regime, my stance has always been that the Iranians should change their own government. If factions ask for undercover help, so be it but I have never advocated a military solution to Iran. I believe it will come to that is some fashion or the other, but I never called for it. There is a level of distrust of the west in Iran because of all the suffering they have faced due to our actions over the years, but please don't think that that equates to a support for the current regime. As already mentioned, 90% of Iranians are educated to a decent level and are very forward thinking, much more so than any of their middle eastern neighbours (read Saudi,UAE,etc etc). They want to see the back of the Ayatollahs as much as we do, the people we saw at the embassy are all hired/brainwashed help, often called the "basij" (men) and the "sisters of morality" or something like that(women).. These people operate at the behest of the regime, demonstrating when they are told to, kicking off when they are told to etc.. What is sad is that off the back of the actions of a few, the whole population will suffer as we sanction the crap out of them. The Regime has dug itself in and will try and resist any and all means of relinquishing power, they will not be moved by sanctions, nor by bombs as loss of civilian life to them is a minor irritation.
There is lots of talk about on here about we should go in and just bomb the s
t out of them, I personally don't see how we as civilised individuals can think like that. Jimbeaux and I have had a number of discussions about this and we see it differently (in his defence I don't recall him actually saying we should bomb the st out of them, though as an ex military man, he firmly believes in a military resolution), but IMO war is never the answer. Iran IMO will end up being a pawn in the chess game between ourselves in the west and a resurgent Russia/Powerful China. It will as someone mentioned probably be the frontier of a new cold war, with all sides flexing their muscles at the cost of Iranian peoples lives and basic human rights.
Personally, I think that Pakistan (who is already a nuclear power might I add) is a much bigger threat to world peace as their "government" is littered with extremists and they take the meaning of their religion far more literally than 95% of Iranians do.
Jam
Mattt said:
Jimbeaux said:
Nope, doing nothing will get us in trouble in this case. What you call "interfering" is preperable to the alternative of everyone getting a beat down, don'tcha' think?
Edited by Jimbeaux on Friday 2nd December 19:54
Jimbeaux said:
"you"? I think the clear of thinking would call what is occuring a "we".....minus those in your embassy of course. BTW, how would you know if Stuxnet failed? I think the Isrealis, with some of the world's leading proprietory software, were behind that anyway.
Well Stuxnet was discovered, alerting the Iranians to security problems in the Centrifuge PLCs.No doubt it slowed their progress however.
From experience, I can tell you that importing centrifuges into the Middle East is somewhat of a bureaucratic process...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff