• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Iran Update: Failed IEAE inspection, Preemptive Strikes and SL declaring no nukes

Status
Not open for further replies.

Meadows

Banned
I don't believe that the UK would join in on an Iranian war.

We're extremely tired of war as a country, the streets would fill up with millions of people if we did, way more than for Iraq. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

Plus it wouldn't fall under NATO article 5 because it's an offense war (even if they attack Israel, they aren't in NATO)
 

effzee

Member
I don't believe that the UK would join in on an Iranian war.

We're extremely tired of war as a country, the streets would fill up with millions of people if we did, way more than for Iraq. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

Pretty sure that's not how the saying goes.
 
I don't believe that the UK would join in on an Iranian war.

We're extremely tired of war as a country, the streets would fill up with millions of people if we did, way more than for Iraq. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

Like you'd really have a say if the govt. really wanted to do something.
 

Vaporizer

Banned
I don't see who is going to stop us we already have bases everywhere. Also the fact that in your opinion would readily use nukes on its neighbors, is reason enough to invade now. That brings me back to my point Iran is in a catch 22 would comes to developing weapons. The best way to ensure it's survival would be to be completely open with the IAEA and the west.


It's not about bases everywhere. It doesnt matter if you got bases in europe, japan, anatartica or the moon.

If you're going to invade iran you need to use the bases in saudi arabia, qatar and the UAE. These countries will not let the americans use it against a nuclear iran. It aint happening. No one is willing to die for america in the middle east against a battle with iran.



And your final point is incorrect. the only way iran will ensure it's survival is to get nukes. Everyone knows that. Co-operating with IAEA does nothing. Iraq did that and it got them no where
 

Kinyou

Member
I don't believe that the UK would join in on an Iranian war.

We're extremely tired of war as a country, the streets would fill up with millions of people if we did, way more than for Iraq. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

Plus it wouldn't fall under NATO article 5 because it's an offense war (even if they attack Israel, they aren't in NATO)
I think I can speak for us Germans and say that we'll happily help in rebuilding the Iran.
 

Azih

Member
This cheerleading for a war is incredibly disturbing.

Not only that but the idea of using the invasion of Iraq as any kind of a reasonable comparision for the invasion of Iran is incredibly moronic.

20% of the Iraqi population actively supported the invasion and 60% sat it out. That is absolutiely not even remotely similar in Iran.
 
Um. The same way we invaded Iraq?

Im just going to link these to you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/12/washington/12navy.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/aug/21/usa.julianborger

In a nutshell, using small boat tactics, it is very plausible, and has been done in a full scale war game, to defeat carriers. Which would be an essential asset for any invasion.

This is btw, the exact tactics that Iran would use in such a scenario.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_K._Van_Riper

This is the guy who led Red Team.
 

Hari Seldon

Member
This cheerleading for a war is incredibly disturbing.

Not only that but the idea of using the invasion of Iraq as any kind of a reasonable comparision for the invasion of Iran is incredibly moronic.

20% of the Iraqi population actively supported the invasion and 60% sat it out. That is absolutiely not even remotely similar in Iran.

Who is talking about a ground invasion of Iran?
 
It's not about bases everywhere. It doesnt matter if you got bases in europe, japan, anatartica or the moon.

If you're going to invade iran you need to use the bases in saudi arabia, qatar and the UAE. These countries will not let the americans use it against a nuclear iran. It aint happening. No one is willing to die for america in the middle east against a battle with iran.


Umm, yes, they would. In fact, the leaders in those countries have been urging the US to attack Iran for many years.
 

Vaporizer

Banned
Umm, yes, they would. In fact, the leaders in those countries have been urging the US to attack Iran for many years.

The spectre of nukes pointed towards you can make the most blood thirsty, callous human being think twice. Those leaders will want to live. They want their countries to live too.


Like i said. No body wants to go back to the stone age. Not even saudi arabia who have reasons for hating iran would allow itself to be used as platform for an iranian invasion. Especially if iran got nukes
 
Yes, terrorist and insergents are just "causes and groups"
Uh yeah, Iran created or supported armed groups that opposed a brutal foreign occupier (Israel), the same way the US supported the mujahadeen against a brutal foreign occupier. The difference is that the Hezbollah and Hamas, brutal as they are, arent nearly as savage and medieval as the mujahadeen turned out to be.
 
The spectre of nukes pointed towards can make the most blood thirsty, callous human being think twice. Those leaders will want to live. They want their countries to live too.


Like i said. No body wants to go back to the stone age.

I like your avatar and your thinking.
 
The spectre of nukes pointed towards can make the most blood thirsty, callous human being think twice. Those leaders will want to live. They want their countries to live too.


Like i said. No body wants to go back to the stone age.

And thus, an Iranian regime change operation would occur before the regime acquires such nukes.

The US has been installing it's new laser and missile defense shield in the Gulf for a for few years now. It might be complete by 2013.
 

Azih

Member
The US has been installing it's new laser and missile defense shield in the Gulf for a for few years now. It might be complete by 2013.
Do you honestly think these things are good for anything other than enriching military contractors with American tax dollars?
 
While I'm not apposed to some sort of massive airstrike to take out the nuke facilities, a ground invasion would be moronic lol.

Absolutley moronic I concur, America has no stomach for the number of losses it would take to finish the job on the ground, and we cant afford it.

Anyone who honestly thinks that a ground invasion of Iran is feasible has been playing far too much of the BF3 Campaign.
 
Are people seriously trying to suggest Iran denied the IAEA access just in case they were Mossad agents?

That would be crazy and has no international precedent at all!

You know, why don't we just start selling Iran weapons again? We always seem to have good relations with the countries we sell weapons to. Gotta have some carrot to go with that big beautiful stick of ours. It worked well enough for Reagan. We could take the proceeds and use that money to humanitari-bomb Syria.

Keep the war in the air.

And the misery on the ground. Isn't 21st century warmongering so sleek and convenient?

BTW this new precision IRG-seeking drone technology sounds awesome! How does it work, pheromones?

Fucking psychos.
 
And thus, an Iranian regime change operation would occur before the regime acquires such nukes.

The US has been installing it's new laser and missile defense shield in the Gulf for a for few years now. It might be complete by 2013.

I would like to see some sources on these laser installations Wicked.
 

Pollux

Member
The spectre of nukes pointed towards you can make the most blood thirsty, callous human being think twice. Those leaders will want to live. They want their countries to live too.


Like i said. No body wants to go back to the stone age. Not even saudi arabia who have reasons for hating iran would allow itself to be used as platform for an iranian invasion. Especially if iran got nukes

So if the US invades from Saudi Arabia then Iran would nuke Saudi? But Iran won't nuke Israel because there are holy places in Israel...oh wait...

You're logic is rather faulty.
 

andycapps

Member
Absolutley moronic I concur, America has no stomach for the number of losses it would take to finish the job on the ground, and we cant afford it.

Anyone who honestly thinks that a ground invasion of Iran is feasible has been playing far too much of the BF3 Campaign.

Yeah it's not feasible. Not after Afghanistan and Iraq. I've been saying all along I expect a ton of cruise missiles and large munitions that will take out their underground facilities and set them back many years. That's if anything happens at all. A full ground assault wouldn't happen.
 

Kinyou

Member
While I'm not apposed to some sort of massive airstrike to take out the nuke facilities, a ground invasion would be moronic lol.
But would this really work? I know the air force is the spearhead of the armies nowadays but couldn't only a small amount of well hidden anti-air defense systems turn it into a fiasco?
 

Vaporizer

Banned
So if the US invades from Saudi Arabia then Iran would nuke Saudi? But Iran won't nuke Israel because there are holy places in Israel...oh wait...

You're logic is rather faulty.

those bases are not in mecca or medina. And iran would not nuke those cities anyways. Plenty of other places to cripple the saudis
 

Hari Seldon

Member
But would this really work? I know the air force is the spearhead of the armies nowadays but couldn't only a small amount of well hidden anti-air defense systems turn it into a fiasco?

Yeah, that is why stealth planes, cruise missiles, and drones were invented.
 
Like you'd really have a say if the govt. really wanted to do something.

eh, during the Vietnam war, the generals wanted hundreds of thousands more troops to step up the attack on South Vietnam. But they were turned down because the troops were needed at home for use against rampant civil disturbance:the anti war protests.
that's public activism impeding war efforts.
 
While we are all playing general here, does the combination of airstrikes and Special Forces Raids on the facilities that are too far underground to be reached from air seem like a possibility to anyone else?

The Special Forces in the United States has grown significantly in the last decade. Most of these missions have a success rating around 50%, but still, if a strike were to happen, and destroying the nuclear program in its entirety is the goal, this would seem to be the most feasible option.

Delaying the program by a few years seems worthless at the cost of Iran retaliating on American Allies and Bases in the region.
 

Pollux

Member
those bases are not in mecca or medina. And iran would not nuke those cities anyways. Plenty of other places to cripple the saudis

Yet nuclear fallout could effect those cities. Nobody in their right mind is nuking anything even remotely near anybody's holy cities.


While we are all playing general here, does the combination of airstrikes and Special Forces Raids on the facilities that are too far underground to be reached from air seem like a possibility to anyone else?

The Special Forces in the United States has grown significantly in the last decade. Most of these missions have a success rating around 50%, but still, if a strike were to happen, and destroying the nuclear program in its entirety is the goal, this would seem to be the most feasible option.

Delaying the program by a few years seems worthless at the cost of Iran retaliating on American Allies and Bases in the region.

We have no idea what they're success rate is since probably a majority of them aren't reported to the public. But yes, that is a possibility IMO.
 
Like you'd really have a say if the govt. really wanted to do something.

A strike, if it is going to happen, has been telegraphed to happen this summer, the occupy protesters have been gearing up all winter to make new demonstrations in the spring/summer, this combination could result in extremely visible and widespread anti-war protests.

We have no idea what they're success rate is since probably a majority of them aren't reported to the public. But yes, that is a possibility IMO.

You're right, that's just a figure i've heard floated around alot, might as well have pulled it out of my ass.
 

commedieu

Banned
Iran is going to do whatever they want, and the world at large can't lift a single meaningful sanction against them to make them complacent. Even with the latest sanctions, they are still defying the IAEA. We see this every time. All the facts, dates, and URLs, prove one thing. Iran doesn't listen, and isn't required to do so by international pressure. They have a history of it. I just find it absurd to believe that Iran is going to nuke Israel into the red sea the day after they build a bomb. What can they achieve with the threat of nuclear power in a modernized world where everyone has them, including their enemies. Are we literally just revisiting mad again? Unless its just one big last hoorah for the extremist muslims in that region, the world has nothing to fear from Iran. Sure, they are tied to terrorism. So is the US, so is Israel. So is Pakistan. Oh wait, so is everyone that is condemning Iran. More importantly, the US has used nukes in times of war. But that was a good use of a nuclear weapon.

Iran's political and social standing will not shift significantly if they had nuclear weapons. Israel isn't going to vacate out of fear, and the US isn't going to declare that it is no longer a sovereign nation. I just question the real danger Iran is going to be able to facilitate when they reveal they have the nukes. They just join the club. There are all types of weapons Iran could use against Israel, if they wanted to. Some even stronger than Nuclear weapons, but they haven't. Most Axis's of evil haven't gone down the route of gigantic bombs to rid the world of their enemies. And we continue to do business with these evil doers...

The fear of Iran with a nuke is hardly different than without. I do fear for the world if anyone with a nuke decides to use it again. That will be a dreadful day, but if Iran wants to nuke Israel, they have the means to do it legally, or illegally. I understand the national prestige of being a nuclear power, I get that, and that is what I feel Iran is going for. It is an ego booster more than an actual deterrent. The second their weapons are active, the atmosphere above Parchin gets thin, and there is no more life in a 100 mile radius. Thats the reality of the weapons of the world. Sure, maybe they get one off. It hits Israel and eradicates millions. Then the US retaliates, and we are in world war 3 with god knows who. No one wants that world, and that has to be why it hasn't happened. The weapons are in the hands of the wrong people right now. However, in a global economy, you need the rest of the world alive to sell your cheap Chinese wares to.

The world doesn't commit to any real change in the middle east. And WE never will. You've got a live genocide youtube right now, and nothing is happening. No planes are being fueled. No strike packages are being readied. That is a tangible issue. Not a possibility of a future danger because extremist religious representatives have made claims, or are making them.

Its an interesting subject to debate. How do Iranians feel about this? Is their nation spiraling out of control in a race to destroy Israel? Or do they just want the deterrent against the worlds most advanced airforce which is secretly striking them around the clock? There is just so much grey with this subject.
 

SUPREME1

Banned
Because y'know Iran going for nukes is going to result in an arms race right? Yeah let's just ignore China, Russia, Pakistan, India, practically every country that has nukes atm.


Regional race war.

Saudi Arabia has maintained for years that it would seek nukes if Iran ever obtained them.
 
To everyone in this topic saying that Iran would use nuclear weapons;

That is not why they want them, if they did use them every nation in the world would annihilate them. They want those nuclear arms as a DETERRENT.

The chances of a nuclear exchange are not very high.
 

Vaporizer

Banned
Yet nuclear fallout could effect those cities. Nobody in their right mind is nuking anything even remotely near anybody's holy cities.




We have no idea what they're success rate is since probably a majority of them aren't reported to the public. But yes, that is a possibility IMO.

dont understimate what a crazy regime like the ayatollahs would do to ensure their survival. They will not nuke mecca and medina because that would basically end them completely but they would not hesistate to attack the saudis in other areas if they see an invasion coming from there.


That's why the saudis will never ever allow it's lands to be used against iran. Because they will be at the receiving end of the iranian brunt whereas the americans can chill out 6000 miles away and watch everything go up in smoke and giggle and laugh.
 
While we are all playing general here, does the combination of airstrikes and Special Forces Raids on the facilities that are too far underground to be reached from air seem like a possibility to anyone else?

The Special Forces in the United States has grown significantly in the last decade. Most of these missions have a success rating around 50%, but still, if a strike were to happen, and destroying the nuclear program in its entirety is the goal, this would seem to be the most feasible option.

Delaying the program by a few years seems worthless at the cost of Iran retaliating on American Allies and Bases in the region.
this is impossible, short of nuking the whole country, because they already have the know-how to do it. it would be a matter of reconstituting the program, rather than building it entirely from a blank slate without the technical knowledge and experience
 

ruxtpin

Banned
Underground bunkers?

images


What say you!?
 

Sealda

Banned
During the inspections of Iraq in the 90s, basically all of the "inspecting scientists" were CIA agents. It was first when Blixt took over that it became neutral.
 

Pollux

Member
dont understimate what a crazy regime like the ayatollahs would do to ensure their survival. They will not nuke mecca and medina because that would basically end them completely but they would not hesistate to attack the saudis in other areas if they see an invasion coming from there.


That's why the saudis will never ever allow it's lands to be used against iran. Because they will be at the receiving end of the iranian brunt whereas the americans can chill out 6000 miles away and watch everything go up in smoke and giggle and laugh.

Giggle and laugh while launching their own nukes back at Iran right? Iran knows if they launch a nuke at anyone for helping the US, then they're pretty much fucked.
 

Azih

Member
During the inspections of Iraq in the 90s, basically all of the "inspecting scientists" were CIA agents. It was first when Blixt took over that it became neutral.

Hans Blix, the only man from that entire mess that came out looking good.
 

Volimar

Member
Interesting developments. If only it weren't an election year...

So does this mean when my kid plays with his fighter jet toys the bad guys get to be Iranians? I remember when I was a kid in the '80s all the bad guys were the Russians. The US planes always shot down the Russians. Eff yeah.

For me the bad guy was Cobra...
 

Vaporizer

Banned
Giggle and laugh while launching their own nukes back at Iran right? Iran knows if they launch a nuke at anyone for helping the US, then they're pretty much fucked.

launching a nuke or using conventional weapons is besides the point. The point is the saudis and the rest of the khaleejis will get a response from iran if the americans start using those bases for an invasion.

Iran will simply not sit and watch as the armada gets ready and fueled up like iraq did back in 2003.
 

Sealda

Banned
The spectre of nukes pointed towards you can make the most blood thirsty, callous human being think twice. Those leaders will want to live. They want their countries to live too.


Like i said. No body wants to go back to the stone age. Not even saudi arabia who have reasons for hating iran would allow itself to be used as platform for an iranian invasion. Especially if iran got nukes


Do you understand that Iran do not have any nuclear weapons available right now. Obviously, no one would attack an nuclear-armed Iran but right now there is the window of opportunity for an invasion.
 

squidyj

Member
To everyone in this topic saying that Iran would use nuclear weapons;

That is not why they want them, if they did use them every nation in the world would annihilate them. They want those nuclear arms as a DETERRENT.

The chances of a nuclear exchange are not very high.

You don't think they'd be willing to roll the dice on funneling a nuke or two out through an organization like hezbollah maybe into some other non-state actor less closely associated with Iran and let them do the business?

I seriously doubt it would ever happen, but I don't really know anything about how Iran rolls.


Giggle and laugh while launching their own nukes back at Iran right? Iran knows if they launch a nuke at anyone for helping the US, then they're pretty much fucked.

Which works out great for the Saudis, I can totally see why they would want to take part in that. /sarcasm
 

Vaporizer

Banned
Do you understand that Iran do not have any nuclear weapons available right now. Obviously, no one would attack an nuclear-armed Iran but right now there is the window of opportunity for an invasion.

yes i know. But the whole conversation started because a gaffer thought the americans would have the means to launch an invasion even if iran had nukes
 

Pollux

Member
launching a nuke or using conventional weapons is besides the point. The point is the saudis and the rest of the khaleejis will get a response from iran if the americans start using those bases for an invasion.

Iran will simply not sit and watch as the armada gets ready and fueled up like iraq did back in 2003.

We'll agree to disagree.

EDIT: however, to your later comment. we're not invading iran anytime soon (I hope) so it's a moot point. Nothing but a purely intellectual debate.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom