Iran

[Nymphomanic]

So does anyone think it will be the next one

[hr]

I read most of the night and go south in winter - wasteland

[Cain]

I reckon that the Manchester derby will be the next one.


[hr]

I hold an element of surprise

[ronald villiers]

No.

[hr]

If at first you don't succeed, in wi' the boot an' then the heed.

[treehugger]

no

[papercutheart]

Yes.

[hr]

[Ben Reilly]

Before Sharon's illness, I would have said an Israeli aerial attack in March, two weeks before their elections. Now it is a bit more complicated. The acting PM might want to appear as a "tough guy", thus bringing it forwards .

[hr]

http://www.yourunion.net/main/representation/

[DrAlex]

President wishes to make a powerful nation, upset the middle east, build his nuclear portfolio and act without mind for the UN?

You know how you tend to hate people who are just like you...

[hr]

La loi est dure, mais l'aigle ne chasse pas les mouches.
http://standrews.facebook.com/profile.php?id=37100343

[@V5]

I <3 Iran

[jequirity]

Hmmm, don't think its gonna come to military action soon, theres still a lot of options left on the table. If it does come to military action it'l prob be a uniltaeral job by israel with some intelligence info from the USA. It would be much harder to pull off then the Osiraq raid where the israelis took out iraqs only nuclear reactor.

[hr]

LEEERRRROYYYY!!!!

Andrew W K Day 9th of May

[Jono]

Iran = t3H sUcK!

Somehow i doubt it. Despite the Bush administration's virtual control of the mainstream media, and the the blatent glazing over of unwelcome truths about Iraq, the oval office can't have missed the complete and utter balls up they've caused there. I don't think they'd risk that sort of fiasco again, no matter what the pundits keep saying.

[novium]

you know, I'm beginning to loathe the term "mainstream media". it seems to be a codeword for "CONSPIRACY THEORY!" except one that's socially acceptable.
Bush bashers and bush fanatics alike mutter darkly about the "MSM" and how it is distorting the truth, controlled by some shadowy figure(s), lurking and plotting evil.

Quoting Jono from 09:44, 14th Jan 2006
Iran = t3H sUcK!

Somehow i doubt it. Despite the Bush administration's virtual control of the mainstream media,

[hr]

"those who wish to be feared must inevitably be afraid of those whom they intimidate"
"In anger nothing right or judicious can be done."

[G]

Imagine Iraq, the 30years war, and a region of complete anarchy.
America would be stupid to use the military option.
To be fair, Iran is perfectly entitled to peaceful nuclear sites according to the NPT. It's pretty hypocritical of us, double standards jumps to mind. However, i do think that we have a role to be world police of some sort.

[Haunted]

Enrichment on the scale Iran is looking does not lead to peaceful applications by any stretch of the imagination.
But they say it'll be at least a decade til they're ready to test, so we can sit on this for a little while yet.

[Ben Reilly]

Quoting jequirity from 09:41, 14th Jan 2006
Hmmm, don't think its gonna come to military action soon, theres still a lot of options left on the table. If it does come to military action it'l prob be a uniltaeral job by israel with some intelligence info from the USA. It would be much harder to pull off then the Osiraq raid where the israelis took out iraqs only nuclear reactor.

Russia has just concluded a deal to sell Iran a Tor short range surface to air missile system. It will be installed this year, and will be sufficient to provide significant protection for medium sized sites.

Once that is in place, Israel would not be able to conduct a manned air strike, but would have to use submarine launched ballistic missiles, presumably with conventional warheads.

The US has just agreed to "sell" Israel bunker busting bomb technology.

[hr]

http://www.yourunion.net/main/representation/

[munchingfoo]

I think "would not be able to conduct a manned airstrike" is a little incorrect.

Terms like this get thrown around so much these days. It's because the public don't like the loss of life. They are all for the victory or anything but they won't accept the casualties. If however the threat is significant no government is going to care about the loss of life. Its a big game of weighing up costs. If not attacking the bunker with manned craft means Iran build a nuke and kill 100,000 people there isn't a government in the world that wouldn't see the aircraft strike as an option.

[hr]

I'd like to change the world but they won't give me the source code.

[treehugger]

Even if Iran does build a nuke they wouldnt use it, it would be a weapon of credibility rather than utility. All it would mean is the west having to start listening to them.

[Ben Reilly]

Quoting munchingfoo from 14:44, 14th Jan 2006
I think "would not be able to conduct a manned airstrike" is a little incorrect.

Terms like this get thrown around so much these days. It's because the public don't like the loss of life. They are all for the victory or anything but they won't accept the casualties. If however the threat is significant no government is going to care about the loss of life. Its a big game of weighing up costs. If not attacking the bunker with manned craft means Iran build a nuke and kill 100,000 people there isn't a government in the world that wouldn't see the aircraft strike as an option.

[hr]

I'd like to change the world but they won't give me the source code.

It's more that Israel does not have enough aircraft to mount a raid with even a theoretical P[s]k[/s] of 1.

[hr]

http://www.yourunion.net/main/representation/

[flarewearer]

Quoting Ben Reilly from 14:32, 14th Jan 2006
Russia has just concluded a deal to sell Iran a Tor short range surface to air missile system. It will be installed this year, and will be sufficient to provide significant protection for medium sized sites.

Once that is in place, Israel would not be able to conduct a manned air strike, but would have to use submarine launched ballistic missiles, presumably with conventional warheads.

Where is this submarine launched balistic missiles with conventional warheads coming from? Such a thing doesn't exist, and israel certianly don't have either a ballistic missile or a ballistic missile submarine.

It also take's a lot more than some surface to air missiles to stop a modern air force such as the IAF equipped with some of the most modern and advanced equipment and arguably some of the finest, best trained and combat proven pilots in the world, which is more than can be said for Iran's armed forces..

[hr]

image:www.magnificentoctopus.com/x/elgar.png

[Garnet]

I think the way the west is treating Iran will just cause it's citizens to support their government even more. I mean the americans have invaded the country next to them and all the countries complaining about their announcement to produce nuclear energy or a bomb have them themselves.

[hr]

It's about time the piano realized that it did not write the concerto

http://standrews.facebook.com/profile.php?id=37106569

[Guest]

Gotta agree with flarewearer, the israelis would still overcome any air defense network employed by the iranians, the biggest challenge would be finding an air corridor for fighter bombers and support aircraft and then hitting all designated targets pretty much simultaneously. I wouldn't put it past the israelis to find a way though.

As for sub-launched conventional ballistic missiles i presume that ben is thinking of cruise missiles, but seeing as israel definitely does not have any subs capable of launching missiles, this is not an option.