UK military steps up plans for Iran attack

[Prolescum]

Sauce.

Britain's armed forces are stepping up their contingency planning for potential military action against Iran amid mounting concern about Tehran's nuclear enrichment programme, the Guardian has learned.

The Ministry of Defence believes the US may decide to fast-forward plans for targeted missile strikes at some key Iranian facilities. British officials say that if Washington presses ahead it will seek, and receive, UK military help for any mission, despite some deep reservations within the coalition government.

In anticipation of a potential attack, British military planners are examining where best to deploy Royal Navy ships and submarines equipped with Tomahawk cruise missiles over the coming months as part of what would be an air and sea campaign.

They also believe the US would ask permission to launch attacks from Diego Garcia, the British Indian ocean territory, which the Americans have used previously for conflicts in the Middle East.

 

[televator]

The war economy sure is very profitable these days. :|

Lives lost...who cares? Check out those rising stocks.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

The war economy sure is very profitable these days. :|

Lives lost...who cares? Check out those rising stocks.

Yes, because I can totally see how this is about lining someones pocket with the cost of a few air strikes and not about dealing with the potentially devastating threat of a nuclear armed Iran. Glad to see you're keeping everything in perspective though.

 

[televator]

The war economy sure is very profitable these days. :|

Lives lost...who cares? Check out those rising stocks.

Yes, because I can totally see how this is about lining someones pocket with the cost of a few air strikes and not about dealing with the potentially devastating threat of a nuclear armed Iran. Glad to see you're keeping everything in perspective though.

Yeah, you're right. For some reason, I had it in my mind that this was nothing more than a means to all out invasion. I can see how this minimal approach with missile strikes might be more favorable and mitigate the sweet no bid contract frenzy that took precedence in Iraq. However, that hasn't really been the language being spouted over in the states for a while http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2011-10/30/c_131220658.htm until Obama very recently spoke about more diplomatic actions. It's not helping that congress is trying to make it illegal to meet with Iranian officials while many other officials openly favor all out war with Iran... http://rt.com/usa/news/obama-war-iran-abdi-539/

 

[nasher168]

Be wary of using Xinhua and RT as sources... IIRC, Xinhua is basically a mouthpiece for the Chinese government to western audiences. And RT is blatantly untrustworthy, to the point that they sometimes portray 9/11 and anti-vax conspiracy theories as genuinely respectable positions. :/

 

[Case]

The war economy sure is very profitable these days. :|

Lives lost...who cares? Check out those rising stocks.

You elegantly avoided making a clever pun there.

Show More Hide

{TEXT}

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Yeah, I'm not convinced of any nuclear threat from Iran, considering the same cheerleaders for this armed "adventure" are the same ones who were in charge of the last couple as well. Fool me once, shame on you... except they didn't actually fool me the first time either.

 

[Nemesiah]

The only country inhumane enough to use nuclear (atomic I believe is more accurate) weapons on a civil population (or any population AFAIK) is the USA, yet they are the ones that call others radical who shouldn't have nuclear weapons.

It's like the criminals wanting to pass a bill so no one but them can carry a gun.

I'd like a world without nuclear weapons, so preventing any nuclear arming is ok (if it is done without violence which I believe will not happen in this case).

HOWEVER

That countries armed with nuclear weapons accuse others for wanting to have the capacity to defend themselves seems very hypocritical specially since not having a defensive / offensive capabilities allows those armed countries to abuse them greatly (like in Irak).

In the case o the UK I understand the concern but remember THE ONLY WACKOS THAT HAVE USED NUKES TO KILL PEOPLE ARE THE AMERICANS, so maybe they should be making plans to stop the Americans from stockpiling nukes.

If there have been any other nuclear attacks (not tests) in the history of the human race please do tell me.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

The only country inhumane enough to use nuclear (atomic I believe is more accurate) weapons on a civil population (or any population AFAIK) is the USA, yet they are the ones that call others radical who shouldn't have nuclear weapons.

It's like the criminals wanting to pass a bill so no one but them can carry a gun.

I'd like a world without nuclear weapons, so preventing any nuclear arming is ok (if it is done without violence which I believe will not happen in this case).

HOWEVER

That countries armed with nuclear weapons accuse others for wanting to have the capacity to defend themselves seems very hypocritical specially since not having a defensive / offensive capabilities allows those armed countries to abuse them greatly (like in Irak).

In the case o the UK I understand the concern but remember THE ONLY WACKOS THAT HAVE USED NUKES TO KILL PEOPLE ARE THE AMERICANS, so maybe they should be making plans to stop the Americans from stockpiling nukes.

If there have been any other nuclear attacks (not tests) in the history of the human race please do tell me.

Please... if the Japanese had developed nuclear weapons there'd scarcely be a Chinese person left alive. If the British had developed nuclear weapons in 1941 there wouldn't be a single German city any considerable size left standing (as it was that basically happened anyway.) And am I to seriously believe that the Germans and Soviets were 'too humane' to use nukes on civilians?

Really, if you want to bash the US that's fine, but show a little perspective. It is the fact that no one wanted to get nuked themselves that has prevented their use in war since 1945.


Now, if you're comfortable living with a nuclear armed Islamic Republic, that's fine too, but you should say that's what you don't mind. I'm tired of having the subject always changed to the US and Israel whenever this comes up, and I know for a fact that many hardworking dissidents and intellectuals within the Islamic world are tired of this too. We in the West do them no service by pretending it's not a problem because, "we're just as bad (or worse)," when we're not.

If there was a secular and responsible Iranian government - as there should be, and which we should all work towards promoting - I wouldn't care. In the same way I wouldn't particularly care if Sweden developed nuclear weapons, but that's not what we're up against and we shouldn't pretend that it is.

 

[Nemesiah]

The only country inhumane enough to use nuclear (atomic I believe is more accurate) weapons on a civil population (or any population AFAIK) is the USA, yet they are the ones that call others radical who shouldn't have nuclear weapons.

It's like the criminals wanting to pass a bill so no one but them can carry a gun.

I'd like a world without nuclear weapons, so preventing any nuclear arming is ok (if it is done without violence which I believe will not happen in this case).

HOWEVER

That countries armed with nuclear weapons accuse others for wanting to have the capacity to defend themselves seems very hypocritical specially since not having a defensive / offensive capabilities allows those armed countries to abuse them greatly (like in Irak).

In the case o the UK I understand the concern but remember THE ONLY WACKOS THAT HAVE USED NUKES TO KILL PEOPLE ARE THE AMERICANS, so maybe they should be making plans to stop the Americans from stockpiling nukes.

If there have been any other nuclear attacks (not tests) in the history of the human race please do tell me.

Please... if the Japanese had developed nuclear weapons there'd scarcely be a Chinese person left alive. If the British had developed nuclear weapons in 1941 there wouldn't be a single German city any considerable size left standing (as it was that basically happened anyway.) And am I to seriously believe that the Germans and Soviets were 'too humane' to use nukes on civilians?

Really, if you want to bash the US that's fine, but show a little perspective. It is the fact that no one wanted to get nuked themselves that has prevented their use in war since 1945.


Now, if you're comfortable living with a nuclear armed Islamic Republic, that's fine too, but you should say that's what you don't mind. I'm tired of having the subject always changed to the US and Israel whenever this comes up, and I know for a fact that many hardworking dissidents and intellectuals within the Islamic world are tired of this too. We in the West do them no service by pretending it's not a problem because, "we're just as bad (or worse)," when we're not.

If there was a secular and responsible Iranian government - as there should be, and which we should all work towards promoting - I wouldn't care. In the same way I wouldn't particularly care if Sweden developed nuclear weapons, but that's not what we're up against and we shouldn't pretend that it is.

Please... if the Japanese had developed nuclear weapons there'd scarcely be a Chinese person left alive. If the British had developed nuclear weapons in 1941 there wouldn't be a single German city any considerable size left standing (as it was that basically happened anyway.) And am I to seriously believe that the Germans and Soviets were 'too humane' to use nukes on civilians?

Thing is we'll never know, the FACTS are the USA killed a bunch of people using nukes, Germany didn't (I think they would have yes, but they didn't)

Really, if you want to bash the US that's fine, but show a little perspective. It is the fact that no one wanted to get nuked themselves that has prevented their use in war since 1945.

So then a Nuclear armed Iran would be deterred from using it's nukes just as anybody else.

Now, if you're comfortable living with a nuclear armed Islamic Republic, that's fine too, but you should say that's what you don't mind. I'm tired of having the subject always changed to the US and Israel whenever this comes up, and I know for a fact that many hardworking dissidents and intellectuals within the Islamic world are tired of this too. We in the West do them no service by pretending it's not a problem because, "we're just as bad (or worse)," when we're not.

No, I'm not easy with anyone having nukes; then again despite all our problems, Mexico is a rather peaceful nation so I think no one has us in their nuking priority list. We are not part of the coalition of the duped by Bush's WMDs so we are not as frightful of people wanting revenge on us.

What I'm saying is more along the lines of "See Iran, America has destroyed all it's nukes, now you follow suit", same for Russia , etc... But it is very hypocritical (comically so) to demand Iran not to arm itself when "an attack on Iran by the USA and Israel" is in the vox populy now. It may very well be false but the idea of Iran getting attacked is going around now and FROM THE IRANIAN PERSPECTIVE arming itself to avoid being gang-raped like Irak may be the rational curse of action.

If there was a secular and responsible Iranian government - as there should be, and which we should all work towards promoting - I wouldn't care. In the same way I wouldn't particularly care if Sweden developed nuclear weapons, but that's not what we're up against and we shouldn't pretend that it is.

The Iranian government may very well be a fiendish bunch of demon-spawn, but does that mean they will use nukes on others right away? I frankly do not know, again the whole "preemptive strike" philosophy seems contrary with "innocent until proven guilty" idea of justice.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

You misunderstand. Iran would not likely use its nukes directly (save as a weapon of last resort.) What is more probable is that the government would use the threat of these weapons as a cudgel to:

1) Threaten Israel and establish Iranian domination in Palestine via proxy groups (Hamas may be moving away from them, but they could reassert control or use others.)
2) Bully Bahrain, Qatar, and the UAE into submission. Possibly move to invade, and either annex or establish a puppet government.
3) Bar any attempt at international intervention in their affairs, including the above.
4) Because of #3, gain a free hand in dealing with dissidents in within their own population. Whom, make no mistake, they would crush.

Honestly I could live with 1 through 3, but because I have many Iranian friends, and count myself an ally to those Iranians who fight for a secular (or even just less corrupt) republic, I cannot abide the fourth.


Now, an air-strike may work against Iranian dissidents for the following reason: that the perception of being under attack tends to galvanize a population in support of the government. For this reason these strikes may not be a prudent strategic move. However, opposition to the Iranian nuclear program does need to exist. If you prohibit the United States from taking action against Iran until it becomes a paragon of all that is good and right, it's never going to happen. You are letting the best be the enemy of the good.


Edit: By the way, I can't see how the United States and Russia getting rid of nukes would be a disincentive for anyone else to develop them.

 

[Inferno]

Can we please have WW3 before the baddies have nukes? Thanks.

 

[Nemesiah]

You misunderstand. Iran would not likely use its nukes directly (save as a weapon of last resort.) What is more probable is that the government would use the threat of these weapons as a cudgel to:

1) Threaten Israel and establish Iranian domination in Palestine via proxy groups (Hamas may be moving away from them, but they could reassert control or use others.)
2) Bully Bahrain, Qatar, and the UAE into submission. Possibly move to invade, and either annex or establish a puppet government.
3) Bar any attempt at international intervention in their affairs, including the above.
4) Because of #3, gain a free hand in dealing with dissidents in within their own population. Whom, make no mistake, they would crush.

Honestly I could live with 1 through 3, but because I have many Iranian friends, and count myself an ally to those Iranians who fight for a secular (or even just less corrupt) republic, I cannot abide the fourth.


Now, an air-strike may work against Iranian dissidents for the following reason: that the perception of being under attack tends to galvanize a population in support of the government. For this reason these strikes may not be a prudent strategic move. However, opposition to the Iranian nuclear program does need to exist. If you prohibit the United States from taking action against Iran until it becomes a paragon of all that is good and right, it's never going to happen. You are letting the best be the enemy of the good.


Edit: By the way, I can't see how the United States and Russia getting rid of nukes would be a disincentive for anyone else to develop them.

While all the things they MIGHT do are rather horrible, again you are judging them before they do the deed.

I wonder if you would like your country being threatened on the grounds that your government might do horrible things.

About how would giving up all nukes make the world a better place, I believe that the people living in Iran are not inhumane monsters and would eventually revel against a government that went against what they believed (sort of like the wall street occupation movement in NY) so, if the world became a more peaceful place all countries would eventually follow suit.

The media (think fox news) portrays Muslims as bloodthirsty fiends that want nothing more than to see the world burn, I think that they might have a higher interest in not being attacked and living happy peaceful lives. If they seem angry on TV, it is because they are usually interviewed right after some American or English freedom missile killed their kid while he was praying for peace at the mosque.

Yes, "death to infidels" is a very ugly slogans BUT in the last century how many attacks by Muslim nations have the western world suffered vs how many times have the western nations gone and attacked middle eastern countries?, always under the idea of spreading peace. Lets not be innocent and accept that it is usually the nations with valuable natural resources that get the freedom treatment.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Can we please have WW3 before the baddies have nukes? Thanks.

The Israelis already have nukes, so too late.

 

[Inferno]

Can we please have WW3 before the baddies have nukes? Thanks.

The Israelis already have nukes, so too late.

Are they the baddies though? I thought they were on our side...
Who cares, let's bomb em!

 

[Anachronous Rex]

You misunderstand. Iran would not likely use its nukes directly (save as a weapon of last resort.) What is more probable is that the government would use the threat of these weapons as a cudgel to:

1) Threaten Israel and establish Iranian domination in Palestine via proxy groups (Hamas may be moving away from them, but they could reassert control or use others.)
2) Bully Bahrain, Qatar, and the UAE into submission. Possibly move to invade, and either annex or establish a puppet government.
3) Bar any attempt at international intervention in their affairs, including the above.
4) Because of #3, gain a free hand in dealing with dissidents in within their own population. Whom, make no mistake, they would crush.

Honestly I could live with 1 through 3, but because I have many Iranian friends, and count myself an ally to those Iranians who fight for a secular (or even just less corrupt) republic, I cannot abide the fourth.


Now, an air-strike may work against Iranian dissidents for the following reason: that the perception of being under attack tends to galvanize a population in support of the government. For this reason these strikes may not be a prudent strategic move. However, opposition to the Iranian nuclear program does need to exist. If you prohibit the United States from taking action against Iran until it becomes a paragon of all that is good and right, it's never going to happen. You are letting the best be the enemy of the good.


Edit: By the way, I can't see how the United States and Russia getting rid of nukes would be a disincentive for anyone else to develop them.

While all the things they MIGHT do are rather horrible, again you are judging them before they do the deed.

I am judging the Iranian government because they have a demonstrable history of being psychotic reactionary douchebags, observing those things that these psychotic reactionary douchebags most desire from their past actions, and deciding that I do not desire them to have a tool that will assist them to achieve these goals.

I wonder if you would like your country being threatened on the grounds that your government might do horrible things.

This has actually happened, and I don't begrudge the Soviets/British/Japanese/Spanish/Mexicans/multiple Native American groups/anyone else for their logic.

About how would giving up all nukes make the world a better place, I believe that the people living in Iran are not inhumane monsters and would eventually revel against a government that went against what they believed (sort of like the wall street occupation movement in NY) so, if the world became a more peaceful place all countries would eventually follow suit.

The media (think fox news) portrays Muslims as bloodthirsty fiends that want nothing more than to see the world burn, I think that they might have a higher interest in not being attacked and living happy peaceful lives. If they seem angry on TV, it is because they are usually interviewed right after some American or English freedom missile killed their kid while he was praying for peace at the mosque.

I fail to see how this has anything to do with my points. And you vastly underestimate the violence of current Iranian regime if you think an occupy wall street style campaign is enough to motivate them. If protests alone were effective they would be ousted by now (see the Green Revolution)

Yes, "death to infidels" is a very ugly slogans BUT in the last century how many attacks by Muslim nations have the western world suffered vs how many times have the western nations gone and attacked middle eastern countries?, always under the idea of spreading peace. Lets not be innocent and accept that it is usually the nations with valuable natural resources that get the freedom treatment.

Again, I'm tired of having the subject changed to the West. As we speak many Iranians are fighting for their freedom and here you are making excuses for the very people oppressing them.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Once again, Nemesiah derails a topic to rant about how evil the United States is and how terrible it is to have a country that allows it's own people to criticize it actively as part of it's laws and regulations.
Then again, Nemesiah would say that any position that doesnt match his high-horse perfect worldview of an atheist vegan paradise to be horrific... I'm just confused as to why he's belittling a country that has Nuclear Arms, but is not currently in a religious state that would use them, versus an Islamic State that actively persecutes it's own citizens and parades obvious "us versus the world" mentalities. There's a difference between a violent Clint-Eastwood-style gunslinger holding a gun and a rambling, violent, unpredictable nutcase that walks into public with a gun and enough ammunition to kill off several million people in a strung-out killing spree.

We can freely judge people on their laibility to the safety of those around them and themselves through their own history and current actions - why do you think insurance companies never run dry of business?

===========================

As an update to this:
Iranian students just charged the British Embassy...

*cough* Welcome to World War III, gentlemen.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Are they the baddies though? I thought they were on our side...
Who cares, let's bomb em!

They are on nobody's side but their own... or at least their ruling political factions are. The citizenry is split on the issue, but the money and power belong to the folks who want to murder innocent Arabs for political benefit.

 

[MindHack]

The only country inhumane enough to use nuclear (atomic I believe is more accurate) weapons on a civil population (or any population AFAIK) is the USA, yet they are the ones that call others radical who shouldn't have nuclear weapons.

Inhumane? War is inhumane. Though how much more humane would it have been if no AB's were thrown on Japan? Japanese were raging fanatics willing to fight till the very last civilian. I do think however that the second A-bomb shouldn't have been used. Diplomacy after the first should have ended WW2.

That countries armed with nuclear weapons accuse others for wanting to have the capacity to defend themselves seems very hypocritical specially since not having a defensive / offensive capabilities allows those armed countries to abuse them greatly (like in Irak).

It's only the Iranian ruling elite that wants to defend itself. They need to because they are sick fucks. These are also the only Iranians that should be removed from the planet.

In the case o the UK I understand the concern but remember THE ONLY WACKOS THAT HAVE USED NUKES TO KILL PEOPLE ARE THE AMERICANS, so maybe they should be making plans to stop the Americans from stockpiling nukes.

Shouting americans were wackos? Seriously. Pfff, I'm glad they threw the A-bomb on those retarded emperor-adoring fanatics, and by doing so saved countless lives of aliied men who had fuck all to do with Japanese imperialism in the pacific before pearl harbor was cowardly attacked.

If there have been any other nuclear attacks (not tests) in the history of the human race please do tell me.

Why not tests? All the fucking testing done by the French, in some of the most ecological rich parts of the planet, count for nothing?