US sends warship to Yemen: What happens next?

[RoofGardener]

Nasser died before the Yom Kippur war. You might be thinking of the Suez Crisis or even the Six day War?? By '79 a peace treaty was established. Such a turn around would not have been possible if Nasser was still alive.

ROFL.... my apologies; I wrote the post in a hurry. I did, of course, mean Anwar Sadat.

In most situations, if they strayed, the missile threat would be neutralized. The C802 has limited range (~120km??). It still requires visual identification of the target before they launch to assure what they are aiming at. Radar at that 120km limit can't distinguish targets very well without human intervention. And if the Iranians fire at that range, the missiles will be easier to knock out.

Hmmm... I'm not so sure. The '802 doesn't need visual confirmation to launch, merely a direction to travel, and a distance. (at which point it turns on its own radar, and locks on to whatever it can find). the Iranians HAVE been very active in producing long-range drones, and have even flown around a US aircraft carrier with one, avoiding detection untill the last minute. So presumably these would be out in force trying to locate the US ships.

For the 802's and harpoons, long range wouldn't be THAT much of a liability; after all, the missiles spend most of their time at around 15m above the sea surface; VERY difficult even for the USA's remarkable AEGIS system. (the AN/SPY radar can only detect 'sea-skimmers' at around 45 nautical miles ... or 3 minutes flying time. NOT a huge amount of time to make targeting decisions, especially if there are dozens of such missiles). And then its down to Phallanx... but these can only engage at around 3 miles, or 12 seconds to impact.

Yes, the missile boats would be vulerable to an extent. However, by blowing smoke and maneuvering rapidly, they could make a tricky target for an F-18, which is really geared up for attacking high-speed aircraft, or stationary land targets. I think a large enough body of them (or several bodies, all approaching from different vectors) could be a handful. (actually, I suspect helicopters would almost be a better defence against them than F-18's.)

The intention would be to counter their swarm of missiles and boats with our own swarm of hot lead. It's the old tactic of he who can put more lead in the air wins. They need to design a Phalanx Picket Corvette loaded for bear (3 twin mounts fore, 3 twin mounts aft, 2 more twin mounts port and starboard) that could keep up with and protect task groups. That would be the best low tech defense against anti-ship missiles. Overkill is the watchword.

This is why we created the Type 45 air defence destroyer. Mind you, I like the idea of your Phalanx Corvette.

There are other ways to fool radar at those ranges. It would initially be a game of cat & mouse.

Indeed it would ! And the winner takes it all !

Again, from the perspective of the '802/Harboon, radar is only used for final targetting; the approach is done using inertial navigation to a pre-set point. So the missiles don't 'reveal' themselves - visuall or electromagnetically - untill almost the last 3 minutes.

That would be their strategy and knowing that, it can be defeated.

True, of course. But what if the Iranians start doing something really crazy ? I dunno... I'm making this up as I go along.... a hail of long-range land-launched ballistic missiles that explode 1 mile up into huge clouds of chaff, partially jamming the AEGIS radar systems, and completely obscuring the swarm of speedboats that suddenly drive through it, and target a bunch of C-802's on minimum-range launch. The US ship launches its SM-1 missiles in defence, and opens up with the CIWS turrets, in the hope of shooting the incoming sea-skimmers down. Their performance is slightly reduced by the chaf curtain behind the speedboats. In all of the chaos and smoke (did I mention the smoke ?), nobody notices that SOME of the speedboats are a bit larger, and do NOT fire missiles, but just keep on driving in closer..... and now the Sonar operator is screaming a warning about multiple inbound torpedo's. The ship heels to port in an emergency evasion maneuver... and drives straight into an Iranian 'dumb' mine, laid some weeks previously.

And now the carrier has one less ship to protect it.

Cheerfull stuff !

[Occult1]

Talk about double standard. No one is closing their eyes to what goes on in SA, but that seems to be what you are doing with Iran.

I have no interest in supporting one side over the other, as you seem to be doing. I've no particular appreciation of the Iranian regime either but the fact that there is a strong bias against them expressed here by our neocons members makes it so that I find myself defending Iran more often than not as to try to distinguish the facts from the propaganda and misinformations.

The reform of Islam is not going to happen if we go to war against all of Islam, only the Medinan Islamists and when other means don't progress the narrative.

Why going to war with Islam? What's the point? The threats comes form the intergrists, the terrorists and it so happens that the vast majority of them (ISIS, Al-Quaeda, Al-Nusra Front, Boko Haram) are advocating for the Saudi Whahhabism ideology in it's most extreme form. If you want to hurt these groups badly, put more pressure on your Gulf ''allies'' to stop the flow of wealthy donors' money and weapons from reaching them.

Other than that, Islam is an organized religion in the same vain than the Judeo-Christian tradition. You may not want to live your life according to this religion (I do not) but that doesn't mean others should think the same. We should be tolerant of those who do, it is their rights as long as they are not imposing their views to the rest of the world.

Again, I have no anti-Iranian agenda but I am vigilant to Iran's agenda. If anything I am an anti-Shia regime. There are still many pro-Shah followers and internet connected millennials that seek to overthrow the regime for more democratic government. These groups need to be united and supported. A campaign against Iran's military would strain its resources that might give this 5th column the chance to make a change from within.

Looking at the big picture, one should be vigiliant of anyone's agenda, including Saudi's. As I see it, there is no country in the Middle-East that can claim to be a paragon of virtue and stand above any another by it's morality. And they all have their own interests.

As for fueling conflicts by meddling's in a country's affair I don't think that's the the way to go. This kind of interventionist approach have brought about epic failures and scant success. We should be minding our own business.

Edited April 28, 2015 by samus

[+and-then]

ROFL.... my apologies; I wrote the post in a hurry. I did, of course, mean Anwar Sadat.

Hmmm... I'm not so sure. The '802 doesn't need visual confirmation to launch, merely a direction to travel, and a distance. (at which point it turns on its own radar, and locks on to whatever it can find). the Iranians HAVE been very active in producing long-range drones, and have even flown around a US aircraft carrier with one, avoiding detection untill the last minute. So presumably these would be out in force trying to locate the US ships.

For the 802's and harpoons, long range wouldn't be THAT much of a liability; after all, the missiles spend most of their time at around 15m above the sea surface; VERY difficult even for the USA's remarkable AEGIS system. (the AN/SPY radar can only detect 'sea-skimmers' at around 45 nautical miles ... or 3 minutes flying time. NOT a huge amount of time to make targeting decisions, especially if there are dozens of such missiles). And then its down to Phallanx... but these can only engage at around 3 miles, or 12 seconds to impact.

Yes, the missile boats would be vulerable to an extent. However, by blowing smoke and maneuvering rapidly, they could make a tricky target for an F-18, which is really geared up for attacking high-speed aircraft, or stationary land targets. I think a large enough body of them (or several bodies, all approaching from different vectors) could be a handful. (actually, I suspect helicopters would almost be a better defence against them than F-18's.)

This is why we created the Type 45 air defence destroyer. Mind you, I like the idea of your Phalanx Corvette.

Indeed it would ! And the winner takes it all !

Again, from the perspective of the '802/Harboon, radar is only used for final targetting; the approach is done using inertial navigation to a pre-set point. So the missiles don't 'reveal' themselves - visuall or electromagnetically - untill almost the last 3 minutes.

True, of course. But what if the Iranians start doing something really crazy ? I dunno... I'm making this up as I go along.... a hail of long-range land-launched ballistic missiles that explode 1 mile up into huge clouds of chaff, partially jamming the AEGIS radar systems, and completely obscuring the swarm of speedboats that suddenly drive through it, and target a bunch of C-802's on minimum-range launch. The US ship launches its SM-1 missiles in defence, and opens up with the CIWS turrets, in the hope of shooting the incoming sea-skimmers down. Their performance is slightly reduced by the chaf curtain behind the speedboats. In all of the chaos and smoke (did I mention the smoke ?), nobody notices that SOME of the speedboats are a bit larger, and do NOT fire missiles, but just keep on driving in closer..... and now the Sonar operator is screaming a warning about multiple inbound torpedo's. The ship heels to port in an emergency evasion maneuver... and drives straight into an Iranian 'dumb' mine, laid some weeks previously.

And now the carrier has one less ship to protect it.

Cheerfull stuff !

Not much doubt that Iran could cause a lot of damage and casualties. The real question is would they have the cajones to do it? The act would say a lot, wouldn't it? It would be the ultimate spit in our face and when push comes to shove, I really don't think their leaders are THAT crazy. If they even damaged one of our carriers I think we would eliminate a port or two. Possibly we would sink several of their surface combatants and there really wouldn't be a lot they could do to stop it. Anybody can walk in a bar, step up to the baddest guy in the room and sucker punch him. It's the aftermath that can be a little sobering

[+and-then]

This commercial ship did not belong to the US (besides having not a single American on board) and was in Iranian waters. Now perhaps the IRGC had their reasons to intercept this ship, direct it to the nearest port and have a look into it's container. It's an Iranian matter, I think, and not a provocation of some sort.

''According to Press TV, the cargo ship was seized due to legal issues, with an Iranian Foreign Ministry source telling Press TV that the ship has been seized over financial violations.''

Source: http://www.presstv.i...-board-pentagon

It is disputed that they were in Iranian waters. Iran is playing a dangerous game and it might well cost them. If they push their advantage with our wimp president too far they may just force him to respond. If they damage a US warship or kill a sailor even HE won't be able to refuse to respond with force. The US Navy is like a force of nature when they attack an enemy. If it starts then Iran is definitely going to be the loser in the end. I predict that they will be VERY careful to keep that from happening

[Occult1]

It is disputed that they were in Iranian waters. Iran is playing a dangerous game and it might well cost them. If they push their advantage with our wimp president too far they may just force him to respond. If they damage a US warship or kill a sailor even HE won't be able to refuse to respond with force. The US Navy is like a force of nature when they attack an enemy. If it starts then Iran is definitely going to be the loser in the end. I predict that they will be VERY careful to keep that from happening

''The cargo ship was approached by the Iranians along a standard shipping route used by commercial vessels, part of which lies in Iran's territorial waters, officials said.

Under maritime law governing the narrow Strait of Hormuz, commercial ships have the right to move through Iran's territorial waters, under the principle known as "innocent passage," officials said.''

Source: http://news.yahoo.co...-153019816.html

Apparantly this container ship was coming from Saudi Arabia (his last stop was in port at Jeddah) so maybe Iran was suspecting something and decided to inspect it to make sure. Remember, Iran and Saudi Arabia are in a kind of proxy war so from their POV, it might've been a precautionary measure.

Anyway, I think you make too much of it as far as the US is concerned. The USS Farragot was the closest ship in the area so they just happened to have received the distress signal, that the Maersk Tigris sent as he did not want to comply to the Revolutionary Guard's request to head further into Iranian waters.

Edited April 29, 2015 by samus

[+and-then]

''The cargo ship was approached by the Iranians along a standard shipping route used by commercial vessels, part of which lies in Iran's territorial waters, officials said.

Under maritime law governing the narrow Strait of Hormuz, commercial ships have the right to move through Iran's territorial waters, under the principle known as "innocent passage," officials said.''

Source: http://news.yahoo.co...-153019816.html

Apparantly this container ship was coming from Saudi Arabia (his last stop was in port at Jeddah) so maybe Iran was suspecting something and decided to inspect it to make sure. Remember, Iran and Saudi Arabia are in a kind of proxy war so from their POV, it might've been a precautionary measure.

Anyway, I think you make too much of it as far as the US is concerned. The USS Farragot was the closest ship in the area so they just happened to have received the distress signal, that the Maersk Tigris sent as he did not want to comply to the Revolutionary Guard's request to head further into Iranian waters.

It appears that the strait of Hormuz is an internationally accepted route for commercial shipping and the Iranian vessels forced the Maersk deeper into Iran's territorial waters. My guess is that they did this after their ships were forced to back down from resupplying the Houthis. A dangerous game. The real test of intentions here will soon be obvious if this ship is not quickly allowed free passage.

[RoofGardener]

The "route" may be internationally recognised (including by Iran), but it IS nontheless within Iran's territorial waters.

If the Cargo ship owed money (perhaps from a previous docking), then Iran may well be within its rights to intercept - and conceivably even confiscate - the ship. Consider it a bailif action, seizing goods against the value of a debt ?

Or.. of course.. they could be lying through their beards about the debt, and have some other reason for hassling the ship.

[kartikg]

Talk about double standard. No one is closing their eyes to what goes on in SA, but that seems to be what you are doing with Iran. And again, you did not comprehend what was said. There are two ways an external source to affect change. We could certainly go to war with SA to make that change, but is that smart at this time? The other way is influence. Influence takes longer especially with SA as the Saud family is very large. Many in the Saud family as many Muslims across the world are open for reform. At this point in time SA is receptive to influence and that is the course we need to seek. This is not closing one’s eyes, but it could be grinning and bearing it. This is letting influence slowly change the mindset. The current regime in Tehran is not so receptive to reform. It’s easy to read their character. The reform of Islam is not going to happen if we go to war against all of Islam, only the Medinan Islamists and when other means don’t progress the narrative.

Again, I have no anti-Iranian agenda but I am vigilant to Iran’s agenda. If anything I am an anti-Shia regime. There are still many pro-Shah followers and internet connected millennials that seek to overthrow the regime for more democratic government. These groups need to be united and supported. A campaign against Iran’s military would strain its resources that might give this 5th column the chance to make a change from within.

Yes, it was and it can be again but not with the current theocracy in power.

What if by doing all the above Iran turns into a democracy as liberal policies , all citizens are happy and their scientists can produce cheap nukes? What if they still hate America and Israel. What do you want exactly ? Iran to be a democratic and independent and a very powerful nation or a nation which is helpful to American interests?

[RavenHawk]

What if by doing all the above Iran turns into a democracy as liberal policies , all citizens are happy and their scientists can produce cheap nukes?

If they did all that, why would they need nukes then?

What if they still hate America and Israel. What do you want exactly ?

It wouldn’t matter if they hated or loved us. Just as long as they stop being a pariah, exporting Medinan Islam.

Iran to be a democratic and independent and a very powerful nation or a nation which is helpful to American interests?

Why can’t it be both? Being democratic and independent would be very beneficial to its own people and being helpful to American interests would be beneficial to itself and the world.

[Occult1]

If they did all that, why would they need nukes then?

Why does Israel need nuke then? Or the US, France ,the UK?

Why can't it be both? Being democratic and independent would be very beneficial to its own people and being helpful to American interests would be beneficial to itself and the world.

That would be idyllic, and not just for Iran but to every country in the world. Realistically, that's not happening though. And I don't think that's something you can impose on a country very sucessfully. It has to make it's own choices and depending on your foreign policies, it might result that not all will like you very much.

Edited April 29, 2015 by samus

[stevewinn]

/facepalm

You seriously think that will happen if Iran starts something?

You cannot rule it out. Its great to think western military equipment is invincible. But in truth its not, when was the last time America fought a credible enemy? Iran is not Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

In the "war game" and keeping that in mind and context you face palmed at - the scenario was littoral action putting ashore MARINES, an amphibious assault. in order for you to do that you have to put your Ships in harms way, moving them from a relatively safe place out at sea - to close in, in littoral waters, in this area they can come under attack from fast jets, fast boats and shore attack.

Ideally you normally wouldn't put for example a arleigh burke destroyer so close to the coast but the operational requirement means you have to "sacrifice" ships. the seas of Iran are shallow, your not going to be able to patrol with a US nuclear powered sub, yet your going to have to provide vital troop support and patrol for enemy - small Iranian diesel powered subs. fast boats etc...

Modern Naval ships have a achilles heel. the defensive weapons, such as anti-aircraft, Anti-Ship Missiles etc. these can not be replenished at sea. no Navy in the world does this today. its simply to dangerous due to the missile cells having to be refitted/refurbished after each launch. so these missiles are loaded in port before deployment. and these have to be configured in the right numbers for the mission, its no use having 93cells as the arleigh burke does and having wrong mix type in them.

Launch cell being installed into a Arleigh Burke.

It doesn't take much to put a modern ship out of Action and i don't mean sinking it or even damaging it. What im referring to is a saturation attack by dummy munitions. this is just an example in the simplest terms.

US arleigh burke Destroyer fitted with high tech equipment from offensive to defensive, Eletronic warfare/jamming. one of the best ships in the world. - to put this ship out of action all you have to do is get it to fire all its defensive weapons and this ship is out of the game, having to return to port to replenish its systems. Iran for example could fire hundreds of cheap dummy, small primitive rockets/missiles/drones which carry no warhead whatsoever - but the arleigh burke's radar doesn't know this. - so what is the commanding officer going to do? He's going to do defend his ship, for all he knows these are real anti-shipping missiles so all defensive systems are going to be deployed, hard kill and soft kill. after just one wave of attack the arleigh burke will have fired all its defensive anti-aircraft missiles, this ship is now defenceless except for close defence such as Phalanx, 30mm, GPM's etc.. repeat process on a wide scale. Its simplistic, and that's the beauty of it. render a Billion Dollar ship out of action without even hitting it.

[RavenHawk]

Why does Israel need nuke then? Or the US, France ,the UK?

Why did you leave off Russia, China, NK, and Pakistan/India? In general, I agree, no one needs them but I will state that it is every nation’s right to have them. The caveat is what I harp on all the time. With Rights comes Responsibilities. If you are not Responsible then you have no Right. To date, Israel has been very trustworthy and Responsible in handling her nukes. In fact, she is perhaps the most Responsible nation on the planet. On the other hand, Iran has not shown that it can handle the Responsibility, therefore, she does not need them. To allow Iran to have nukes would be like throwing kerosene on a fire. Is people’s hate of Israel that complete that they dare egg that on? That is irrational and anyone that supports Iran getting nukes should be committed. That is war mongering.

That would be idyllic, and not just for Iran but to every country in the world. Realistically, that's not happening though.

Precisely!

And I don't think that's something you can impose on a country very sucessfully.

No it’s not, so what’s left?

It has to make it's own choices and depending on your foreign policies, it might result that not all will like you very much.

The point isn’t to try to make the world love you, but fear and respect you. But it does need to be both. It can’t just be fear. That’s what Islam is doing. Fear and respect doesn’t come from “shock and awe” only. It’s also being there with aid and compassion in disasters. It’s showing leadership which is the opposite of what our current POTUS exports (apology and appeasement).

[acidhead]

....responsibilities.... committed(to a mental institution)

And yet America and the UK attack Iraq in 2003.... the country is in chaos spead into Syria!?!?!? Allah snackbars running loose doing the unimaginable atrocities on defenseless individuals in a vacuum created by the western invaders. All on the shores of the Iranian nation.

And you're talking about "responsibilities"?!?!?

WOW

[Thorvir]

You cannot rule it out. Its great to think western military equipment is invincible.

Never said we were. Best to not put words into my mouth. And it's not just equipment, there are other factors to consider.

But in truth its not, when was the last time America fought a credible enemy? Iran is not Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

Agreed, this Iran is much worse than Hussein's Iraq. It stands zero chance in winning a war against the US. Casualties? Yeah, there might be some lucky shots that get through--it happens. Anything other than a complete and utter victory for the US against Iran? Not a chance. Unless....our leaders decide to make us fight with one hand tied behind our backs OR try to undercut the military with appeasement. We fight a war, we do it fully with all of our capability. Otherwise, why fight the war in the first place?

Iran is playing a dangerous game, but they know they can get away with some stuff up to a point because of our weak current leadership. They will either come to their senses and get back in line, or cross a line and get burned badly.

Edited April 30, 2015 by Thorvir Hrothgaard

[kartikg]

So Hitler's Germany (as one example) would have been innocent because they were only executing policies within their choice of internal law and judiciary? Shilling for a terror state would be amusing if it weren't so deadly serious. My problem with people who do this is the sure expectation that they would be okay with ANYTHING Iran decided to do - even develop or use nukes. Don't get me wrong, I have no problem that you've made your choice, I just think it's appalling when supporters of Iran act as though they are lambs instead of wolves. YOU wouldn't live there and you certainly wouldn't want any female in your family to do so. Or would you?

I might be wrong in which case do correct me. I don't think allied forces attacked Germany because they were executing their innocent citizens. The war was result of conflicting finical interest as well as weird ambition of Hitler. If Hitler would have stopped at just killing his citizens the west wouldn't even bat an eye as was the case in Mao or Stalin .

[+and-then]

I might be wrong in which case do correct me. I don't think allied forces attacked Germany because they were executing their innocent citizens. The war was result of conflicting finical interest as well as weird ambition of Hitler. If Hitler would have stopped at just killing his citizens the west wouldn't even bat an eye as was the case in Mao or Stalin .

You are correct,IMO, but I was speaking in the context of a statement made in post #70.

[Occult1]

Why did you leave off Russia, China, NK, and Pakistan/India? In general, I agree, no one needs them but I will state that it is every nation's right to have them. The caveat is what I harp on all the time. With Rights comes Responsibilities. If you are not Responsible then you have no Right. To date, Israel has been very trustworthy and Responsible in handling her nukes. In fact, she is perhaps the most Responsible nation on the planet. On the other hand, Iran has not shown that it can handle the Responsibility, therefore, she does not need them. To allow Iran to have nukes would be like throwing kerosene on a fire. Is people's hate of Israel that complete that they dare egg that on? That is irrational and anyone that supports Iran getting nukes should be committed. That is war mongering.

Because they are not liberal democracies, except perhaps India. The point you have made above is therefore meaningless.

I have to disagree with your assessment of who's 'Responsable' (with a capital 'R') and not. That seems purely subjective. While I am certainly not a proponent of nuclear arms, I do not subscribe to the fearmongering of Iran posessing such arms which seems to be based on an agenda more than anything else. I have no solid reason to believe that they would plan to use them for more than a deterrent for defensive purpose as Israel and several other states are actually doing.

Edited April 30, 2015 by samus

[RavenHawk]

And yet America and the UK attack Iraq in 2003.... the country is in chaos spead into Syria!?!?!? Allah snackbars running loose doing the unimaginable atrocities on defenseless individuals in a vacuum created by the western invaders. All on the shores of the Iranian nation.

I think we need to look at this analytically this time. When you break a ceasefire, you are not being very Responsible. I.e., you deserve the consequences. Saddam broke the ceasefire on numerous occasions by crossing the no-fly zone and reneging on weapons declarations. The IAEA Inspectors were also actively compromised by the Iraqi army. I doubt they could have found a needle in a stack of needles. With France’s help, the sanctions were going to be lifted and Saddam would go back to business as usual. That means reconstituting his WMD programs as he saw fit to. However, beyond his control there was an Sunni/Shiite uprising brewing. We saw it begin to emerge with the start of the Arab Spring. Usay would soon take over and the question would have been if he would be able to control the Shias as his father did? Or would a Medinan rising take over as it did in Syria? But it would have overthrown a regime that had nukes. It might not be called ISIS but just imagine ISIS with nukes? Do we need two rival nuclear Medinan groups confronting each other? While we were in country, this uprising was controlled. No vacuum would have occurred if we didn’t retreat. Just think about that! Going in was necessary and staying in was required but Obama pulled us out because he didn’t know what he was doing. Bush was bumbling but at least he had an idea of how the world worked. Obama has been very irresponsible and the people elected him twice so we deserve everything that is going to happen. The chaos in the world is ultimately our fault. Not because of American Hegemony but because we have become a band of low information voters retreating from the world. Being the bad boy had kept the relative peace in the world. Now all of that is in danger because of Progressive policies. We screwed ourselves up domestically (Federal Reserve, New Deal, War on Poverty, Obamacare) with it, now we’re going to export it to the world.

[RavenHawk]

Because they are not liberal democracies, except perhaps India. The point you have made above is therefore meaningless.

What does government type has anything to do with having nukes? My point is very pertinent. You think it ok for the more totalitarian types to have nukes?

I have to disagree with your assessment of who's 'Responsable' (with a capital 'R') and not. That seems purely subjective.

As I said before, with Rights come Responsibilities. They are paired, inseparable. This is the basis of Natural Law. Rights do not mean that you can do something that tramples all over another person’s Rights. That is the purpose of being Responsible. That is what Common Sense is all about – knowing your Responsibility. However, there comes a time when this happens and some kind of resolution must proceed. This is based on character. This is not subjective. What a Man believes, determines what he does. And therefore, in an objective manner, what that outcome is, is very knowable.

While I am certainly not a proponent of nuclear arms, I do not subscribe to the fearmongering of Iran posessing such arms which seems to be based on an agenda more than anything else.

Sounds like so much double talk. If you are not a proponent of nuclear arms then you should be bending over backwards to see to it that Iran does not achieve nuclear capability. That is the agenda. That is based on Iran’s character. Do you really want to see Iran with Nukes?

I have no solid reason to believe that they would plan to use them for more than a deterrent for defensive purpose as Israel and several other states are actually doing.

That’s because you do not understand character. They have no need for a deterrent unless they plan on using them. We see all this talk that it wouldn’t be smart for the US to invade a non-nuclear Iran, which I agree with. If the US wouldn’t desire to invade Iran without having nukes, why would anyone else try? The only reason Iran wants Nukes is to bully her neighbors and strike fear into the world in order to purify the land. They have every Right to do that but they renege on their Responsibility by doing so and they do so based on their character.

[Black Red Devil]

Because they are not liberal democracies, except perhaps India. The point you have made above is therefore meaningless.

I have to disagree with your assessment of who's 'Responsable' (with a capital 'R') and not. That seems purely subjective. While I am certainly not a proponent of nuclear arms, I do not subscribe to the fearmongering of Iran posessing such arms which seems to be based on an agenda more than anything else. I have no solid reason to believe that they would plan to use them for more than a deterrent for defensive purpose as Israel and several other states are actually doing.

There is no proof whatsoever that Iran has the capability of building Nuclear weapons. Currently there are talks between Iran and the UN P5+1 (Russia, US, UK, China, France Germany) to prove Iran's uranium enrichment is only limited for energy production.

After all this scrutiny, I would expect Israel to be next....

Edited May 1, 2015 by Black Red Devil

[Black Red Devil]

As I said before, with Rights come Responsibilities. They are paired, inseparable. This is the basis of Natural Law. Rights do not mean that you can do something that tramples all over another person's Rights. That is the purpose of being Responsible. That is what Common Sense is all about – knowing your Responsibility. However, there comes a time when this happens and some kind of resolution must proceed. This is based on character. This is not subjective. What a Man believes, determines what he does. And therefore, in an objective manner, what that outcome is, is very knowable.

LOLOL. I don't even know where to start with this statement. I'm assuming you're putting the R against the Govt of Israel compared to the Govt of Iran. Funny enough, your reasoning seems to all fall apart when we look at the history of Human Rights Breaches and Wars fought in the past 50 years.

Edited May 1, 2015 by Black Red Devil

[Thorvir]

There is no proof whatsoever that Iran has the capability of building Nuclear weapons. Currently there are talks between Iran and the UN P5+1 (Russia, US, UK, China, France Germany) to prove Iran's uranium enrichment is only limited for energy production.

After all this scrutiny, I would expect Israel to be next....

Israel isn't threatening extinction on other countries and societies. Iran is (specifically--Israel). Thus, keep any chances of Iran being able to make their own nuclear weapons at zero.

[stevewinn]

Israel isn't threatening extinction on other countries and societies. Iran is (specifically--Israel). Thus, keep any chances of Iran being able to make their own nuclear weapons at zero.

What about North Korea, they have nuclear weapons and possibly the means to deliver them, twice in the last 12 months North Korea as put its military on 24hr readiness to fire on America. in the words of Kim Jon Un, threatening to deliver "most disastrous final doom on its (USA) mainland,"

You seem more concerned with Iran, Is that because in a fight you fancy your chances against Iran, and not so much against North Korea?

[Black Red Devil]

Israel isn't threatening extinction on other countries and societies. Iran is (specifically--Israel). Thus, keep any chances of Iran being able to make their own nuclear weapons at zero.

Israel has been involved in more wars in the last 50 years than the rest of the Middle East put together. Many were initiated pre-emptively by Israel.

Lately the Europeans and the US Democrats have been getting fed up with their pig-headed stance with the Palestinians, the continuous building of settlements and reluctance towards a peace agreement so Israel could find themselves isolated very soon. Israelis had a chance to turn this around a few months ago but decided to vote in the Zionists again, so expect more of the same in coming years, only worse.

Do you feel comfortable with a warmongering little nation who has a history of oppression towards others and shows reluctance towards peaceful solutions to have an unquantified and undeclared number of Nukes in their backyard? I'm sure Europeans might not considering the Middle East isn't too far away and if the Israeli's started firing nukes around Southern and Eastern Europe could easily become engulfed with radiation. How would Russia feel about it?

Edited May 2, 2015 by Black Red Devil

[+and-then]

What about North Korea, they have nuclear weapons and possibly the means to deliver them, twice in the last 12 months North Korea as put its military on 24hr readiness to fire on America. in the words of Kim Jon Un, threatening to deliver "most disastrous final doom on its (USA) mainland,"

You seem more concerned with Iran, Is that because in a fight you fancy your chances against Iran, and not so much against North Korea?

No one really knows how to gauge N.K. It's difficult to take the fat boy seriously, frankly. I suspect that when they prove they have the ability to consistently launch ICBMs with accuracy then people will begin to worry more. Iran is also working (together with) N.K. on the long range missiles. It boggles the mind that people are so willing to turn a blind eye to Iran and basically yawn while they rush to gain nukes. I believe that it's down to thinking Iran is ONLY interested in destroying Israel. Not so. They want a world wide "revolution" where THEIR flavor of craziness holds sway. If we in the west do fall to this evil we can look back and lament that we were more interested in our own petty politics than in truly existential threats in the world. It's a simple case of denial IMO.