UK military steps up plans for Iran attack amid fresh nuclear fears (xpost)

[bananas]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/02/uk-military-iran-attack-nuclear

UK military steps up plans for Iran attack amid fresh nuclear fears
Nick Hopkins
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 2 November 2011

Britain's armed forces are stepping up their contingency planning for potential military action against Iran amid mounting concern over 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-launched campaign.

<snip>

One senior Whitehall official said Iran had proved "surprisingly resilient" in the face of sanctions, and sophisticated attempts by the west to cripple its nuclear enrichment programme had been less successful than first thought.

<snip>

Iran has been violating its IAEA agreements
Economic sanctions haven't stopped them,
Sabotaging their nuclear weapons facilities hasn't stopped them,
Assassinating their nuclear weapons scientists hasn't stopped them,
not too many options left.

LBN thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x5045961
GD thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2229478

[teddy51]

1. Who gave permission to Israel to have Nuclear Weapons? If Israel has Nukes,

and North Korea has Nukes, and China has Nukes then why can't Iran have Nukes? Oh, and I also understand that Israel still refuses to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

[leveymg]

2. We'll give you a parachute and an M-4, and you're the first one in.

How many times have we heard this sort of war of nerves propaganda over the last seven, eight years?

Shame that Guardian has gone neocon. Used to be great progressive paper. Your comment is just reprehensible. What if things were the other way around, and Iran was assassinating our scientists? Disgusting. Unrec for that, and I don't very often.

[kristopher]

4. You usually seem like a reasonable individual

But your attack on bananas is baseless. Since when is a recitation of the facts something that deserves labeling someone "reprehensible"?

What do you think is an appropriate response to Iran's development of nuclear weapons? Do you really see them in the same light as Israel or India? Does Pakistan provide an appropriate precedent?

[leveymg]

5. The following is reprehensible opinion:

Iran has been violating its IAEA agreements
Economic sanctions haven't stopped them,
Sabotaging their nuclear weapons facilities hasn't stopped them,
Assassinating their nuclear weapons scientists hasn't stopped them,
not too many options left.

Particularly, the "not too many options left", except war, statement. That is what bananas said, isn't it? Now, that's reprehensible, as most reasonable people would agree.

The same could be, of course, said about the Israeli nuclear program, except that Israel has refused to sign any IAEA agreements.

In any case, Israel will learn to live with Iran's nuclear program as it has with Pakistan's, and they with Israel's bombs. That is the only reasonable course, as none of these countries will give them up and all feel vulnerable to the nuclear weapons of the others without their own, and that is a fact.

[bananas]

9. That's not opinion - that's an accurate description of a deteriorating situation.

I wasn't advocating any policy, I was just telling how it is.
Obama has already taken a number of actions which would be considered acts of war,
a targeted military strike would just be the next step.

If Obama doesn't do it, the next Republican president will,
and he'll probably use nuclear bunker busters,
just like Bush and Cheney wanted to.

[teddy51]

8. "Do you really see them in the same light as Israel or India" I certainly do with

Netanyahu at the helm. The other thing is, as crazy as the President Iran is, he does not have exclusive control in Iran, the Ayatollah Khomeini does. Even if Iran had Nukes, there is very little chance that they would use them.

[kristopher]

10. And therein lies the problem - proliferation motivates more proliferation

One of the main emerging markets for nuclear reactors are countries in that region, including Saudi Arabia. They can make a plausible case for energy security, of course; everyone can. And that entitiles them to the dual use enrichment technologies that are essential to a nuclear weapons program. The eventual outcome is quite likely to be a local nuclear arms race culminating in an exchange or loss of control of nuclear weapons/weapons grade materials. And it doesn't have to be anything based on the current geopolitical situation either, they are planning this round of reactors to last for between 80-100 years.

[bananas]

6. I'm just pointing out that the situation is escalating.

Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons capabilities.
Obama appears to be serious about preventing nuclear weapons proliferation.
What do you think will happen?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=437x3870

[leveymg]

7. Nothing except threats, again. It's the only reasonable option open.

[provis99]

3. well, isn't that special?

The UK is as full as America with grandstanding, warmongering imperialists.

I guess we really do have a "Special Relationship" with the Brits.

[Nihil]

11. Believe it ...

> The UK is as full as America with grandstanding, warmongering imperialists.

That's exactly what I thought when I saw the headline in someone's paper
on the train in this morning.

:grr:


> I guess we really do have a "Special Relationship" with the Brits.

Yep. No matter who ends up in charge of either country, the US warmonger
says "Jump" and the British warmonger says "Yes Sir!"


I don't have a problem with the "loss" of such artificial constructs as
national boundaries or flags, etc., but I'd rather hoped that it would
come about as the species matured rather than regressed.

:-(