You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Sure, you don't establish a settler-colonial project and take land from an indigenous people without an army and violence to back it up, so yes Israel's very existence has been dependent on a very high level of militarisation.
That won't however ever bring them peace though, no matter how much they arm themselves.
In fact never has Israel been better armed than it is today and yet never has the existential threat been greater than it is today.
seems to backup all those rafales getting shot down with the chinese kit
The revolution will not be televised?, I guess the Zionist genocidal regime are fans of Gil Scott Heron
Re Daz's comments about a handful of men... It's really not though is it. If they were disposed, there are people lining up to take their place. It's probably more like a handful in every thousand... if not every hundred, like what someone said elsewhere, people have been nasty bastards since the first fish crawled out the sea.
That's the limit of my participation in thread. So have an influencer talking about how the WW3 narrative is handy because the leaders get to say they stopped something while simultaneously bombing cities and killing.
Putin wants to attack Ireland?
As one small example, where do you suppose underwater infrastructure between the US and Europe runs?
Not only do they not have the ability to defend part of the Atlantic, but they don't have detection systems either.
It makes everyone else's job more difficult and expensive.
Why would it happen to Ireland? Why would it happen anywhere in the world? 🤔
where do you suppose underwater infrastructure between the US and Europe runs?
Fibre optic cables? Across the Atlantic ocean and mostly circumventing Ireland to go up to Northern Europe or south to Southern Britain and Southern Europe.
Do you think that Putin might invade and occupy Ireland to stop Keir Starmer from making a phone call to Donald Trump? Why would he want to do that.....as a prelude to attacking and invading NATO?
The North Atlantic is huge the Russians don't need to occupy Ireland to attack underwater infrastructures and if they did do precisely that then I am sure NATO would manage to keep communications between the United States and Europe going via satellites.
If Ireland wanted the UK to fight wars on its behalf because it doesn't have a viable military, as you claim, then it would enter into a military alliance with the UK, or maybe join NATO, and not maintain its unwavering commitment to neutrality.
Of all the excuses for increasing defence spending I don't think the claim that Putin might attack Ireland is the most convincing one.
where do you suppose underwater infrastructure between the US and Europe runs?
Fibre optic cables? Across the Atlantic ocean and mostly circumventing Ireland to go up to Northern Europe or south to Southern Britain and Southern Europe.
The Irish Continental Shelf is one of the largest seabed territories in Europe, it extends 200 nautical miles from the coastline https://www.marine.ie/site-area/irelands-marine-resource/real-map-ireland-0
The infrastructure also includes gas pipes between the UK and Eire. There's very little space that allows a direct run to the UK without transiting Irish waters. RTE.ie map
Do you think that Putin might invade and occupy Ireland to stop Keir Starmer from making a phone call to Donald Trump? Why would he want to do that.....as a prelude to attacking and invading NATO?The North Atlantic is huge the Russians don't need to occupy Ireland to attack underwater infrastructures and if they did do precisely that then I am sure NATO would manage to keep communications between the United States and Europe going via satellites.
Why does your idea of attack involve invasion and occupation? How about cyber attacks to chip Eire away from the EU and other forms of hybrid warfare.
Maybe Eire is a convenient stepping stone to the UK while dominating Atlantic shipping and submarine traffic? It would make an excellent Russian aircraft carrier to reach the EU, perhaps?
I guess that you'd better ask the Kremlin why their survey ship Yantar has been operating in Irish waters and why their bombers fly through Irish airspace. TBF that's reduced since they invaded Ukraine,
2020
There have been a number of recent incursions into Irish controlled airspace by the Russian air force. Most recently Tupolev TU–95, the so called "Bear" strategic bomber aircraft, triggered UK Royal Air Force fighter jets to scramble in order to confront the Russian aircraft. Reliable sources indicate that there is an agreement between the UK and Ireland permitting the Royal Air Force to enter Irish airspace if deemed necessary https://www.rte.ie/brainstorm/2020/0320/1123836-russian-military-aircraft-bombers-ireland/
2021
Russia's secretive special survey ship Yantar raises eyebrows when she appears off Western shores. She has previously been noted conducting operations off Syria, in the Persian Gulf and off Americas. And elsewhere. Now she is off the coast of Ireland, loitering in the vicinity of underwater internet cables. https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2021/08/russian-spy-ship-yantar-loitering-near-trans-atlantic-internet-cables/
2024
On Sunday, while south of Cornwall, the Yantar turned off its transponder, meaning it disappeared from vessel tracking systems. It is now understood in that period it left the Admiral Golovko and headed north into the Irish Sea. There are also gas pipelines in the same area.
At that point it was positioned just inside the Irish maritime Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), five to seven kilometres north of several subsea cables which connect Ireland and Britain. https://www.rte.ie/news/primetime/2024/1115/1481145-russian-spy-ship-confirmed-to-be-operating-off-dublin-near-cables/
If Ireland wanted the UK to fight wars on its behalf because it doesn't have a viable military, as you claim, then it would enter into a military alliance with the UK, or maybe join NATO, and not maintain its unwavering commitment to neutrality.
There is an alliance
Reliable sources indicate that there is an agreement between the UK and Ireland permitting the Royal Air Force to enter Irish airspace if deemed necessary
Eire is in a partnership with NATO and joins peacekeeping operations. There's also a debate going on in the country about removing the so-called "triple-lock" on military deployment and increasing military budgets
The reforms include changes to what it known as 'the triple lock', requiring the approval of the United Nations (UN), government and Dáil (lower house of Irish parliament) for certain troop deployments.
"We do also need to spend more on defence because actually when you are militarily neutral, you still have an obligation to your own people, to your own country, you still have an obligation to protect your own seas and your own skies," he said. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwyge72pv55o
Of all the excuses for increasing defence spending I don't think the claim that Putin might attack Ireland is the most convincing one.
Only you seem to think that it is the most convincing one, I certainly didn't make that point.
I'll leave dazh and yourself to your argument
*strange font sizing is STW, not me*
On the bright side, the weaker our forces are the less important will be Keir Starmer’s quandary about who they should be helping, in the event that one day the Israelis decide to bomb our hospitals
Of all the excuses for increasing defence spending I don't think the claim that Putin might attack Ireland is the most convincing one.
Only you seem to think that it is the most convincing one, I certainly didn't make that point.
Me suggesting that it's not the most convincing excuse is me saying that it's the most convincing one???
You are entitled to your opinions and I am entitled to mine, this isn't a one opinion thread. I don't think that Putin is likely to attack Ireland because of "underwater infrastructures" in the North Atlantic as you suggest.
Mind you I also don't believe that Putin is likely to attack Western Europe at all. And I certainly think that the risk is much smaller now than it was 3 or 4 years ago, not greater, for obvious reasons.
Bit odd to hear Ireland being referred to as Eire or Éire (with the fada) it is kind of weird and inappropriate to use if speaking in any other language – as if you said Deutschland while speaking English.
You are entitled to your opinions and I am entitled to mine, this isn't a one opinion thread.
You forget Ernie that the hawks from the Ukraine thread come from the viewpoint that war is inevitable and we have no choice but to fight it. There is no alternative apparently. Seems to me the best way of avoiding wars is not to stock up on billions of dollars worth of armaments which we don't need as one day someone will submit to the urge to use them.
We won't be impacted in the UK (other than wasting money on arms instead of spending it on education/health/care, and a few centuries of endless "this is antisemitic"/"no it's anti-zionist" arguments and a load of pro-military types rubbing themselves off over the prospect of thousands of people being needlessly killed by some power crazed psychopaths at the opposite end of the continent, several superpowers away from us).
Would WW3 meaning I can leave this boring management presentation?
Would WW3 meaning I can leave this boring management presentation?
No, they'll still be presentations during the zombie apocalypse.
Would WW3 meaning I can leave this boring management presentation?
Absolutely not. Wars are won by effective use of PowerPoint.
Chewkw, you are a master testiculator, do you actually believe the tripe you post?
LOL @ "master testiculator" (I like that term, very creative. LOL!)
Very simple.
Israel is the daddy of USA (in the sense of religious belief). Yes, the daddy. But USA is also the daddy of Israel in modern weaponry. This relationship is rock solid.
Opportunity:
Middle East is weak and is ripe for harvesting (expansion by Israel).
Middle East has oil (control the oil, control the world economy etc).
Israel expansion means they will control the oil production in Middle East indirectly (they like to be in the shadow as always pulling the string).
Middle East has less resistance. (Iran is weak and so are other Arabs states, the latter is totally incapable)
US military resources will be diverted to Israel because of less risk i.e. better chance of winning big hitting the jackpot of black gold.
Putting all bets on Israel means investing in the future expansion on oil, fertile grounds for food production capture from neighbouring states etc
Putting all bets on Israel also means there is an administrative system in place that is "similar" to the West.
Israel has their son/daddy NATO as their protector.
Hence, Israel ambition to dominate the world in future. Control the money, control the world.
Risk:
Ukraine's relation with US is weak, because they are not truly "blood" related i.e. they are not calling each other daddy.
Giving resources to Ukraine means draining own economy or financial wealth.
The chances of winning in Ukraine is practically zero, even if the entire West/EU/NATO combined. Russia may suffer but they will not be defeated.
Half of Ukraine (East) will return to Russia permanently, hence they will fight to the end to get it, which is Not worth the investment for West/EU/NATO.
The opportunity cost of "investing" (war support) in Ukraine is too high that only bad decision makers would consider.
Hence, Ukraine is a lost cause for now.
.
.
In the case of Iran, they are in a very weak position because internally they are split on ethic grounds. Their current population composition is 40-60 spilt (according to some sources) in favour of the 40% that holds power at the top (and all the money etc), and they are not the "real" people of the nation (from neighbouring country - do your research). The 60% was in good terms with Israel traditionally until the revolution. Therefore, are people surprised at information being leaked out so easily from Iran?
.
.
Hence, WWIII is not going to happen that quickly ...
I did begin with a detailed response addressing many points. But...
(To the OP, Daz) The question you pose and your subsequent responses, are only as good as the opinions and perceptions they are created from. Those opinions appear to be firmly closed, and the perception flawed. You can take solace from those agreeing, and confirmation of your rectitude from everyone else. Enjoy!
The question you pose and your subsequent responses
I think my position can be summarised as the world - or at least the major powers - seems to be persuading themselves that a new world war is inevitable or possibly even necessary so they might as well get on with it by re-arming and militarising their economies and societies. Who knows maybe it is inevitable but from where I'm standing there doesn't seem to be much sensible action in trying to prevent it from our supposed sensible leaders, who instead are bowing at the feet of Trump, actively enabling the likes of Netanyahu, and holding back from taking the necessary actions to stop Putin (and no I'm not talking about military action by NATO).
Where's the leadership? Where's the diplomacy and international pressure? Where's the voices calling for peace and restraint? I'm not hearing much of that, instead all I hear is 'we're going to spend billions on weapons and armies'. It's madness.
Bit odd to hear Ireland being referred to as Eire orÉire (with the fada) it is kind of weird and inappropriate to use if speaking in any other language – as if you said Deutschland while speaking English.
It's like when my mum keeps calling it "Barthelona", just because she went there on holiday. Never pronounces any other places with the native accent 🤣
Looks like we're gonna be doing the Iraq war all again, but this time many, many times worse. No doubt Starmer will be right behind Trump like Blair was with Bush. FFS.
I am not sure about that ^^
Doesn't Trump have to turn Gaza into the “Riviera of the Middle East” first?
He hasn't got much time to do all this stuff, just three and a half years.
Israel is the daddy of USA (in the sense of religious belief). Yes, the daddy. But USA is also the daddy of Israel in modern weaponry. This relationship is rock solid.
Opportunity:
Middle East is weak and is ripe for harvesting (expansion by Israel).
Middle East has oil (control the oil, control the world economy etc).
Israel expansion means they will control the oil production in Middle East indirectly (they like to be in the shadow as always pulling the string).
Snip....
I pumped that into Gemini for analysis.
Bold test is by Gemini, not me.
The text presents a highly subjective and ideologically driven geopolitical perspective that makes several controversial and often unfounded claims.
Anyway, in truth AI and human opinion is really just rolling a dice in the current world and to be honest chew (and genuinely zero offence meme here!) I was intrigued by what an AI would think of one of your posts.
To be clear, not taking a cheap shop at you. I don't agree with your opinion but that is fine.👍
I was really just interested in what Gemini would say.
Anyway, in truth AI and human opinion is really just rolling a dice in the current world and to be honest chew (and genuinely zero offence meme here!) I was intrigued by what an AI would think of one of your posts.
To be clear, not taking a cheap shop at you. I don't agree with your opinion but that is fine.
I was really just interested in what Gemini would say.
I don't expect anyone to agree with me because they are only viewing the whole scenario from one perspective only.
Interesting AI analysis, but the AI is created by them LOL!
We really don't need AI to analyse that coz it is so obvious, except they hide it so well that makes you think differently.
It's the puppet master, how hard is that? LOL!
I wonder what AI considers of Trump's decision. That bloke is so unpredictable (his trick) he hides it very well.
p/s: LOL! I just asked Gemini about Russia and China wanting to rule the world, and guess what ... Gemini, in a long winded way, say they both wanted to rule the world. LOL! AI is the puppet master.
Bit odd to hear Ireland being referred to as Eire or Éire (with the fada) it is kind of weird and inappropriate to use if speaking in any other language – as if you said Deutschland while speaking English.
I hope that I wasn't inappropriate in a offensive sense, that wasn't my intention and my apologies if that is the case
I use "Éire" because it's an official term instantly recognised by most of us, unlike some of the other terms that may be confused with other jurisdictions or a combination of the two. Some of those terms have historic connotations that are offensive
I've also been taken to task over "Türkiye", but never "Barthelona" 🙂
I use "Éire" because it's an official term instantly recognised by most of us
Erm, no, just no. Very few people use that term. When was the last time you heard that on the TV news or on written media outlets ?
It's really only use nowadays as a perjorative term by Unionists. Or people stuck in Edwardian time loop. Which one are you?
It's really only use nowadays as a perjorative term by Unionists. Or people stuck in Edwardian time loop. Which one are you?
This comes across as unnecessarily aggressive, in my opinion. Seems very much like the correct answer is probably "genuinely mistaken and happy to be corrected".
This comes across as unnecessarily aggressive, in my opinion. Seems very much like the correct answer is probably "genuinely mistaken and happy to be corrected".
I totally agree and it surprised me even if getting wound up and offended over petty stuff isn't unusual on STW. I decided that the poster was possibly Irish or part Irish and that was perhaps the reason. The Irish can, quite understandably imo, get wound up by British attitudes towards Ireland. So in my mind I cut them some slack.
calm down Daz there's no invasion on the horizon 😂
It's inteteresting how quickly and completely Israel has taken out the air defenses. They seem to have total impunity.
There's not much evidence of China or Russia stepping in to help in a major way (im sure they'll be sending a few more bits and bobs, but nothing that'll upset the balance).
What are we invading with, half a dozen tanks and only just enough combat ready fully deployable army personnel to fill QPRs Loftus Road?
It's inteteresting how quickly and completely Israel has taken out the air defenses. They seem to have total impunity.
And also how their aircraft can get to Iran, even though the two countries are not neighbours and flying there involves crossing Jordan or Syria and Iraq or Saudi Arabia. It's almost as though Iran's neighbours are quite happy for Israel to bomb Iran.
presumably Syria arent in a postion to do anything regardless of what they think about Iran getting bombed?
presumably Syria arent in a postion to do anything regardless of what they think about Iran getting bombed?
Yes, but Israeli aircraft still have to cross either Iraq or Saudi Arabia to get to Iran. Or Turkey.
Does seem nuts for Netenyahu to be talking about regime change when Iraq has show what will fill the vacuum- chaos
I cant see even Trump being foolish enough to get drawn in beyond strategic bombing of the hard to reach nuclear production sites, there would be no boots on the ground, which would be the only way you do a regime change and that would be insanity
Iranian air defenses seem completely wiped out, so thered be minimal risk of any US planes being shot down, so I think Trump would go for the bombing
with all of Irans Proxies neutered reprisals will likely be minimal but if they do come it will be in the form of terror attacks etc, I still think a dirty bomb or similar is now more likely than ever
Of course taking out the Iranian government would upset Trumps pal Putin, so I think that makes this all less likely, its just a shame that Iranian drones are now manufactured in Russia and they are no longer so dependent on Iran for their war in Ukraine
It's inteteresting how quickly and completely Israel has taken out the air defenses. They seem to have total impunity.
Out of interest how do you know how many aircraft Israel has lost? Iran says several Israel says none and I consider neither to be reliable sources, so personally I have no idea.
And it is also clear that Iran has had some success in overwhelming Israeli missile defense systems, Israel must surely be experiencing the most destruction in its entire history? I don't know how much Israelis, especially dual nationality israelis, are prepared to live with that. Palestinians might not have much choice about whether to live in rubble but an American from New York certainly has some choices they can make.
Anyway among all the uncertainties one thing is absolute certain, reducing Iran to rubble will not bring peace to the Middle East, that's for sure.
Out of interest how do you know how many aircraft Israel has lost? Iran says several Israel says none and I consider neither to be reliable sources, so personally I have no idea.
There's been no reliable reports of any Israeli jets shot down. There tends to be wreckage, dead / captured pliots too, so I dont know how much success Israel would have about keeping a downed jet secret. Justin Bronk is the best person to follow for 'whats going on with military avaiation'
And it is also clear that Iran has had some success in overwhelming Israeli missile defense systems, Israel must surely be experiencing the most destruction in its entire history?
It looks pretty one sided to me, Israel has air superiority over the entire country of Iran, and Iran can lob a few missles back, causing a couple dozen casualties. Israeli civilians are not going to be living in rubble any time soon, altough regular trips to the shelter might be a thing for a while yet.
Anyway among all the uncertainties one thing is absolute certain, reducing Iran to rubble will not bring peace to the Middle East, that's for sure.
this isnt whats happening either, its all been very targeted (not to excuse it at all!). Totally agree about none of this is going to help with any kind of peaceful outcome in the region.
causing a couple dozen casualties.
Because almost everyone in sitting in air raid shelters. Yes Iranian missiles have caused extensive damage even if it isn't at the same level as that caused by Israel.
Generally speaking indigenous peoples have a higher tolerance level, or at least considerably less choice, than colonialists and settlers, so they don't have to inflict the same level of destruction.
Does seem nuts for Netenyahu to be talking about regime change when Iraq has show what will fill the vacuum- chaos
Netanyahu wants permanent conflict throughout the Middle East as its his only way to stay in power/out of jail.
Time to drop Israel, stop providing them with armaments, sanction the entire country, treat as a rogue nation state.
Time to drop Israel, stop providing them with armaments, sanction the entire country, treat as a rogue nation state.
Where do I sign.
Time to drop Israel, stop providing them with armaments, sanction the entire country, treat as a rogue nation state.
That simply isn't going to happen, Benjamin Netanyahu has played a blinder....... Western countries are rallying behind him.
Time to drop Israel, stop providing them with armaments, sanction the entire country, treat as a rogue nation state.
That simply isn't going to happen, Benjamin Netanyahu has played a blinder....... Western countries are rallying behind him.
Perhaps not as proved by the utter ****ing bent over take it up the arse toadying response from our political leaders of "Israel has the right to defend itself" remark that's trotted out when any question is asked, the Israeli lobby playing on collective guilt has, in your words "played a blinder"
Western countries are rallying behind him.
Western governments are rallying behind him, the people are a different matter. I think if Starmer is thinking of committing the UK to military involvement in a war with Iran he will very quickly find himself in a similar position as Blair was with Iraq. The protests will be off the scale and any last vestige of public support/approval (what little is left) will be gone. He'll be signing an electoral death warrant for himself and Labour.
I think if Starmer is thinking of committing the UK to military involvement in a war with Iran he will very quickly find himself in a similar position as Blair was with Iraq. The protests will be off the scale and any last vestige of public support/approval (what little is left) will be gone. He'll be signing an electoral death warrant for himself and Labour.
You seem to have an alternative view of recent history to me. The decision to back a right-wing neo-con US president and go to war had no appreciable effect on Tony Blair nor Labour's electoral fortunes.
The Tories obviously backed Blair to the hilt and although the LibDems hadn't yet lurched to the right under Nick Clegg and were very strongly anti-war, Blair simply ignored all the huge unprecedented demonstrations against the war whilst still managing to win the general election a couple of years after the war was launched, and long before it was concluded.
Blair simply ignored all the huge unprecedented demonstrations against the war whilst still managing to win the general election a couple of years after the war was launched, and long before it was concluded.
He won that election before the full fake dossier story came to light iirc?
This time I think the public are less gullible. I can see Reform distancing themselves from any military action (if it comes to that) to mop up more disillusioned voters.
Someone local keep an eye on RAF Fairford. If Trump parks a B2 there, we are in real trouble.
I think that there are currently B-2s deployed to Diego Garcia, which looks relatively handy for attacking the Gulf. I don't think they'd need to fly from Fairford to strike Iran.
He won that election before the full fake dossier story came to light iirc?
Blair won the general election a couple of years after ignoring the huge anti-war demonstration, after the British military had been involved in fighting in Iraq, after indisputable evidence that Iraq had no WMDs, and after it was seen to have been the worse foreign policy disaster since Suez.
So if we are going to say that Starmer taking the UK into war will have a similar political effect on him to Blair taking the UK to war had on Blair then the conclusion we must come to is that it will have "bugger all" effect.
There were 6 B2's at Diego Garcia on satellite images recently, although appeared none in the last few days (BBC news) - they are either being loaded with MOABS or off somewhere else.
Hard disagree. Labour under Blair won that historic third term, but with a massively reduced majority. I remember him and Cherie the next morning looking not jubilant, but like their dog had been found impaled on the back fence and they were struggling with the shock and grief. If the tories at that point had had an even mildly credible leader then they would have won.
Labour's fall in popularity started from the moment they formed a government. Long before the Iraq War Labour had already lost several million votes.
You seem to have an alternative view of recent history to me.
My point was Iraq lost Blair a huge amount of support and trashed his long term reputation. He may have won the election but his position was a lot more secure than Starmer's currently is. Starmer can't afford the same loss of support within his base as he's currently in third place in the polls.
And besides, given the history in Iraq and Afghanistan I doubt the UK public have much appetite for another war in the Middle East against a much more formidable and dangerous enemy. It's one thing bowing to the will of a hawish US president, quite another to stand alongside a genocidal maniac in the form of Netanyahu.
Iraq lost Blair a huge amount of support ....
He may have won the election but his position was a lot more secure than Starmer's currently is.
Mm, it's hard to qualify "huge" but Labour did undoubtedly lose support over the Iraq War, the point is that it didn't effect Labour in a significant way electorally.
Was Blair in a stronger position when he went to war in Iraq than Starmer is today? Well Starmer does have a larger parliamentary majority then Blair had in 2003, so there's that, but I guess it would be disingenuous of me to suggest that Starmer isn't weaker since he is politically in trouble right across the board, so I'll give you that point 🙂
Lionheart '84 would be my guess - my first (and last) foray into BAOR.
When I was working for the NAAFI in Munster there was a big exercise that included getting a load of equipment over the North sea. Lots of reserves mobilised, some cars and street furniture got flattened by tanks and much beer was drunk and the officers in the bar reckoned everyone involved would have been dead within the first two days in the event of a real attack.
Bit odd to hear Ireland being referred to as Eire or Éire (with the fada) it is kind of weird and inappropriate to use if speaking in any other language – as if you said Deutschland while speaking English.
I hope that I wasn't inappropriate in a offensive sense, that wasn't my intention and my apologies if that is the case
I use "Éire" because it's an official term instantly recognised by most of us, unlike some of the other terms that may be confused with other jurisdictions or a combination of the two. Some of those terms have historic connotations that are offensive
I've also been taken to task over "Türkiye", but never "Barthelona" 🙂
yes no worries. No offence taken. You’re one of the more balanced people on here.
I’m overly sensitive on Ireland subjects, a hangover from having lived in England so long.
Israel can say and do whatever they wish regarding Middle East because their daddy and son is USA.
When they "control" the political scene in the most powerful nation, no other nations would dare to contradict them other than verbal objection. Both nations have the same interest in the Middle East. i.e. to control the petrol dollar.
Hence, all or most of the objection is brush aside by them as hot air.
In the context of religion, Israel is the daddy to USA.
In the context of modern weaponry, USA is the daddy to Israel.
What is troubling is whether they are the same person?
Regardless, they have a strong bond.
Thanks Caher
daddy and son is USA
You forgot holy ghost.
presumably Syria arent in a postion to do anything regardless of what they think about Iran getting bombed?
I think that keeping Syria disorganised is seen as Israel's best option by them.
I doubt that Turkiye will get involved, although they are a very capable force, because President Trump has sanctioned them over Syria during Trump v1.0
The danger for Israel is that IS militants will be part of that disorganisation (there is the possibility of bringing them within the organised Syrian fold)
I cant see even Trump being foolish enough to get drawn in beyond strategic bombing of the hard to reach nuclear production sites
Iranian air defenses seem completely wiped out, so thered be minimal risk of any US planes being shot down, so I think Trump would go for the bombing
I think that you've got to ask to what end.
I don't know what the implications are for bombing a nuclear enrichment facility in nuclear waste terms, but it'll certainly put an end to any chances of diplomacy, which is still possible. Talk of bumping the Supreme Leader off is a nonsense, who do you negotiate with in that event?
Israel's intelligence had better be good; how do you know that you've got all of their facilities and stocks? Have they got facilities that are actually secret? Iran has the knowledge and even the US think that they'll be up and running again quite quickly
Any failure will lead to Iran going even harder for "the bomb" and everyone around them will want one too. It'll be a proliferation disaster
There's only one way out of this, and to keep a lid on it in the future, and that's diplomacy.
Netanyahu wants permanent conflict throughout the Middle East as its his only way to stay in power/out of jail.
It was him who whispered in the ear of President Trump v1.0 to pull out of the talks in 2018. He was under corruption pressures then and a close aide had just turned informant.
Displaying photographs from the podium of the United Nations General Assembly, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Thursday accused Iran of maintaining a secret atomic warehouse in Tehran, proving its intent to develop nuclear weapons despite the accord it reached with major powers in 2015.
“Today, I’m disclosing for the first time that Iran has another secret facility in Tehran, a secret atomic warehouse for storing massive amounts of equipment and material for Iran’s secret nuclear weapons programme,” he told world leaders on the third day of the Assembly’s annual debate.
“So, here’s what I say to Europe’s leaders and to others: Instead of cuddling Iran’s dictators, join the US and Israel and most of the Arab world in supporting new sanctions against a regime that endangers all of us in all of the world,” said Prime Minister Netanyahu.
he called on UN International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief Yukiya Amano to “do the right thing - go inspect this atomic warehouse immediately before the Iranians finish clearing it out.” https://news.un.org/en/story/2018/09/1021192
No more evidence, hmmm. An Iran free of sanctions wasn't a happy thought for Israel
I'm more than just a little concerned that bombing these sites is going to spread highly radioactive crap over the area (and downwind), making parts of Iran dangerous to live in for generations for the normal people in the population that have no choice about how or where they live.
If there legitimately is a stockpile of weapons grade Uranium in Tehran, then making the capital city deadly for the civilian population is a shit thing to do, irrespective of the military expediency.
If there legitimately is a stockpile of weapons grade Uranium in Tehran, then making the capital city deadly for the civilian population is a shit thing to do, irrespective of the military expediency.
I’m not sure that the health of the civilian population of Iran figures very highly in the Isrealis’ list of priorities.
Oh, trust me when I say I believe that too. I did have a whole paragraph about proportionality, LOAC and the ethics/legality of the whole thing, but reading it back just made me feel more and more sad.
Same thoughts here, dropping bombs on any radioactive material is not a very good idea - turns it into an effective dirty bomb, with massive long term health issues, for people across the globe. If a layperson can understand that, why cant others ?
If, Iran have enriched uranium in the deep bunker, blowing a dirty big hole in it isn't a great idea. And it's an "If" ! Trump's already ignored his senior adviser that's told him Iran aren't near producing a weapon.
Same thoughts here, dropping bombs on any radioactive material is not a very good idea - turns it into an effective dirty bomb, with massive long term health issues, for people across the globe. If a layperson can understand that, why cant others ?
If, Iran have enriched uranium in the deep bunker, blowing a dirty big hole in it isn't a great idea. And it's an "If" ! Trump's already ignored his senior adviser that's told him Iran aren't near producing a weapon.
With Fordo (Fordow?) specifically, is that actually an issue? The place is possibly 80-90 metres underground and the bombs penetrate up to 60m down, it's surely not going to spray stuff very far around. Most of it will be buried.
It's not even certain how much the US bombs will be able to damage it, given that no one knows exactly how deep it is or how it's reinforced.
If I was Iran I'd have spent the last couple of years building a nice long side-tunnel. Then when someone tries to bomb the place, all the important stuff is half a mile away behind a nice thick blast door. I'm sure everyone involved (on both sides) has thought of this though!
If I was Iran I'd have spent the last couple of years building a nice long side-tunnel. Then when someone tries to bomb the place, all the important stuff is half a mile away behind a nice thick blast door. I'm sure everyone involved (on both sides) has thought of this though!
I saw some Iranian TV where a government bloke was saying precisely this - if they were bombed it wouldn't matter as they have stuff distributed all over the place in tunnels. Same philosophy as Hamas and their tunnels.
I place my bet on Israel using nuke first. Then after that they will follow up with a justification of existential threat to them. They will use it because they can, and because the land mass (Iran many times larger) allows them to do so. Hello, as if Iran is going to nuke Israel because if Iran does that they will also nuke the Palestinians which they won't.
I'm more than just a little concerned that bombing these sites is going to spread highly radioactive crap over the area (and downwind), making parts of Iran dangerous to live in for generations for the normal people in the population that have no choice about how or where they live.
If there legitimately is a stockpile of weapons grade Uranium in Tehran, then making the capital city deadly for the civilian population is a shit thing to do, irrespective of the military expediency.
I can see Israel using a small scale “tactical” nuke on the mountain bunker complex, and the rest of the western world will continue to cry “Israel has the right to defend itself” and “we need to de escalate” .
Israel has so called “tactical nukes”….and I’m convinced they will use it as they’ve been allowed to do whatever they want for the previous 70+ years
I see Israel is now against bombing hospitals, I haven't seem much push back from the media about their gross hypocrisy.
Interesting discussion this morning on ITV breakfast pointing out that a pre-emptive US strike without UN support would be illegal and letting them use British bases to do so would also be illegal - think they were referencing Diego Garcia in particular.
I'm not hopeful that the UK/EU will have the balls to tell Trump that.