Quote:
|
Originally Posted by AndrewJames
as for Iran its a known factor they have WMD, and are almost of not already got Nuclear and Biological Intercontinental ballisitic missiles.
|
Is it???
AFAIK, there is still no evidence that they actually have any nuclear weapons (the only true WMD), although they probably are trying to develop them.
As for missiles, I very much doubt they already have N/B/C ICBMs. Probably have missiles which could reach their neighbours (but whether they have anything non-conventional to tip them with though)...., but ICBMs?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by AndrewJames
I know I feel better knowing things are going on rather then knowing a country run by MR someone who knows nothing, has Nuclear and Biological weapons or suicide bombs and does not like the UK for some weird reason.
|
In their position, wouldn't you want nukes? Look around the area....Israel has nukes, plus you've got Iraq & Afghanistan either side of you - full of US forces, etc etc.
And one lesson which could be learnt from the action on Iraq & the non-action on N Korea is that the US only attack if you *don't* have anything to threaten them with.
And would Iran really use anything against us? Doubt it. The UK & Europe have been trying to engage the Iranian government, & had been doing fairly well. We're not friends, but I can't see them attacking us, especially as if they did nuke the UK etc., they would be utterly & completely wiped from the face of the Earth in retaliation (standard US & UK policy for any WMD attack on US/UK soil, or bases, or allies, is to respond with nuclear weapons).
I would be more worried about India & Pakistan kick starting a nuclear war.
I'd also be more worried about just who else Abdul Qadeer Khan sold info & technology to (he's the father of Pakistan's nuke programme, & was also head of the biggest international nuclear technology smuggling scheme ever). If he sold stuff to Iran...OK, not great, but I don't really think they're a major threat to us. If he sold stuff to Al Qaeda or other terrorists....not so good, to put it mildly (& remember the origins of Al Qaeda, or who used to strongly support it? Pakistan....)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Damien
Oh come on. 'Picking on countries that have a feeble defense'?
|
Iraq
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Damien
America isnt going out to find weak countrys for the sake of a war.
|
Iraq
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by AndrewJames
No offense but I think N korea are okay and not a issue ( yet ) as for Iran its likely that it is in 2005 the single most likely threat to the West.
|
N Korea are OK? Why?
It is probably the most repressive regime in the world, it's run by an utter nut-job, it has biological & chemical weapons & the means to launch them at S Korea & Japan, it is thought (well, by the CIA...) to already have material for at least a few nukes, & it has missiles which could reach some parts of the US.
Although hopefully Kim Jong-il isn't so stupid that he'd ever attack the US etc, as he must surely know that he wouldn't last long if he did.
Iran is a threat to the West? Why?
As EoB said, if Iran nuked the West, the US et al would respond in kind...several times. And as BBK said, surely Al Qaeda are more of a threat than Iran or anyone else at the moment.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Earl of Bronze
IMHO, the country that poses the greatest threat to global stability is China. They are a nuclear wild-card, who believe the rest of the world to be uncivilised barbarians, especially 'us' white folks in the west. They hate the west for addicting hugh numbers of chinese people to opiates, and then ripping of their country.
|
I see your point.
IIRC, Wolfowitz & co see China as the real threat. Think it was even mentioned in the PNAC document.