72 replies to this topic

[Stroggy]

Juni Ori, on Oct 29 2005, 12:55 AM, said:

Well, Israel does have nuclear warheads, but it's capability to strike with them relies solely on fighter-bombers.

That's not entirely correct.
There are quite a few Israeli nuclear submarines. It is known Israel has these because it was Germany who gave it to them... of coarse nobody knows what modifications Israel has applied to them. The question is whether or not Israel would use its nuclear capabilities in a preemptive strike. As you go on to say Iran may have SCUDs capable of striking Israel. But Israel was already hit by SCUDs by Iraq during the First Gulf War (or the second gulf war, if you count the war between Iran and Iraq as a gulf war) but did not respond even though Israel already (presumably) possessed nuclear weapons by then.

Quote

but it has different SCUD-variants able to strike even Israel.

They say so, yes. But in the middle east there is quite a margin between saying and actually doing. One must carefully balance between taking every statement with a grain of salt (as in the case of the Minister of Information of Iraq) and assuming every statement is just a bluff (the mistake the US and Israel made before the War of Atonement)

Quote

But it's dangerous, of course, and will quite likely lead to another war.

My guess is he's playing Bluff Poker, but with some disturbing evidence to back up his bluff. However he is pushing the world into a dsiturbing corner. Whereas the european governments were strongly against the war in iraq for lack of evidence, european governments now state that Iran is actively persuing nuclear weapons capabilities and does have underground weaponsfactories and laboratories.
According to European Politicians they do not wish to go to war out of fear for iran's military strength and for the fact that Iran could blockade oil-export to Europe. The reason Europe rules out a military strike (like the airstrike Israel used to destroy Iraq's nuclear facility) is because there are around 80 installations spread across iran and msot of them are under the ground. They are currently hoping to solve this problem by democratic means, but if Tehran continues to make such bold statements they will be reffered on the 28th of November to the security council for sanctions (which could cripple their economy)


As for the 2000 deaths, it is very worrying indeed.

[PrejudiceSucks]

The president of Iran isn't the important one.

Also, 2000 people in 2 and a half years isn't bad.

Think about the casualties 2 and a half years into WW 1. That includes the Battle of the Somme too.

[DeathDude]

You also have to consider that WW1 was on a grander scale in numbers compared to Iraq though.

[Stroggy]

DeathDude, on Oct 31 2005, 08:48 PM, said:

You also have to consider that WW1 was on a grander scale in numbers compared to Iraq though.

Not to mention it was a Materialschlacht meaning that people were expendable (provided they could be replaced)

[A. J. Raffles]

That's not really the meaning of "Materialschlacht", though, is it?

[DakaSha]

PrejudiceSucks, on Oct 31 2005, 07:44 PM, said:

Also, 2000 people in 2 and a half years isn't bad.

i have to agree...

and escpecially if you count the civilian and iraqi soldier (or insurgent) casulties.

edit: hmm.... although the american armed forces arnt THAT large so 2000 does put a small dent in thier strength

[DeathDude]

2000 is a rather large number and also we don't know official numbers either from the Iraqi side, especially civilians still a rather large number of lives that have been lost imo.

[Tulac]

24 000 civilians died after and during the war...

[Havell]

Tulac, on Nov 1 2005, 12:18 AM, said:

24 000 civilians died after and during the war...

There was that survey done by a medical journal a while ago, that waa actually based on a large survey of the Iraqi people, as opposed to complete stabs in the dark, which is what most other figures are.  That came to 100,000+ people.

[Tulac]

Well actually now that I reread it in the newspapers it says 24 000 after the war ended...

[DeathDude]

Yeah that number has increased since that point, to what not exactly sure.

[Stroggy]

A. J. Raffles, on Oct 31 2005, 11:16 PM, said:

That's not really the meaning of "Materialschlacht", though, is it?

It is. It means the one who can throw the most people and equiptment at it wins. So the one with the most constant flow of troops and material wins. The ammount of deaths was not important, only whether or not they could be replaced.

[A. J. Raffles]

Stroggy, on Nov 1 2005, 09:45 AM, said:

A. J. Raffles, on Oct 31 2005, 11:16 PM, said:

That's not really the meaning of "Materialschlacht", though, is it?

It is. It means the one who can throw the most people and equiptment at it wins.

Equipment. Not people. Hence the "Material" bit.

[Tulac]

People are treated as equipment...

[DeathDude]

Which is very unfortuante when leaders thing soldiers are just expendable.