EU agrees to embargo Iranian Oil

[Jaepheth]

Precisely how would Iran deliver that nuke?

UPS or FedEx Air freight? (Probably have to smuggle it into a more US friendly country first though)

Question: Are incoming packages searched at the departing airport or at the destination airport? Because if it's the latter the nuke could be detonated over a city before customs even gets the chance to intercept it.

 

[randomrogue]

If Iran wanted to deliver a nuke they would not do it as a nation or on a missile. No nation would. They would deploy it through a terrorist organization and it would most likely be a low yield dirty bomb.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

UPS or FedEx Air freight? (Probably have to smuggle it into a more US friendly country first though)

Question: Are incoming packages searched at the departing airport or at the destination airport? Because if it's the latter the nuke could be detonated over a city before customs even gets the chance to intercept it.

I'm not sure a 5 ton package from Iran would be something UPS would deliver.

 

[shiner]

I'm not sure a 5 ton package from Iran would be something UPS would deliver.

Oh I'm sure they would for a large enough fee, but being UPS it would end up being delivered to Manila or somewhere in Chad.

 

[Texashiker]

Could Iran get one close enough to do some damage? Probably, but at the expense of evoking the full wrath military wrath of the US and most likely other nations. There would be no place the leaders of Iran could hide.

What I suspect is going to happen, Iran is going to play the victim.

This video talks about Mohammed, and how he played the victim to rally support behind him. When he had the support of others who "thought" he was the victim, Mohammed attacked those that stood against islam.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERou_Q5l9Gw

Take what video talks about, and replace pagans with Europeans and the US.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Oh I'm sure they would for a large enough fee, but being UPS it would end up being delivered to Manila or somewhere in Chad.

That might be something we could use to our advantage. Hmmm.

 

[cybrsage]

Against who? Do you really think they'd attack any EU nation?

They'd be stomped so hard into the ground that Assfuckistan would look like downtown London in comparison.

Before or after an Arsenal football game?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

What I suspect is going to happen, Iran is going to play the victim.

This video talks about Mohammed, and how he played the victim to rally support behind him. When he had the support of others who "thought" he was the victim, Mohammed attacked those that stood against islam.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERou_Q5l9Gw

Take what video talks about, and replace pagans with Europeans and the US.

I think you need a refresher to when, who and why nuclear weapons were sought in Iran and Iraq. You may recall that there was a costly war between the two nations in terms of both money and lives. A second war was considered unthinkable. Both sides then went the route of the USSR and the US in trying to acquire nuclear weapons in order to apply the MAD principle. It had nothing to do with threatening the US or anyone else because the purpose wasn't suicide but survival. In the case of Iran the attempt was pushed forward by moderates friendly to the US who were gaining strength, at least until we alienated the entire nation with Bush's nonsense "Axis" speech. You would have thought that the clerics would rush to embrace this as a means of forwarding their religious beliefs but you would have been wrong. The reason that Iran doesn't have nukes as of yet is because they actively opposed weapons which would cause that magnitude of destruction on moral principle, and that's how it was.

Of course the US in the form of Bush managed to alienate the only Islamic nation in the region which showed strong public support of our country after 9/11, changing the internal political dynamics to a far more rigid and adversarial state. Even so the religious leaders have that nagging principle against using such weapons without perceived defensive purposes still in place. Consequently the concern ought not to be whether Iran will use one, but the the change in perceived regional power because they COULD do so.

That is a real problem not to be discarded, but right now Iran using a nuke as a first strike weapon isn't a realistic scenario.

 

[senseamp]

It's going to hurt, but they won't stop making nukes. They see next door in Iraq what happened to a regime that didn't have nukes.

 

[cybrsage]

It's going to hurt, but they won't stop making nukes. They see next door in Iraq what happened to a regime that didn't have nukes.

If I was Iran, I would press on and make nukes too. It is the only weapon that actually allows a nation to do whatever it wants without any real chance of anyone stopping it.

 

[momeNt]

This is all the endgame of USD hegemony.

Russia, India, China, Japan, Iran have all entered into trade agreements which bypass the USD. The reason the USA is turning up the heat on Iran is that if they become nuclear armed the USA would need to escalate the situation to a far more dangerous level in order to keep Iran and the rest of OPEC on the USD. Iraq was looking to bypass the USD, it was practically a training exercise for the USA military, if Iran becomes nuclear capable, while the fight on the ground may follow similarly to Iraq, nobody wants the situation to go nuclear. If Iran is successful in bypassing USD in oil trades, watch the rest of OPEC follow suit and the dollar crumble.

The reason that Iran is getting the special treatment is that the establishment will be able to spin the story towards terrorism and not allowing a muslim extremist country to have nukes. It's really all about the dollar and oil.

While Iran will most likely have a regime change and OPEC will continue to have price oil in USD, watch for the rest of these big economies, BRICs and Japan most likely to continue with trade agreements to bypass the dollar until eventually the dollar no longer has any real reserve status and we feel every printing operation immediately with a loss of purchasing power until the USA comes back down to earth. I'm not sure if dollar hegemony is worth global nuclear warfare so most likely we will see the dollar lose its reserve status, either that or the dollar lives after we flatten every country that tries to bypass. Anybody fancy a war with China?

 

[Lemon law]

First of all, there is no evidence that Iran is even seeking nuclear weapons. But Israel and the USA have been saying for six years that an Iranian bomb is only two years away.

The same cast of characters, namely the USA, Israel, the EU also said Saddam Hussein had WMD in 2002. Absolutely no doubt about it.

In short, Iran is in a damned if it does and damned if it does not no win situation, even if it continues to work under IAEA guidelines.

Because Iran can't even sell its own oil on international markets. And that is the total corner Iran is being pushed into. Partly because, even if China and Russia don't think the sanctions are fair, its no skin off their butt, while getting along in the international community is in their interests.

Leaving Iran six months to prepare for sanctions too crippling for any nation to bear. And even if Iran makes a super human effort to prove its not going for nukes, Israel will continue to say Iran is lying.

Meanwhile any terrorist organization not affiliated with Iran may start sinking Persian Gulf Tankers. While letting Sunni Muslims who have little love of Iran, to kill two birds with one stone. Perhaps setting up another gulf war 2 scenario the USA and every military in the world can't handle. Because as we recall, when Saddam was rapidly conquered in just a week in 2003, the Iraqi populace helped themselves to Iraqi army military supplies. Which allowed the Iraqi people to maintain a guerrilla war that is still amply supplied nine years later.

In short, I personally believe, no matter what Leon Pinhead says to the contrary, a badly wounded Iran in anarchy could still shut down most of the Persian gulf for at least a half a decade. And most western oil dependent nations economies could not last out a month, without going into a severe depression. Nor do terrorist have to stop all oil tankers, sinking even 5% would be more than enough to do the damage.

In short, I think the world is playing a damn foolish game with Iran here, making the Persian gulf into total tinderbox, and all it will take is just one spark, to blow everything sky high.

 

[cybrsage]

First of all, there is no evidence that Iran is even seeking nuclear weapons. But Israel and the USA have been saying for six years that an Iranian bomb is only two years away.

It reminds me of being told that oil will run out in 30 years...in the 1970s...and every decade after that.

Personally, I think they are trying to develop a nuclear weapon. If I was them I would, they are on the US hit list.

 

[Lemon law]

It reminds me of being told that oil will run out in 30 years...in the 1970s...and every decade after that.

Personally, I think they are trying to develop a nuclear weapon. If I was them I would, they are on the US hit list.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At least cybrsage asks a few good question, but after that we could also ask, if Iran develops a nuke or two, why should they an end of the world threat to the USA or Israel?

It would take decades for Iran to be even competitive with Israel's 200 nukes.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

It is certainly not out of the question. It is unlikely but not out of the question.

I'd say it's less likely that they have any means to not only make a nuclear bomb but also a delivery system for it without anyone noticing it than it is that Canada invades Ireland.

If they even get close, it will be known as they would need to test it.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

If I was Iran, I would press on and make nukes too. It is the only weapon that actually allows a nation to do whatever it wants without any real chance of anyone stopping it.

Not really, a low yield nuke without a delivery system isn't going to scare anyone except maybe their neighbours.

 

[momeNt]

Has anybody read from a trusted news source that Iran and India have agreed to trade in gold for Iranian oil?

http://www.debka.com/article/21673/

This is the first I have heard of it today, I have read that they entered into a trade agreement bypassing the USD, but to use gold, that is huge.

 

[cybrsage]

Not really, a low yield nuke without a delivery system isn't going to scare anyone except maybe their neighbours.

It would prevent a ground invasion. If the UK, for example, amassed 50,000 troops and launched an assault, a good many of those troops could all be easily killed. 30k dead soldiers in a few days of fighting is not good for any homefront.

 

[cybrsage]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At least cybrsage asks a few good question, but after that we could also ask, if Iran develops a nuke or two, why should they an end of the world threat to the USA or Israel?

It would take decades for Iran to be even competitive with Israel's 200 nukes.

Officially, Israel still has no nukes, right? Just curious if that stance had changed, I have no idea.

It would certainly be awhile before they could threaten anyone but their closest neighbors, but at that point the hard part would be done. Rockets can be invented easily enough (compared to creating a nuclear weapon), so it would only be time.

The main reason I would want them (if I was Iran) was to suddenly become invasion proof.

 

[Texashiker]

It would prevent a ground invasion. If the UK, for example, amassed 50,000 troops and launched an assault, a good many of those troops could all be easily killed. 30k dead soldiers in a few days of fighting is not good for any homefront.

That is the kind of warfare the world has not seen in a long, long time.

During the Battle of Antietam (US Civil war), there were 23,000 casualties on a single day.

I often wonder how the public would react if the US had to fight a war with similar death rates like what happened during the Civil War and World War II.

 

[cybrsage]

I'd say it's less likely that they have any means to not only make a nuclear bomb but also a delivery system for it without anyone noticing it than it is that Canada invades Ireland.

Last time Canada invaded Ireland, they lost badly:

Canada Men's National Team 2003 Results (2W-0D-7L)
November 18, 2003 Dublin, Ireland Republic of Ireland3–0
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_men%27s_national_soccer_team_match_results

 

[momeNt]

That is the kind of warfare the world has not seen in a long, long time.

During the Battle of Antietam (US Civil war), there were 23,000 casualties on a single day.

I often wonder how the public would react if the US had to fight a war with similar death rates like what happened during the Civil War and World War II.

It would need to have overwhelming support from the citizens in order for it to not backlash considerably against the machine.

The question is what scenario would we need to find ourselves in to deem that magnitude of lives lost acceptable? Pretty sure we wouldn't accept it over replacing leadership in an oil producing country, something would have to be seriously wrong in the world for us to spend upper 5-digit lives correcting it.

 

[Texashiker]

It would need to have overwhelming support from the citizens in order for it to not backlash considerably against the machine.

Something really, really bad would have to happen. Something along the lines of 10x the twin towers.

My fear is that somehow, someway a bomb (maybe not a nuke) is going to go off in New York or Washington DC. It could even be a biological weapon instead of a bomb.

Something is going to happen that the people will be so angry, we are going to have a full blown war.

The posturing between the US and Iran can not go on forever. Sooner or later something is going to give.

When Iran announces they have enough material to make a nuke, Israel and the US will be forced to do "something".

 

[Cerb]

It reminds me of being told that oil will run out in 30 years...in the 1970s...and every decade after that.

Personally, I think they are trying to develop a nuclear weapon. If I was them I would, they are on the US hit list.

Cheap oil is running out, and pretty much has already run out everywhere but in the ME.

Ultimately, North America and Europe being hypocrites (all of our nukes, and our allies' nukes, have been dismantled, right?) is not going to help us get Iran into a good mood.

I really do wonder if we are preparing for a, "regime change," but trying to be more sneaky about it than Iraq. "Iran pushed us into it, see..."

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

It would prevent a ground invasion. If the UK, for example, amassed 50,000 troops and launched an assault, a good many of those troops could all be easily killed. 30k dead soldiers in a few days of fighting is not good for any homefront.

Not really, they wouldn't be able to use it at all, the option would be to bomb the living sheit out of them long before any invasion, besides, the UK wouldn't go at it alone, Aussies and Frogs along with most EU nations would be backups if the US wants to sit one out.