posted
Do you think Britian would go to war with Iran?
I've been debating this issue with a bunch of people and would like to hear some opinions.
Would a public execution force Britain's hand? What about if instead of an execution they simply died in Iranian care under suspicious circumstances?
Posts: 340 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
To what end? They can't conquer Iran. So either the war would be for regime change or...what?
If, in what I think is the unlikely event that they are executed, I think Britain would just flatten them, they wouldn't invade. There's enough hard military targets for Britain to attack without causing civilian casualties.
If they were particularly ballsy, they could go after Iran's oil, and totally destroy the lifeblood of the country (while simultaneously rocketing the price of oil worldwide).
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
They won't be exectured, Iran isn't that stupid.
The problem with nukes is that wind could carry the fall out to neighboring nations. This isn't Japan out in the Pacific.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Gecko: What about if instead of an execution they simply died in Iranian care under suspicious circumstances?
What, like all 15 would fall down stairs, like dominoes?
15 POWs can't die in Iranian care accidentally, it would be obvious murder.
If they were executed, I agree with Lyrhawn. The UK would have to do something and they don't have enough troops to invade. So an air campaign makes sense. Whether NATO or the US would get involved is more difficult to predict.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's no way anybody's executing anyone at the moment. It might be considered a little tasteless to even be discussing it.
However, since we are - the recent unpleasantness is a a PR disaster for Iran as far as Britain is concerned. Lately, the majority of the British press and media have been stressing the positive points of Iran and the lack of need for anyone (i.e. the US) to carry out any kind of military action against them.
I think in the last week Iran has lost a lot of that support.
Having said that - they'd have to do something incredibly extreme for Britain to want to go to war. There's been huge opposition to the Iraq war since the start, and Iran is a far larger target. Simply put, without the US and other allies, Britain couldn't do anything much to Iran. Not enough troops, not enough equipment, not enough money. So basically, if it ever happened, the US would have to be coming too.
As for the possibility of dropping nukes - simply put, the British government isn't going to start World War 3 over 15 people. They're not morons.
But... never going to happen.
Posts: 1528 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's sad that the events in the Middle East seem (at least to me) to be leading to a war against Muslims, even though the extremists don't speak for the majority. Let's just hope nukes don't get involved.
Posts: 37 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chord: It's sad that the events in the Middle East seem (at least to me) to be leading to a war against Muslims, even though the extremists don't speak for the majority.
If they don't speak for the majority, then who is the majority? I see parades in the streets denouncing America and its allys daily. I've never seen a group of moderate Muslims in any real number go out and protest for peace and tollerance.
Actions speak louder than words.
Posts: 340 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gecko, if you have to ask, you've obviously not been looking. Most of the prominent Muslim scholars around the world have been speaking against the terrorist activities and stating that the proper conduct is looking for a resolution to decades of violence. What you are doing is demonizing out of hand.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's also much easier to have a parade denouncing something than supporting it. And if you're afraid of being killed (a very rational fear in the region) making yourself a target by holding protest against the extremists is not the best idea.
Posts: 3420 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
But it's not that simple, Dragon. There have actually been conferences. In Middle East nations. With more than one speaker. It's not that it doesn't happen because people are afraid, it's that it doesn't get as much attention because it's 'boring'. It's not only easier to pay attention to the radicals, it gets more watchers, listeners, and half-informed commentary.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dragon: It's also much easier to have a parade denouncing something than supporting it. And if you're afraid of being killed (a very rational fear in the region) making yourself a target by holding protest against the extremists is not the best idea.
Fine, that's very true in the middle-east, but what about American Muslims? Or the huge Muslims populations in the UK and France? Do they have the same fear of reprisal?
In Michigan (the largest Muslim population in the USA) a ralley was held denouncing America and praising Hammas, where was the opposition?
Posts: 340 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Britain has the ability to cut off Iran's governmental head with a few well-placed nukes. Since the vast majority of the population hates the tyrannical and extremist ayatollahs and mullahs, it would not take much to depose them once their main power is gone.
But Britain is unlikely to act without the concurrence and participation of America. The U.S. has three carrier battle groups in the area. That is more than enough to do virtually anything the U.S. administration wants to do to Iran, and Britain must feel that they must allow America to call the shots because of this.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Since the vast majority of the population hates the tyrannical and extremist ayatollahs and mullahs, it would not take much to depose them once their main power is gone.
I know I've heard this before somewhere...
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I doubt Iran would kill the hostages...but even if they did nukes would not be used. It is likely the current government would be toppled...all it would take is an air campaign.
However, I doubt it will come to that. I really don't think the leadership in Iran wants to give the USA and Britain reason to go after them.
Whatever happens, I hope Bush does whatever he can to support what Blair chooses to do. After all Britain has done for the USA, I really hope Bush is doing whatever he can to bring those British troops home safely.
Posts: 1901 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by jebus202: Execution is the good kind of killing, murder is the bad kind.
Okay, here's something a little more useful.
Iran has ratified the Geneva Conventions, which explicitly prohibit trying foreign armed forces in uniform for espionage.
Hopefully Iran will show some sense. But having already been subjected to sanctions by the UN, there's an unfortunate dearth of options to secure their release.
"Nuking Iran", however, would be both vicious and stupid.
My suspicion, and hope, is that the British sailors will be held until Iran feels it has shown itself and the international community that it is not powerless against what it views as outside aggression, then release the prisoners.
If executions occur, calmer heads are unlikely to prevail on either side.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is it awful that when I read the post about parking nukes in Tehran my tongue-in-cheek thought was, "Well, they did say they wanted nuclear weapons... They didn't say how they wanted them delievered..." *hangs head*
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: Is it awful that when I read the post about parking nukes in Tehran my tongue-in-cheek thought was, "Well, they did say they wanted nuclear weapons... They didn't say how they wanted them delievered..." *hangs head*
Personally I think Tehran finally provoking someone into nuking them is exactly what we need. The backbone of the anti-US philosophy in the middle east is coming from Iran, not to mention that Iran is funding Syria, Iraqi insurgents, Hamas, Hezbollah, and Al-Quaeda. Without Iran most of these groups will shrivel up, along with a large portion of the Anti-Western sentiment in the middle east. Iran is the key, and IMHO decapitating Tehran would do us a lot of good.
Posts: 67 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Iran is pretending to be taking care of the hostages, I don't think it wants to execute them. It's acting the part of the victim, and the victim does not execute.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: Is it awful that when I read the post about parking nukes in Tehran my tongue-in-cheek thought was, "Well, they did say they wanted nuclear weapons... They didn't say how they wanted them delievered..." *hangs head*
Without a certain black humor, it would be hard to get through rotten times.
Fortunately, there's a difference between black humor and policy.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The UK would not lob nukes for 15 sailors, or 1500 sailors. If they lost an entire city or more, that's different.
Why do nukes always get shrilly shilled like jingoistic snake-oil into any and all foreign policy debates anyway? It's the equivalent of Godwin's law--Shiva's Law: Any online foreign policy discussion will involve nuclear weapons in very short order, especially if said weapons are completely irrelevant to the topic.
There is a rabid tendency to skyrocket to extremes that is frightening at times.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dragon: It's also much easier to have a parade denouncing something than supporting it. And if you're afraid of being killed (a very rational fear in the region) making yourself a target by holding protest against the extremists is not the best idea.
In Michigan (the largest Muslim population in the USA) a ralley was held denouncing America and praising Hammas, where was the opposition?
Too busy running all the convenience stores around here
I haven't heard about any pro-Hamas rallys around here lately, though it wouldn't REALLY surprise me. After Saddam was killed and after a lot of other major milestones in Iraq, there were huge parties around here though. I don't usually ask, but most of the Chaldeans around here that I've talked to hate much of what is going on over there, and they don't blame the US for it.
As for the domestic American Muslim population, I think their reaction to anti-American protests IN America was "I have to go to work today, why should I have to spend a day proving to you all how American I am?" It's not their job to do a public relations campaign with the country to offset the actions of the minority. If I were to suggest to any of the Chaldeans I work with that they should have been out protesting the protestors instead of going to work that day, I'd probably get punched in the face, and I think I'd deserve it.
And there isn't going to be any nuking. No matter how this ends up, no nukes. It's not even a serious question, and actually using nukes, will explode the Middle East arms race. Right now Iran wants a nuke because they think a nuke equals bargaining power and safety. Look at how the US deals with nations that have nuclear weapons. They offer them deals, and money, and whatever it takes to get them to back down and not use their weapons. They get free nuclear energy, they get food. And they certainly don't talk of invading those countries. A nuke means safety, it means not getting nuked yourself, and it means a huge bargaining chip. Were we to nuke them, it would only prove how right they were to begin with. I daresay at that point getting a nuke will be top priority for every Middle E country, then god help us all. No nukes, not this time.
Britain is perfectly capable of carrying our air combat operations against Iran. They have carriers, they have cruise missiles, they have submarines, they have frigates and destroyers, and they have bombers (I think we sold them the B-1B Lancer, but I'm not sure, someone can check me on that). They have much of what we have, just in much smaller concentrations.
MOABS, for all the pretty light and sound they make, aren't as effective for what we'd be doing. We'd be taking out hardened bunkers, and striking military bases. That likely means cluster bombs, bunker busters, and small munitions. If I were Britain, I would aim for as few casualties as I could, and then I'd use my military power to systematically remove Iran's ability to carry out military actions. Destroy their ports with a ship to shore bombardment, destroy their run ways, destroy their planes, destroy their tanks, destroy any piece of machinery you can find, then hit any and all known bunkers, but warn them ahead of time so they can evacuate.
After that's done, pull out, and let them lick their wounds. Make it clear you aren't attacking the people, you're attacking the military establishment of a government that wronged you. I think even that plan is extreme and very unlikely to happen, it's just too high in scale. But anything less to me seems like we'd just be trying to give them a bloody nose after they knifed us in the dark. It's a hypothetical discussion anyway, Iran won't kill the hostages, I think they're already beginning to see that it was a mistake to take them in the first place. And if this goes on much longer, they won't get the chance to kill them, Britain will proactively seek their return through whatever means necessary.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think Britain will respond with large scale action (i.e. invasion or bombing of major urban centres) in the event that the soldiers are not released or are executed. At the same time, I doubt we'll see a similar scenario to the US hostage crisis after the 1979 Revolution.
Nukes are not going to be dropped. There is absolutely no chance of this happening. As has been said, no one will drop nukes over 15 soldiers. In fact, I think the most likely response would be targeted bombings of military installations well clear of civilian targets. Oil industry sites may be targeted as well. Part of the British response will be demonstrating a superior moral position.
"Personally I think Tehran finally provoking someone into nuking them is exactly what we need."
This is just ridiculous. Its the last thing anyone needs. Actually using nuclear weapons outside the most extraordinary circumstances imaginable would completely undermine the non-proliferation regime. It would also shred the fabric of nuclear security theory and strategy and could even encourage states to adopt a first strike approach.
Posts: 2945 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Iran is pretending to be taking care of the hostages, I don't think it wants to execute them. It's acting the part of the victim, and the victim does not execute.
I'd like to change my opinion based on new evidence. I think that the Iran might charge and prosecute the 15 sailors and put them in jail for some extended period, say, 30 years.
I think several problems exist. It is possible that the Iranians did truly believe that the sailors were with their waters, gleefully arrested them, announced it to the world and then promptly realised that they weren't. Iran, being Iran- if I may make a somewhat insulting joke- is the typical patriarchal man who can't admit he is wrong and must keep trudging the same old path again and again.
Letting the sailors go for anything that isn't a good reason is probably not going to work. If I were the British government I'd provide/create a situation that allowed them to save face.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: They won't be exectured, Iran isn't that stupid.
The problem with nukes is that wind could carry the fall out to neighboring nations. This isn't Japan out in the Pacific.
Neighboring nations are Iraq and Afganistan. Not that worried. Tell our boys to put on their nuke suits for a few days.
Frankly, I think a good nuking and the horrors that ensue is more than overdue. It would bring home a reality check to these idiot nations that think it's cool to push the US's buttons on these issues, and refresh people just how bad a nuke will screw them.
Posts: 1042 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: Letting the sailors go for anything that isn't a good reason is probably not going to work. If I were the British government I'd provide/create a situation that allowed them to save face.
This is the most accurate and level headed post in this whole thread.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Iran has already reacted negatively to Britain talking about bringing this before the Security Council, and Britain has already taken steps to bring it to them. Iran certainly doesn't like where this is going.
What door can Britain possibly leave open to Iran?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Neighboring nations are Iraq and Afganistan. Not that worried. Tell our boys to put on their nuke suits for a few days.
Frankly, I think a good nuking and the horrors that ensue is more than overdue. It would bring home a reality check to these idiot nations that think it's cool to push the US's buttons on these issues, and refresh people just how bad a nuke will screw them.
My goodness. I've got to say, I find this post utterly horrific. I'm British, these are technically my compatriots we're talking about, and I can't believe that what Iran has done yet has caused anyone, anywhere, to think like this. We're talking about thousands of potentially dead human beings here.
I hope Iran doesn't harm the captives. I hope even more that people like this are never in any kind of power.
Posts: 1528 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: They won't be exectured, Iran isn't that stupid.
The problem with nukes is that wind could carry the fall out to neighboring nations. This isn't Japan out in the Pacific.
Neighboring nations are Iraq and Afganistan. Not that worried. Tell our boys to put on their nuke suits for a few days.
Frankly, I think a good nuking and the horrors that ensue is more than overdue. It would bring home a reality check to these idiot nations that think it's cool to push the US's buttons on these issues, and refresh people just how bad a nuke will screw them.
posted
It's instructive to replace "nuke" with "terrorist attack" in stihl1's chest-thumping rant: Frankly, I think a good terrorist attack like 9/11 and the horrors that ensue is more than overdue. It would bring home a reality check to that idiotic nation the US that thinks it's cool to push buttons on these issues, and refresh people just how bad a terrorist attack will screw them.
I agree with Bella and Syn--it's a horrific post.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, stihl1, I was going to respond pretty much like Syn did. While I try to be apathetic about politics (ie., I don't give a crap what Britain or Iran do. It's just easier this way) I can't help but disagree with the sentiment that the horrors of nuclear war is "overdue". I've run the numbers. In the case of Hiroshima, and it could be argued Nagasaki, the argument can be made that more lives were saved then lost. So, on one level, it made sense. But there is still a huge ethical debate about it. Oppenheimer himself was against it (al beit after the fact). Right now, there are no levels at which nuclear weapons make sense. I have a hard time accepting this notion that nuclear weapons should be used in a retaliatory manner, or a preemptive manner, at all. I never thought of myself as particularly anti-war. In fact, I identify (from an academic, abstract standpoint) with Lee when he said "It is well that war is so terrible, or we should grow too fond of it". But the use of nuclear weapons is abhorrent and it would take a great great evil to make "nuking" someone the lesser.
Posts: 2827 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
When we bombed Japan, I think we didn't really know how horrific it would be. We no longer have that excuse.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
