Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12

Thread: Iranian Missile Testing

  1. #1

    Default Iranian Missile Testing

    I donít know if people have been following this story, but Iran has just been testing some new missiles that are capable of reaching Israel and there has been quite the furore over it. Iíve got a few thoughts on the matter and I would be interested in seeing what others think.

    Firstly, the Israelis are understandably concerned and I sympathise - President Ahmadinejad is on record as saying that Israel should be wiped off the map after all (though he technically doesnít have full authority over the military, Ayatollah Khamenei does and I think itís fair to say his bark is worse than his bite in regard to this) and people are falling about to condemn the testing. Reasonable enough at first glance, perhaps.

    The thing is, Ahmadinejad is a dangerous man and Iran is an oppressive, authoritarian state with various terrorist connections and any weaponry in their hands is troubling, but what exactly qualifies their critics to tell them that they shouldnít be allowed to do this? Israel and the US, who have been the most vocal, both have nuclear capabilities Ė weapons far exceeding these new missiles in destructive power, as do the French who have pulled Total out of a big oil investment in Iran, and the British who are also on side. Israel has a very developed military and, indeed, have responded to the Iranian testing by demonstrating missiles of their own which can comfortably reach Iranian soil. Why can one state have a level of military sophistication but another cannot? Simply because that state is not well-liked? Iím sorry but legitimate as concerns about Iran may be, that isnít a valid or fair argument.

    The real problem is that the clamour to criticise the Iranians over this seems to be exactly the sort of thing that will invariably feed into anti-Western and Ďanti-Zionistí sentiment and legitimise Iranís claims and sponsorship of terrorism in the eyes of many Middle Easterners. The obvious spin on the story, and there may even be truth in it, is that the established powers are trying to deny others the right to be on an equal military footing because they can and because it is in their interest. I just donít understand why the Americans and Israelis fall into this trap of macho competition and posturing time after time; itís hugely counterproductive for them. Of course, I donít blame Israelis for being insecure in the position they occupy amongst their neighbours but responding to Iranian threats when they will never be more than that as the Ayatollahís regime would undoubtedly be brought down if they were realised, is fruitless and benefits only extremist Islamism. God forbid someone actually does get pre-emptively involved militarily in Iran, of course, because it will make Iraq look like a picnic and propagate terrorism at extraordinary levels. I suppose we'll just have to hold out some hope that the next incumbent of the White House has a more measured approach.

    On a more humorous note, Iranís claims may actually have been a trifle misleading. The Americans are now saying that published pictures of the test have been doctored to show more missiles than were actually present:

    Now that's just silly.

  2. #2


    You figure someone's making that into a propaganda shot.

    I just hope that the cowboy up in the white house doesn't decide to go to war with them over this stupid shyte.

    Iran knows better than to strike at Israel... the Israelis do have nukes and aren't afraid to use them... plus they haven't lost a war since David slew Goliath. I think God is on their side LOL.

    The nightmare I keep having about Iran is this... once our new President is elected... it will be a few months before he actually gets to take office. During this time Bush could go to war with Iran and really **** the USA over... with no consequences on himself whatsoever... and he'd leave the new President (Obama hopefully) with his hands full in the middle of a very messy hot war. How we would get out of that one I have no idea. The Iranians could easily target our allies and our military bases in the area... and threaten to gain control of the gulf. Which would be crippling for our already bad economy.

    It all seems like something Bush would do... doesn't it?

  3. #3


    I saw this. I personally think the US should only get involved in the middle-east "Cold War" if any side undeniably gets some more nukes (in violation of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty), develops Intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of reaching the powers of the West, or if either side preemptively strikes the other.

    Otherwise, I say let them do their huffing and puffing in relative peace.

    However, I can see things from their angle, It's a war of threats and deterrance from each other, very similar to the East vs West cold war of last century. So, things will hopefully continue like they did in that period, with both side to terrified to strike each other, untill one of them cracks under the pressure and collapses.

  4. #4


    "That picture is 'Shopped. I can tell by the pixels." - Anonymous

    To be honest, Jaiden, I don't have much experience or knowledge in this field -- modern politics and current happenings are very far out of my grasp. I attempt to understand them, but I get confused in them. Being that I'm not a very attentive political follower, I'll do my best to offer up my opinions in a non-biased way, though I have no doubt that if there are flaws in my logic, they are totally merited!

    I don't believe that there should be bracers on what countries can and cannot have nuclear weaponry. I believe that the only right on which more powerful countries have to base their decision that some countries should not have them is on the topic of world safety... but I think that that's a blanket statement that doesn't cover enough basis. Think of these countries without nuclear-powered weaponry (regardless of whether or not you agree with their governmental policies): They seem to be striving for nuclear weaponry as not to feel intimidated themselves.

    An analogy: It's got to be a considerably frightening and intimidating to be surrounded by people with high-powered machine-guns, when all you're allowed to have is a pocket-knife.

    I do believe that there should be a reduction in flexibility of nuclear weapons, not just on countries, but the world over. I believe that nuclear weapons are a viable resource for ending drawn-out war, as they cost less money (and actually lead to less death) than the constant use of conventional weapons, soldiers, and armament, but I believe that there should be heavy discussions in place between countries with nuclear weaponry. I don't think independent countries should have them without some check to balance out the power -- in fact, I don't think any country should have them without those checks and balances.

  5. #5


    I personally think that there should be a worldwide ban on nuclear weapons... but I know there are countries and governments that would never follow such a ban... so we must have them to ensure that others don't use them (M.A.D.).

  6. #6


    I would love to see total nuclear disarmament in the world. The thought of thousands and thousands of these things that could potentially kill millions in one go and the threat of one getting into the wrong hands (particularly from some of the old, run-down Soviet facilities) however remote is more significant than any balance or deterrent they bring for me. Conventional military might would still exist and if, say, Iran did want to attack the US it just wouldn't because of it's vastly inferior military. Besides, it is increasingly economic factors that govern who gets in a scrap with who and I'm inclined to think that most of the usefulness of nuclear arsenals ended when the Berlin wall was brought down. I can't see many potential conflicts in the world lining up on the sort of conventional scale where nukes would come into play.

    Unfortunately, the wretched things do exist though and if that has to be the case I can't see a justifiable moral argument for some being allowed to possess them while others cannot. I understand the notion that a powerful country should act in the interests of preserving safety and security for the world but it still amounts to one sovereign state telling another what it should do. If the recognised nuclear powers (funnily enough also the permanent members of the UN security council) could agree that moving towards disarmament would be desirable and if these kinds of proclamations we've been hearing came solely through the United Nations they might carry some legitimacy. Of course expecting a coherent voice from the UN is rarely sensible.

    On the possibility of a war with Iran, thankfully there just isn't the money or the manpower to do it at the moment. If McCain wins in November though and in a few years time Iran are getting closer with their plutonium enrichment...

  7. #7


    I suppose you haven't heard the rumour that Bush recently told one of his top aides that he would go to war with Iran if it was the last thing he did as President.

    IDK if I believe it or not... but it certainly sounds like something he would say.

  8. #8


    Quote Originally Posted by Darkfinn View Post
    I suppose you haven't heard the rumour that Bush recently told one of his top aides that he would go to war with Iran if it was the last thing he did as President.

    IDK if I believe it or not... but it certainly sounds like something he would say.
    as you sow, so shall you reap.

  9. #9


    as much as i don't want to say it.
    i feel that the next world war will probably involve iran and isreal.

  10. #10


    That's a might bit disturbing, isn't it? As it looks now, I'm not sure what it's going to take to ease tensions in both countries, other than a war, of course. At least, nothing short term. It's going to take a long time, more than a few months at minimum, to resolve whatever is going on over there. I suppose one country sees it as, "If they have weapons, then we should build more weapons," while the other country would have the same view. It is similar to the Cold War, with Mutually Assured Destruction, only on a bit of a smaller scale.

    On the whole, as in, the globe, I've never thought much about nuclear arms. Honestly, I would feel a bit endangered if other countries had them, and the United States (my country of residence) did not. This feeling most likely resides in other countries as well, whether they have such arms or not. For this reason, it would appear unlikely that a single country would "raise the initiative" to get rid of them. That would be a very radical move, and, quite frankly, would require the cooperation of the entire world. When was the last time that happened?

    One "solution", as George Bush has perhaps thought of, is to go into Iran (and quite possibly Israel) and "beat them up", similar to Iraq. I don't really see this as happening, though. Yes, he isn't really a smart cookie, but I doubt that he would be dumb enough to do that, if only because he could get away with it. Also, not that this matters as much as it used to, but Congress would be required to actually "declare" war. As I'm sure you know, there are ways around this (remember WWII - the Rhineland?), but still, there remains a bit of doubt about that. I'll see if I can verify that statement, however, about Bush going to war "if it was the last thing he did as President". I would certainly hope not.

Similar Threads

  1. Need help testing streaming media.
    By Jon in forum Computers & Gaming
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 22-Apr-2008, 18:53

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  • - the Adult Baby / Diaper Lover / Incontinence Support Community. is designed to be viewed in Firefox, with a resolution of at least 1280 x 1024.