Russia steps in against UK/USA/Israeli

Soldato
Joined
21 Oct 2002
Posts
18,022
Location
London & Singapore
Im sure this forum is full of absolute morons.

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR IRAN HAVING A NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAMME!
Any 'evidence' used is completely unsubstantiated.

There is evidence even in the public domain of at least militarised nuclear facilities.

http://g.co/maps/kpcc5
http://g.co/maps/24p7n

Why does the first facility (Natanz) have countless anti-aircraft batteries dotted around its perimeter fencing?

Why does the second facility (Qom) have two highly visible SAM launchers placed in the north east?

PS: It is also public domain knowledge that these sites *are* nuclear facilities because the IAEA has inspected them.
 
Last edited:
Caporegime
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
28,069
Location
London
There is evidence even in the public domain of at least militarised nuclear facilities.

http://g.co/maps/kpcc5
http://g.co/maps/24p7n

Why does the first facility (Natanz) have countless anti-aircraft batteries dotted around its perimeter fencing?

Why does the second facility (Qom) have two highly visible SAM launchers placed in the north east?

To protect them from Israeli bombing, energy production or not surely they would be rather protective of them?
 
Soldato
Joined
21 Oct 2002
Posts
18,022
Location
London & Singapore
To protect them from Israeli bombing, energy production or not surely they would be rather protective of them?

The thing with nuclear power is that you can piggyback a military operation on top of a civilian/commercial operation. The UK itself did this back in the 50s. Nuclear power only requires low enriched uranium. But it doesn't "hurt" to send the odd order to the centrifuge department for some highly enriched weapons-grade stuff. A number of the UK centrifuges were originally built to produce vast quantities of highly enriched stock. Once stockpiles were of sufficient size, only then did these facilities revert to their civilian purpose.

This is common knowledge to all governments in the world. That's why when Iran says "honest guv, it's for civilian power!", both Iran and the "West" have wry grins on their faces. They all know what it really means. It's just a cover to use in the media.
 

Zip

Zip

Soldato
Joined
26 Jun 2005
Posts
20,224
Location
Australia
Why does Russia like Iran? Is it because it may sell weapon to them or does it have some other trade deal going on?

Or is it just a way to oppose the US?
 
Soldato
Joined
11 Feb 2004
Posts
4,532
Location
Surrey, UK
The thing with nuclear power is that you can piggyback a military operation on top of a civilian/commercial operation. The UK itself did this back in the 50s. Nuclear power only requires low enriched uranium. But it doesn't "hurt" to send the odd order to the centrifuge department for some highly enriched weapons-grade stuff. A number of the UK centrifuges were originally built to produce vast quantities of highly enriched stock. Once stockpiles were of sufficient size, only then did these facilities revert to their civilian purpose.

This is common knowledge to all governments in the world. That's why when Iran says "honest guv, it's for civilian power!", both Iran and the "West" have wry grins on their faces. They all know what it really means. It's just a cover to use in the media.
That's all very nice, but it's just conjecture. There is no direct evidence Iran are developing nuclear weapons.
Enrichment is used to create reactor grade Uranium, not just the highly enriched stuff for nuclear weapons.
 
Associate
Joined
18 Sep 2005
Posts
484
One thing that hasn't been mentioned is the Strait of Hormuz, oil movements through the strait account for roughly 40 percent of all seaborne oil traded in the world, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) and ninety percent of oil exported from Middle East Gulf producers is carried through the strait.

A likely response by Iran to any military strike would be to mount a blockade, this would cause oil prices to skyrocket and consequently send western economies crashing, and this inevitable would provoke a much larger military response and further escalations…
 
Soldato
OP
Joined
25 Jul 2010
Posts
5,342
Location
A house
One thing that hasn't been mentioned is the Strait of Hormuz, oil movements through the strait account for roughly 40 percent of all seaborne oil traded in the world, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) and ninety percent of oil exported from Middle East Gulf producers is carried through the strait.

A likely response by Iran to any military strike would be to mount a blockade, this would cause oil prices to skyrocket and consequently send western economies crashing, and this inevitable would provoke a much larger military response and further escalations…

Perhaps that is the intention? Makes the public pee'd off with Iran for doing so, we don't realise it was in retaliation to a strike by the West and makes them look like the bad guys and then they can invade "legitimately".

On the flip side, maybe they want it to happen so the prices can sky rocket and profits go through the roof?
 
Back
Top Bottom