Thread: В Южной Осетии началась война

I still think that Iranian threat is exagerrated. Uranium enrichment is long and boring job. Iran need at least 10 times more centrifuges than it has now to produce enough fission material for a nuclear reactor within the next couple of years.
Then it has to build a reactor capable of producing a weapon grade Plutonium. (The one which is being build cannot produce Plutonium even theoretically). All of this should be done in strict secrecy so that American satellites wouldn't spot it from the orbit.
Then Iran should create an intercontinental ballistic missile. Missiles it has now (Shihab 3) have the effective range about 1500 km - they still need several thousand miles to cover.
After all of the above is done (say 1 operating missile and 1 operating warhead), Iran leaders should all go crazy and launch it against USA.

And all of this is called 'a serious threat'?

I think it would be much easier to ship a nuclear device in a suitcase than to deliver it by missile.

Originally Posted by Ramil

I think it would be much easier to ship a nuclear device in a suitcase than to deliver it by missile.

That is questionable though. If that would be true, all other countries wouldn't need the missiles at all.

As everyone knows, if you have a limited number of missiles with a limited range, the best way to launch them would be from a nuclear submarine which can come close to your enemy's coast. That should be from somewhere in the Pacific ocean (the simplest for Iran and far away from Polish interceptors). By the way, Russia has a host of nuclear submarines and it can sell a used one to Iran for a bargain cost if NATO goes the way it goes now.

The Iranian nuclear threat may or may not be real, but apparently it has very vague relationship with Poland.

FYI every Russian submarine capable of launching ICBMs begin being tracked by the Orion aircraft as soon it enters international waters.
NATO attack subs are always there too listening very carefully.
Yankees are very thorough so the only place a Russian sub can safely launch missiles is the Arctic polar cap. That's why they're built to break the ice from beneath.
An Iranian sub won't have a chance of leaving the Persian gulf not to mention the Pacific ocean. Russia itself has only one Typhoon class submarine that is operational. Another two are held in reserve and yet another two are ready for scrapping.
Considering the sheer cost of such a sub I doubt any country would be able to buy it. And even if there is such a country I doubt Russia would be willing to sell it.

This does make sense. I would still say that every stationary nuclear silo will be watched with at least the same caution than a submarine. So, we're not really talking about launching missiles safely, but at least launching them somehow. However, in my unprofessional opinion, stopping a smaller missile launched from the Pacific is much more challenging than stopping a ballistic missile launched from Iran.

Again, I would agree with you that NATO can destroy a nuclear sub as soon as it's in the international waters and probably even before that, but the same could be said about a stationary silo. There's no point for NATO to wait from Poland until a nuclear missile is launched in Iran. Which is not true for Russian silos for they are already present in so much quantity (along with the submarines) and there's no way all of the silos could be destroyed at once. So, some of the already launched ballistic missiles could potentially be intercepted by Polish interceptors. Others by Ukranian, others by Georgian, Chech, etc. The more the better. That can really justify NATO expansion. I can hardly see other practical reasons.

Well, theoretically there are mobile launch complexes (i.e. Topol-M). But look, the whole allmighty NATO war machine is opposed by a single country, well, two (including North Korea), but still it's an absurd situation if we suppose that NATO isn't targeted at Russia as they mantain. From a pure military standpoint (NATO is a military organisation), Israel alone can level Iran to dust.

Originally Posted by Ramil

From a pure military standpoint (NATO is a military organisation), Israel alone can level Iran to dust.

And that might be a logical step for Israel to take (since Iran proclaimed it would level Israel to dust). However, I highly doubt that would really happen. It seems that Israel would just do what it said it will do, namely bomb out Iran's nuclear reactor with US's precise bombs. And sure that can roll out a whole warfare in Middle East, but hey, Israel is used to live under a continuous threat of total destruction. Again, NATO may or may not be involved, but Poland is surely far away from all that.

What's wrong with International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reports stating that no 'components of a nuclear weapon' or 'related nuclear physics studies' have been found in Iran.

What's wrong with this?

Iran, a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), says its nuclear activities are solely directed at generating electricity for its growing population.

The IAEA report confirmed that Iran has managed to enrich uranium-235 to a level 'less than 5 percent'. The rate is consistent with the construction of a nuclear power plant. Nuclear arms production, meanwhile, requires an enrichment level of above 90 percent.

Iran is having power cuts for up to 2 hours a day all over the country. Nuclear is the best option.

I'd bet a lot of money these nuclear weapons are hidden away in the same place as Saddam's WMDs. I'd also bet we will be seeing US/Israeli troops stationed in Georgia when they decide to attack.

Originally Posted by basurero

What's wrong with International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reports stating that no 'components of a nuclear weapon' or 'related nuclear physics studies' have been found in Iran.

A rhetoric question, huh?

It doesn't justify any military or, allegedly, defensive action (including anti-missile units, etc.) against Iran, that's what is wrong with it . Therefore, it is very likely to be ignored by the parties that are interested in such an action.

Да вот она стенограмма этого известного разговора двух МИДов:

ЛАВРОВ (сдержанно):
Мы говорим: Европа, нам не враг ты!
Но сверхдержаве трудно жить без драк.
Мы агрессивны? Предъявите факты!
Где факты, сэр?

МИЛЛИБЭНД (краснея):
Как вы сказали? F*сk?!

ЛАВРОВ (отмахиваясь):
Я не о том! Когда вас бьют по роже,
Вы будете недвижны, как тюфяк,
Иль все-таки рукой махнете тоже?

МИЛЛИБЭНД (смущенно):
Простите, сэр... Вы вновь сказали «f*ck»?

ЛАВРОВ (не замечая):
Не делайте из Грузии икону!
Медведев умный, он кончал юрфак,
Мы действуем сугубо по закону...

МИЛЛИБЭНД (белея):
Простите, сэр, но это третий «f*ck»!

ЛАВРОВ (увлекаясь):
Любого, кем нарушена граница,
Мы запихнем в надежный саркофаг.
Скажите это всем, кто усомнится!

МИЛИБЭНД (дрожа):
Я понял, сэр! Не надо больше f*ck!

ЛАВРОВ (непреклонно):
Россия, между прочим, сверхдержава,
А сверхдержаве нужен крепкий щит.
Кто будет нас учить основам права --
Тот затрещит, а после запищит!

МИЛЛИБЭНД (в отчаянии):
Oh sh*t! Злодеи сбрасывают маски!
Они хотят войны, держу пари!
(в трубку, умоляюще):
Please put in mind that I am asking, asking**...

ЛАВРОВ (в бешенстве):
Что?! Путин? Ass king***?! Ну-ка повтори!

Съемки августа 2008, но я только сейчас на них набрёл.
Турки просто в рубашке родились. Отделаться только легкими ранениями после такого обстрела...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/russian/vid...00/7568182.stm

Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie

Или думаешь, что Иран нет никакой угрозы для США, всё просто паранойка?

Нема Калинки, а то бы что-нибудь придумал новое по поводу паранойки. =)

Originally Posted by BappaBa

Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie

Или думаешь, что Иран нет никакой угрозы для США, всё просто паранойка?

Нема Калинки, а то бы что-нибудь придумал новое по поводу паранойки. =)

В каком смысле? Он всего лишь выразил официальную точку зрения тогдашнего госдепа. Паранойка в определённой мере свойственна многим.