chas Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 So the diplomatic row continuies, and those in power in Iran try to show the world how tough they are. The specticule of the poor women marine having to read the garbage of how nice the Iranian captives are, was downright funny, if it was not so serious. Lets hope that not one British death results in trying to free them, let it run its course, and they will eventually be released. Next time the patrol boats are doing thier job in Iraq waters, for God sake give them fast armoured patrol boats, and not rubber dingeys, I do dispair at the M.O.D. chas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CliveH Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 I think the guys on the ground showed enormous restraint. I think I am correct in saying that the Lynx could have taken out all six Iranian patrol boats. BUT - this sort of action is, I believe exactly what the Iranians wanted. To sit there and be captured as well as the others who had to sit back and watch their colleagues be taken, takes a special kind of courage. Something that the Iranian regime simply would not understand. The only way they could achieve such moral fibre is to have it inserted by a Proctologist. They wanted a shooting match in my view and for us to be seen as the aggressors. Now the world is seeing them for what they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colin Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 And does anyone now believe they can be trusted to only develope nuclear power for peacefull perposes? May have played in GWs hand there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Chapman Posted March 31, 2007 Share Posted March 31, 2007 CliveH - 2007-03-30 10:37 AM I think the guys on the ground showed enormous restraint. I think I am correct in saying that the Lynx could have taken out all six Iranian patrol boats. Hello Clive,The Lynx was probably a Mark 8 which carries 4 Sea Skua ATS missiles. The Iranian patrol boats were also probably equipped with STA missiles and the Lynx would have been a sitting duck. HMS Cambridge stayed clear because it is basically equipped for Anti-submarine operations.Regards,Mike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CliveH Posted April 1, 2007 Share Posted April 1, 2007 Interesting Mike. Thanks for that - presumably that is why it was reported that our operating procedures are being reviewed. What a mess - soldiers having to give back body armour and now from what you say, it would seem our guys were virtual sitting ducks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enodreven Posted April 1, 2007 Share Posted April 1, 2007 I do find this very questionable as the Iranians are saying we strayed into their teritorial waters and from what i have heard no one from our side is refuting that suggestion ?? and if we really did stray then was it intentional as my lowly GPS tells me when i am a few yards off course surly the MOD have better equipment than me ? While i don't necessarsarly belevive in conspriaces i must say that this type of happening does tend to give certain people grounds for war ?? that perhaps were not there in the first place ? I seem to remember something similar before the Iraq war, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Chapman Posted April 1, 2007 Share Posted April 1, 2007 Hello Clive, Not just sitting ducks but the potential for a massive escalation. Can you imagine what the situation would now be if the Lynx had fired on the Iranian patrol boats perhaps sinking one or more with loss of life and they had returned fire bringing down the Lynx and killing the crew. As Colin says this may just have played into GW's hands or perhaps more importantly into those of the Iranian/Muslim world. Imagine the Al Jezeera headline "British forces murder Iranian Revolutionary Guards". Lets just hope that the situation can be resolved and the 15 RN and Marine personnel released back to their families very soon without either side having to lose face. Regards, Mike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CliveH Posted April 1, 2007 Share Posted April 1, 2007 Hmmmm! - as a previous post said - can we trust them to play such games with nuclear weapons? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest starspirit Posted April 1, 2007 Share Posted April 1, 2007 CliveH - 2007-04-01 8:18 PM Hmmmm! - as a previous post said - can we trust them to play such games with nuclear weapons? Only if we've got bigger ones. So much for the de-nuclearisation wets eh? Nobody respects a position of weakness and history is full of fools who thought that disarmament would keep the peace. The only thing that stops major and world wars and guarantees peace is the fear of M A D. I lived a lifetime (well so far anyway) in the peace brought about by parity of firepower and long may it continue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sax Posted April 1, 2007 Share Posted April 1, 2007 Hello endroven, I did read in the press that the positions of all our naval forces in the area were well within Iraq waters. The exact positions were also given, as released by our authorities. Even an Iraqi fishing boat skipper working in the area agreed we were the right side of the line and I would have thought that his loyalties were not with us. I do realise that press reports can be questionable at the best of times though. We cannot fight on three fronts surely? The are other two appear to be lost causes and not our business anyway. The current loss of good men just to keep Bush happy is disgusting. The country just cannot afford it. Where have our traditional Diplomats who specialised in these type of situations gone to? I despair. Regards, Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted April 1, 2007 Share Posted April 1, 2007 Nice quote from a bod at the FCO in today's paper. He described dealing with the Iranians as "being like dealing with a hyper sensitive teenager with an anger management problem, who is making a bomb in his bedroom! Said all, I think! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted April 1, 2007 Share Posted April 1, 2007 starspirit - 2007-04-01 9:42 PM Only if we've got bigger ones. So much for the de-nuclearisation wets eh? Nobody respects a position of weakness and history is full of fools who thought that disarmament would keep the peace. The only thing that stops major and world wars and guarantees peace is the fear of M A D. I lived a lifetime (well so far anyway) in the peace brought about by parity of firepower and long may it continue. Perhaps we could persuade them to develop a nuclear bomb, and then blow themselves up with it in a kind of mass suicide bombing?There was a chap on Any Answers yesterday who advocated a megatonne nuclear air burst over Teheran. Bumblebee was silent for several seconds, and then asked if he was serious. Yes he said, what's the point of having nuclear weapons if you don't use them? Thank you said Bumblebee. Next!MAD only works against those you believe are your enemies, provided they fear death as much as you do. Belief in instant admission to paradise if you die for Islam does require different thinking. Iran is not the Soviet Union, nor is Islam the new Communism! We live in dangerous times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CliveH Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 "being like dealing with a hyper sensitive teenager with an anger management problem, who is making a bomb in his bedroom!" What a wonderful summation! Quite what they think the world will think of them after all this has not sunk in with them yet. Let’s hope "the moderates" in Iran get a grip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 The rest of the world? The rest of the civilised world? The rest of the Muslim world? I'm not convinced they recognise, or understand, any of these concepts when it comes to what others may think. I don't think it actually goes much further than what their immediate factional followers think! Their view of the outside world is so constrained by poor education, partial reporting and religious doctrine, I suspect most of them believe we all eat babies for breakfast in the White House, along with the Queen, Tony Blair, and George Bush! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Chapman Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 starspirit - 2007-04-01 9:42 PM The only thing that stops major and world wars and guarantees peace is the fear of M A D. I lived a lifetime (well so far anyway) in the peace brought about by parity of firepower and long may it continue. Hello Richard, There has never been parity of firepower only the fear of MAD but even that has not stopped major wars because the use of nuclear weapons against non nuclear nations would in itself threaten MAD. Would the Russians have allowed the US to use Nuclear against the N Vietnamese without retaliation? Have we all forgotten major wars in Korea, Vietnam, Falklands, two Gulf Wars, Afghanistan etc. The real problem with Nuclear weapons is that no State would dare use them so they become neutered as a weapon of war UNTIL some rogue or fanatical state like perhaps Iran decides to Nuke one of it's neighbours (Israel?). My personal belief is that we would be more than foolish to give up modern nuclear weapons and delivery systems (Trident?) until ALL states do the same and that is just not going to happen, certainly in our lifetime. Keep one thing firmly in mind China and India are going to be the new Super Powers and they have Nuclear Weapons. I agree Richard that nobody has respect for a position of weakness. Regards, Mike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enodreven Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 Hi, Just for the record there is one state that has used them before and not just once they actually used 2 and that was the USA ? so don't run away with the idea that GW wouldn't use it on behalf of the USA again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CliveH Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 Hardly fair enodrevin. Given the situation at the time with the population indoctrinated to believe their emperor was a God and that surrender was a crime I find it hard to consider that the dropping of "the bomb" was anything but the speediest resolution of a terrible problem. One that would have cost many Allied lives had such a WMD not been used. Also, it was a combined effort - not just the Americans that developed the bomb. It is also worth noting that our fire bombing of certain cities (Dresden being possibly the worst) killed more civilians than the two Atom Bombs WE dropped on Japan. It is hard to think that Japan is the same nation all these years later. Perhaps there is hope for the Middle East yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enodreven Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 I don't quiet understand your point about being fair, lets make no mistake they knew or had a very good idea what would happen and they did drop 2 and not on the same day, while i take your point about what may of happened if they had not followed that course of action, it still does not detrack from the fact that they did use it and I could see them making the same reasoning now? albeit i really do hope that they don't Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CliveH Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 Three reasons make the inference you make unfair in my opinion. 1) Most of the individuals concerned then with the decision making are either dead or well out of the decision making loop by now!!!!! Sins of the Fathers and all that. 2) The Americans developed the Atom Bomb with an enormous amount of help from us as a nation and others of course. 3) The Norwegians new that Nazi Germany was developing Heavy Water in research centres in occupied Norway – many lives were lost stopping that research. Whilst it seems that Nazi Germany was not "up to speed" in the science of splitting the atom - they had figured out that nuclear science could provide them with a "dirty bomb" that would destroy whole populations. Quite a feat if you have a mind to set up the "Final Solution". So why think the Americans were the only ones prepared to use such terrible weapons????????????????????????????? Personally whilst I do not celebrate its use, I do thank the Lord that we developed it and once we realised its enormous potential, we in the West took great pains to ensure it was never used again. Surely even the Americans (I am being sarcastic here! ;-) so my apologies!!) can be given some credit for not using the damn thing in the last 60 odd years???? And I think to point the finger of potential blame against a nation that has come to our aid twice in the last 100 years is disingenuous if not just plain ungrateful. To say that because the Americans used the Bomb 60 years ago, they would do so again is truly amazing. I am far more scared about some Iranian hot head developing and using "the Bomb" (most likely a "dirty" version on the underground like the Japanese bio-bombs a few years ago) than ever I am about the Americans using one of theirs. To say otherwise is tantamount to saying we could have said "Oh bo**ocks to a task force - we'll just nuke Buenos Aires 25 years ago!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enodreven Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 While i can't dissagree with the first 3 points you make, however I really don't see how they answer the points i made, all you seem to be saying is there were a lot of nations involved, that dosen't deal with the point that i made they are the only nation to have used it and used it twice ? and from past performance i doult that anyone could have changed there minds about using it. I would also think if you ask anyone at any of the 2 sites where they dropped them to be fair, I don't think they would be to happy about it and then to tell them you can't really blame anyone as germany started the recearch ?? so its really there fault ?. If you really think that because they helped us 60 years ago that makes every thing they do OK them i'm sorry I totally dissagree, I really don't think we should have gone to Iraq and i do think it was there GW's fault together with our TB that we are in the mess we find ourselves in now, so please don't ask me to be gratefull for there help 60 years ago ? and never to raise concerns over what they may or may not do ? Oh by the way don't think I am anti american because I am not I really like the people and they country, its just the leaders similar to hear that I question ? as do a lot of other people CliveH - 2007-04-02 11:08 PM Three reasons make the inference you make unfair in my opinion. 1) Most of the individuals concerned then with the decision making are either dead or well out of the decision making loop by now!!!!! Sins of the Fathers and all that. 2) The Americans developed the Atom Bomb with an enormous amount of help from us as a nation and others of course. 3) The Norwegians new that Nazi Germany was developing Heavy Water in research centres in occupied Norway – many lives were lost stopping that research. Whilst it seems that Nazi Germany was not "up to speed" in the science of splitting the atom - they had figured out that nuclear science could provide them with a "dirty bomb" that would destroy whole populations. Quite a feat if you have a mind to set up the "Final Solution". So why think the Americans were the only ones prepared to use such terrible weapons????????????????????????????? Personally whilst I do not celebrate its use, I do thank the Lord that we developed it and once we realised its enormous potential, we in the West took great pains to ensure it was never used again. Surely even the Americans (I am being sarcastic here! ;-) so my apologies!!) can be given some credit for not using the damn thing in the last 60 odd years???? And I think to point the finger of potential blame against a nation that has come to our aid twice in the last 100 years is disingenuous if not just plain ungrateful. To say that because the Americans used the Bomb 60 years ago, they would do so again is truly amazing. I am far more scared about some Iranian hot head developing and using "the Bomb" (most likely a "dirty" version on the underground like the Japanese bio-bombs a few years ago) than ever I am about the Americans using one of theirs. To say otherwise is tantamount to saying we could have said "Oh bo**ocks to a task force - we'll just nuke Buenos Aires 25 years ago!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CliveH Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 All I am saying is that in your first post you seem to be saying that you would not be surprised if the Americans used "the bomb" again because they were the state that had used them twice before. Having read it again - it still reads that way to me. From my standpoint the fact they haven’t used them in the last 60 odd years must stand for something! My other point is that conventional weapons used to create the Firestorm effect in Dresden and other German cities killed more civilians than the two Atom Bombs. And it was the RAF that carried out those raids. The Firestorm deliberately created caused such intense heat that the rising hot air sucked in air at the seat of the fire to tornado like speeds. People were sucked and blown into the fire. A truly awful event, in my view on a par with "the bomb", regarding the effect on civilians. PLEASE do not think I am having a go at the RAF, I most certainly am not. What I am saying is that decisions were made to do certain things in circumstances that were very different to how we might look at them today with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, from the comfort of our armchairs. I would rather not be killed at all thank you very much! (lol) - So far better to have a weapon that makes even those behaving like "a hyper sensitive teenager with an anger management problem, who is making a bomb in his bedroom!" a tad more reflective is no bad thing in my book. Far from the Americans, or any other State being ready to use nuclear weapons, I truly fear what a religious extremist would do given the opportunity and his/her certain belief that in doing it they will be assured of a place in Paradise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enodreven Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 Hi, I think we will have to agree to dissagree, but have another look at your last paragraph, was it not a similar reasoning that lead to the 2 bombs being sent last time ? Oh sorry i do agree entirely with your point about not being bombed by anyone, and lets just hope and pray it dosen't happen Brian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enodreven Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 sorry duplicated Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CliveH Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 I think we agree more than you think! The "Bombs" dropped on Japan had never been seen before! Even Churchill said that the Atom Bomb was just a bit bigger version of what we already had. It was only when the true nature of its singularly destructive power (as opposed to the multiple bombing of, say, Dresden that the whole world sat up and said collectively "Oh sh*t! - what have we done?" I feel that sensible people would never use it having seen its power. What worries me is that this Iranian regime hardly seems mature or sensible. I know some may object to this analogy, but from what I have seen, if the "Bomb" was a gun, currently I feel that a reasonable "Policeman" has one. Not a perfect "Policeman", but at least one who values human life. We now have the problem of people described as:- "hyper sensitive teenagers with an anger management problem", getting hold of this "gun" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Chapman Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 To get back on topic for just a while the following news story may have some relevance. Iran and Great Britain are working to free the crew AND the 5 Iranians held by the US. See the BBC news website. The true picture is now starting to emerge. Regards, Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.