What are your current views on Iran?

My own views-
I believe that currently Iran poses an international threat. It's leader Ahmadinejad has made many statements that are of concern, the most of which concerns 'wiping Israel off the wap' and his constant belief in that the Holocaust never happened. He is also a religious extreamist whom believes in the revival of the 12th Imam whom will come once the world is engulfed in chaos. I do not think any action by the International Community at large needs to be taken, however they should be watched and monitored. Ahmadinejad is a very shrewd and two-faced man.

Your own views and opinions? Lets try to keep this civil at first.

This pretty much sums up what I think YTMND - IRAN IS SO FAR AWAY!

Iran annoys me

The obession with Iran is most likely a move to diverting attention from their own faults. Religious extremist as might be, it is still a country which is military weak and had been bashed several times, directly or indirectly by the US. Saddam was goaded and provided with WMDs by US so that he can kill as many as possible to discourage Iranian political will. Not unlike a strong school bully bashing younger kids.

Ahmedinejad is a politician, he is playing on these sentiments of resentment in his people now. Not unlike how Bush scored on American sentiments to win his second term, the strange appearance of Osama and all that. Ahmedinajad's comments to wipe off Israel from the map is nothing more than a mere rhetoric. As anyone well versed in nuclear offense and defense technologies knows, for a country like Israel, Iran is hardly anything to worry about. Much less for USA, it would sound more serious if they worry about China instead - a country which can do something if attacked. But we know the US can't talk much about countries which can actually make its cities into large car parking lots, if provoked.

One sane enough to analyse Iran's military capabilities would die laughing if someone said Iran is an international threat. If Iran is, Zimabawe and Nigeria will be worse.

The biggest threat to any country in the world is the USA... They would most probably defeat a coalition of everyone else. And thats coming froma Brit not an american, granted we have a better special forces unit (SAS) but thats not going to win a war against the masses of the USA technology and equipment. Although friendly fire will probs take out most of the american troops:-p hehe

Who controls the USA ill be amazed if it is really Bush or anyother President.. why would the mega rich e.g. oil barons allow a monkey to control their country. It is more likely that there is a coalition of powerful people who pull the strings... whats to stops them pushing the button?

Isnt it a bit ironic how the USA doesnt want anyone else to own weapons of mass destruction yet they used two on civilian targets!! Iran should be allowed to defend itself. If the USA wishes to stop them perhaps they too should disarm.

aclimber, I don't mean to offend but where do you get that idea from? The idea that the US can defeat everyone else is a joke at best and a crude overestimation at worst. Britian is hardly a world military power, it is more of a specialised paramilitary country.

3000+ strategic nuclear warheads (avg. 300KT each) mounted 1000+ active ICBMs and SLBMs says it is a joke. As if that is not enough, there is an spare reserve of 5000 more warheads and some 9000 under primary or secondary reserve.

US is a threat only to a third world country like Iraq or Yugoslavia which can't stand up to it. Much like a school bully who terrorises weaklings to get his way but is cautious of his equals or stronger ones. The idea of US being a serious threat to Russia or China is laughable as much as the idea of Ahmedinezad being a threat to Israel.

It is people like this for whom US is a threat, whom it can bully -



Not someone like this -



If the US tries to invade the land of the latter, the retaliation would be so devastating that God will be too shocked to bless USA.

My personal view on Iran is that something needs to be done about them, and fast. Any country that is going to spend the next 3 years making nuclear fuel, chants 'Death to America' for 3 hours after prayer and wants a nation wiped from the map viewing it as 'illegal' needs to be sorted out. They're a very dangerous to the balance of what is going on in the Middle east. They recently apologized to Britain and it's dead soldiers, it's all a game to the presidnt if you ask me.

I take this offensively. If you didn't know, Britain has the longest and most intensively trained marine troops in the world. With our Commandos basic infantry training peaking at over 32 weeks, and our Army at 23 weeks. I think you'll find our military quite impressive. Infact, I find it so much so that I'm joining the Royal navy.

Furthermore, these past few month alone we've introduced 15 new type 45s.
And an entire new Submarine and Sub Division, all of which are nuclear. Your statement is massively incorrect.

I am sorry if that offended your national sentiments, but it is best we remain realistic. And as a military aspirant, it is wise to be real, if you ever plan to get into intelligence. It is great that you're joining the Royal Navy, as a naval force it is one of the best in the world.

However, a nation's military is much more than a few hundreds of marine commandos. Ground forces are as good as hi-tech mecenaries at the present age without strategic assets and military infrastructure. The UK military is entirely dependent on US technological assets, without the US they would be lost. Imagine a small case where the US and UK have a fallout and become enemies. Let us take one single loss of US support asset, GPS.

Without GPS -

1) The submarine forces and naval ships will be left to manual navigation using compass and visual aids - much like pre-World War U-boats

2) Nuclear missiles, with no GPS guidance in the boost and targeting phases, are as good as nuclear warheaded space-launch vehicles.

3) The marines and other special forces will lose much of navigational capabilities without GPS data.

4) The military aircrafts, without GPS navigation would no longer have instrumental navigation and limited BVR capabilities, they will be more of World War 2 planes.

This are just four points I can think of at the moment, just a miniscule military setback Britian will face if it loses US partnership. That can hardly be called a full fledged military at the present age. Without any military sovereignty, it can be called a military wing or a paramilitary force however.

During the Iraq War od 2003, Tony Blair didn't have much choice - stuck between the necessity of US military alliance and British nationalism, he had to make a strategic choice. There is nothing he could have done otherwise; unlike France, Britian is more of a 51st US state than a sovereign nation.

As for commandos, every modern military has commando and special force units. UK has Royal Marines; Russia has Spetsnatz; US has SEAL; China has PLASF; India has NSG; Israel's PALSAR, etc. These are just a cover asymmetric force in case of a full fledged war, much like knights in a game of chess.

I know what you are talking about. Two new SSBNs will be deployed for the Trident D5 SLBMs, to replace the ageing HMS Vanguard submarines. Every military does that, new equipments are inevitable with the passage of time, otherwise we would still be fighting wars using swordsmen. UK's nuclear force is primarily a second strike (defensive) force. With 200 low yield (100 KT each) warheads, all on SLBMs it is far from countries which have nuclear triads like US, Russia and China. And with a tiny area and hardly any territorial depth it wouldn't be able to sustain even a limited nuclear strike from a military superpower.

I understand what you mean completely. Especially about the technology fronts. The British armed forces depend on the British industry for only a few things. Weapons: The L85A2 Is made by a British small arms company. As is nearly all of our basic arms, minus the SAS M16 and M7. Tanks and Vehicles: The Rover wolf, Viking, Warrior and C2s are made in Britain Basic armour and Ships: Of course we develop our own camo and body armour, AND FINALLY we're replacing our own ships. The Days of the HMS HERMES and INVINCIBLE are getting old, that's not to say they aren't amazing ships.. They are, but I look foward to the 45s and The new Royal Marine ships. HMS Boardwalk and Ocean especialy, and the first British fast attack submarine in decades.

Everything else, we get from the yanks. We're even going to rely on the F35 to replace a lot of our ageing Harriers.

Blair never really cared about our Forces, but this new Government under Gordon Brown has made me feel even prouder to be serving.

There's no denying that the British Armed Forces are a formidable force. We're a strong nation military wise, as dependant as we may be. Although we're trying to change that.

I understand your points, interesting post. Cheers.

OOO an argument has sparked off!! I am British i agree we are not a world power. Yes our millitary is impressive, scruff, but it is small and unlike the USA we do not have the air superiority, I am sure most people would agree the SAS are one of and probably the most formidable fighting forces on the plannet, so much so islamic extremists consider them the ultimate challenge and many have said they were honoured to have them as opponents. Yet, a handfull of men (I think its around 500 of actual soldiers) could not defeat an entire country. Britain hasn't got the economy to fund an entire superiority like kuzntskiy has said we have specialist units which are effective at what they do but are not capable of taking on a country like lets say the USA. Their only real hope would be assaination. Sorry Scruff but the navy use is becoming more and more limited with the increase of air capability. The days of rule britania are sadly over lol. Britain would be forced to fold quickly if oil was cut off too!

The USA would have a chance of defeating everyone else given it had an effective "first strike", hitting the strategic nuclear sites and other millitary targets. The main targets being russia and china. The USA does not need to put troops on the ground sufficent air superioity could force a country to its knees. Russia would most liley be unable to afford a war with a country such as the USA as its economy is not strong to say the least. Japan has a strong economy but has not rebuilt its armed froce since world war 2 and would probably be too late in arming to prove much assitance. The same can be said for Germany.

If Britian takes adequte measures in it ensure the autonomy of its military from US dependance. After all France could, why not UK? UK has a economy roughly the size of Russia and good alliances, it could forge all this together to stop being the 51st US state.

If the US launches an all out first strike it might be able to eliminate China's retaliation capability to certain extent but it is still risky. However the US taking out Russia's nuclear strike capability is a hyper-optimistic fantasy at best. I have been through and through with basic tactics during my CMP, from a strategic military viewpoint absolutely impossible for US to take out Russian nuclear force. With a size of strategic warheads about three times of US, delivery systems (ICBMs) a generation earlier of US technologies, second strike forces in the form of mobile ICBMs, SLBMs and 4000 psi blast proof SILOs, there is nothing which can stop US eliminated from the map if it strikes a few Russian nuclear targets.

Russian/Soviet military docrine is based on a nuclear take-out of US and conventional strike on mainland Europe, if either of them launch a strike on its territory. In the nuclear age, expecting Russia to use conventional forces against a US strike is like expecting an ace sniper fighting the ace swordsman by throwing down like sniper and picking up a knife. When Russia has nuclear capability and its territorial integrity or sovreignty is under grave threat, why bother holding back the nukes against a country which is more likely than not to use them?

Not to mention that in a war situation an additional 3000+ ICBMs will go on high alert to complement the existing 1700 which have been targeted on USA. And all of them will be on launch-on-warning which means they will launch once the warning that the enemy has launched their ICBMs reaches. Usually it takes no more than 5 minutes to detect an ICBM launch in its boost phase and it takes over 20 minutes for it to strike a territory. Which leaves out with 15 minutes for the Russian missiles to be launched, it will be a gap of 5-10 minutes before America is obliterated and most of Russia is destroyed.

US defence analysts are also aware that the large territorial depth of Russia would ensure that all of 3000 US strategic warheads cannot strike the entire territory which backed up by a massive post-Cold War nuclear civil defence structure, would also mean more Russians would survive the holocaust than US. At the present pace, Russia can sit back on its nuclear capability for the next 20 years and still remain in touch, of course there will always be a political race to be a step ahead as the RS-24 missile test speaks of.

One doesn't need an massive economy to launch 7000 nuclear warheads using 2000 long range strategic missiles. It is already there and whatever direction Russian economy goes, such a large nuclear force won't dissappear. The American DOD analysts are aware of that (one of the focus of SORT talks) and they know that they don't want it to happen either. If Russia is in political or economic chaos, a large number of portable nukes could end up with military rogues, mercenaries, terrorists - an inevitable proliferation. You as well as I know what this means.