<An unsteady start to the yearThe Oil Drum Pond Scum or Planet Savers?>

222 comments on The Iranian Oil Weapon

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Gets IT on January 18, 2006 - 11:29am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Hope this helps you understand and can appreciate that Iran's present state of paranoia is not without cause.  They have good reasons to behave the way they do, given the historic lessons taught them.  Will the US ever let a Japanese, FSU or Chinese carrier armed for war within 1000 miles of Pearl Harbor ever again?

http://www.israelnewsagency.com/iranisraelmissilesnuclear8730918.html

In 1981, Israel attacked a Baghdad nuclear reactor. Israel combat jets bombed a French-built nuclear plant near Iraq's capital, saying they believed it was designed to make nuclear weapons to destroy Israel. It was the world's first air strike against a nuclear plant.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Southsider1 on January 18, 2006 - 12:21pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Sure, Israel attacked Iraq. But when did Israel attack Iran?
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Gets IT on January 18, 2006 - 12:50pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
It was a long time ago and I admit I got my n and q mixed up, but I still think it was a valid point although not 101% accurate.  

So.. Given Israel's behaviorial history and considering the latest threats against Israel coming out of Iran, can you think of a any reason why Israel would attack Iraq, but they would not attack Iran?

Continuing... don't forget it was the US that made the first nuclear attack on any country, which many today believe was totally unjustified under the true circumstances that existed at the time (Germany had already capitulated and Japan's had no remaining mil-ind capacity to speak of) and the motive was simple revenge for Pearl Harbor.  Wheather that was the actual motive or not is immaterial.  Image and and the resulting emotional response does not foster a detailed investigation into the justification for previous actions.  The lasting association is simply who did what to whom.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Jack on January 18, 2006 - 1:16pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Perhaps you should change your name to "Gets it wrong"
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Gets IT on January 18, 2006 - 7:03pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Maybe so, but try sticking with the concept.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
ChrisPhoenix on January 19, 2006 - 5:08pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
It's worth noting that, according to Red Star Rogue, elements of the Soviet Union's KGB did send a Kilo-class sub near Pearl Harbor, and it did launch a ten-megaton nuclear missile at Pearl Harbor.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0743261127?v=glance

Evidence: In addition to the sunk sub, a massive secret recovery operation, and tales of oil slicks and radiation, satellite photos showed burning missile fuel--the missile blew up in the tube on the surface.

Speculation: The KGB wanted to frame China; the warhead used Chinese fissionable material, and China had a Kilo-class sub, and the Soviet sub sank within the Chinese sub's missile range of Pearl Harbor--significantly closer than the Soviet equipment would have needed to get.

Relevance: If this is right, then it illustrates another failure mode in the nuclear standoff; shows that we came closer to nuclear devastation than we thought; shows that nukes just aren't as safe to have around as we might have hoped; shows that things can go to hell quickly and randomly.

Sleep tight.

Chris

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.