Michael DW; Are you saying that Iraq DID NOT have a nuclear weapons
program ? Well I heard it from Saddam Hussein's own mouth that they did.
There he was standing on a stage boasting that the west had tried to
stop Iraq from getting devices used to trigger a nuclear weapon but
that they had managed to get the needed device and he held it up for all to see !
Cheers from the crowd !

AS someone said, you don't want to find out you were wrong when you see the mushroom cloud !

IF WMD's are an issue, why aren't we invading Israel, China, North Korea, Britain, France, Pakistan, India, Russia ... Q.E.D, WMD's have nothing to do with it, marketing hyperbole aside.

If I was Iran I would be developing WMDs, its not as if the other kids in the backyard aren't, let alone those in the wider playgroup who are a bunch of bullies, who have shown they WILL come and kick sand in your face if you don't do what they say.

All of that said, I would rather we spend our tax dollars helping those trying to escape Iran resettle in Aus. rather then go over there and shoot them.

"What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?" - Mahatma Gandhi

Bazz, the weapons inspectors found no WMD, not even the makings of them. Regardless of what Sadam, George and Tony said, there were no WMDs.

WMDs were the excuse, not the reason for the invasion. Oil and the trading of oil in US dollars and not some other currency were big reasons to get in there and show that anyone who goes against the US empire gets raped.

Where does this logic leave Iran?
Cheers

Well of course the makings were not there, but they did find where
part of the assemblies had been stored.
Just because no weapons were found does not mean that there was no
program to develop a weapon. Any way Saddam said there was a program.

I suspect it had not got very far. They only had a small number of
centrifuges. I am told not enough to produce a weapon.

As far as the present situation, well I guess some of things the
Iranians have said would worry Israel and perhaps some further away.
The whole nuclear weapon thing is silly anyway as there would be no
winners. It is the trust in Allah that worries me as they can act
thinking they have an indestructible ally and that the very worse
that can happen to them is that they arrive in paradise with 73 virgins !
It is the suicide bomber syndrome.

Iran cannot legally close the strait, as half of it belongs to Saudi. The blocking of the strait would be seen as an act of war against Saudi, Bahrain, Qatar, and the the US whose 5th fleet is based in Bahrain close to the strait.

While blocking the strait would seem easy, it would involve military action from Iran. The unblocking of the strait would involve removing this capability, and with considerable US air force nearby, this would initially include obliterating Iran's air force, air defences, and pitiful navy. This would be followed by destroying any fixed or mobile military hardware. I personally think the US would welcome the chance to shred Iran's military and test their latest batch of weapons.

Secondly, The blocking of the strait would block 16% of the world's oil production, but close to 100% of Iran's.

None of the possible out comes for Iran would be better than not blocking the strait. I would like to believe that Iran's leaders are not complete idiots.

Ali Omidi wrote 28 December 2011:

>... Historically, using speed boats in warfare traces back to the Iran-Iraq war (1980-88)...

Small high speed vessels have been used warfare well before the Iran-Iraq war. The term used for such vessels is a "Boghammar", from the name of the Swedish firm which made them for Iran. The Swedish navy have been building small high speed patrol boats for years, for use in their fiord's and coastal waters.

Since the 1980s, navies have been working on countermeasures against small high speed boats. These include the use of helicopters and Unmanned aerial vehicles to detect and intercept the boats at a distance, unmanned surface vessels (USV) around ships, video cameras on ships and remote controlled guns. The major difficulty is where the boats are operating intermixed with civilian vessels during a peacekeeping operation. However, if an area is declared closed to shipping, that would ease the restrictions on the use of force.

>... The Iranian Navy has been equipped with submarines which increase Iranian military power in the region. ...

Submarines do pose a risk to military ships. However, the primary mission of NATO navies during the Cold War was anti-submarine warfare. Those capabilities have been maintained. In any case the most effect way to deal with submarines is to destroy them while they are in port for resupply.

>... 1. Anti-ship beach –deploying surface-to-surface cruise missiles;

Modern warships are equipped with anti-missile systems, with antimissile missiles and cannons.

>... 2. Ballistic missiles which can be launched from the heartland ...

Some US ships are equipped with RIM-161 (SM3) anti-ballistic missiles. The Aegis radar of Spanish and Norwegian ships can track ballistic missiles and transmit the data to the US ships to direct the SM3 missiles (Australia has ordered six destroyers with this capability, but so far has not ordered the SM3 missiles).