Is it kicking off big time or is this just everyday stuff they deal with or a bit of both?

 

2 hours ago, kent_white said:

I wonder how feasible it would be for Israel to knock out Iran's nuclear weapons programme?

It would probably take an incredible ground operation to do it. And whilst the boots are on foreign soil, they leave themselves open to being a recipient of a big red button. 

I'm no expert on the military and ballistic capabilities, but I believe Iran's nuclear arsenal is short range only. Meaning they'd have no issues dumping every one of them on the other side of the West Bank

I presume Israel could intercept most of them... But it only needs 1 to get through. Whether they're daft enough to try it is anyones guess

Just now, Sweep said:

agreed, and also use it as an excuse to keep grabbing land 😉  -  I'm certainly not under any illusion that Israel actually want the hostilities to stop anytime soon

Same. And I don't think Lockheed Mar... Sorry, the USA are in no rush for it to end either.

Same could maybe be said for pretty much every West-involved conflict in the last 50 years tbh

11 minutes ago, boltonboris said:

It would probably take an incredible ground operation to do it. And whilst the boots are on foreign soil, they leave themselves open to being a recipient of a big red button. 

I'm no expert on the military and ballistic capabilities, but I believe Iran's nuclear arsenal is short range only. Meaning they'd have no issues dumping every one of them on the other side of the West Bank

I presume Israel could intercept most of them... But it only needs 1 to get through. Whether they're daft enough to try it is anyones guess

If you intercept a nuclear weapon does it still lead to a nuclear explosion ? 

Currently, it is believed Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapon. 

Despite Iran's missile defence systems, they're not thought to be the most high tech, although capable nonetheless. 

If desired, Israel could hit the Isfahan nuclear facility, or anywhere else, without needing to employ ground troops.

It is also the case that Israel is believed to possess a number of nuclear weapons as a last resort. 

Not that they'd need to use them in this situation.

5 minutes ago, Ani said:

If you intercept a nuclear weapon does it still lead to a nuclear explosion ? 

F*ck knows!!!

4 minutes ago, Ani said:

If you intercept a nuclear weapon does it still lead to a nuclear explosion ? 

No.

However, some missile defence systems, utilise an interceptor without an explosive warhead. Designed to take out the incoming weapon, prevent it from functioning, but without potentially spreading radioactive material over a wide area.

9 hours ago, bolty58 said:

I have fond memories of friends in Bolton who described themselves as Persian and bemoaned the toppling of the Shah.

Would be both wonderful and remarkable if they could ever get somewhere close to where they were before these primitive savages usurped power. The world would instantly be a better place.

An older, now deceased friend of mine was loaned out as the Shah's personal pilot... he was the highest paid Flight Lieutenant in the RAF. I was friends with quite a few Iranians who were living and studying over here when I was at college... they are all probably all dead now which gives weight to retaining the refugee system

6 hours ago, gonzo said:

How can you tell he's Iranian?

Have you asked him?

Have you reported him to the police?

Why shouldn't you ask someone about their background? As long as you do it in a non-confrontational and friendly manner you will probably end up having a friendly discussion... I do it all the time... I was chatting with a Lithuanian lorry driver a couple of days ago, neither of us fully understood each other but we got there

Just now, Dimron said:

Why shouldn't you ask someone about their background? As long as you do it in a non-confrontational and friendly manner you will probably end up having a friendly discussion... I do it all the time... I was chatting with a Lithuanian lorry driver a couple of days ago, neither of us fully understood each other but we got there

I was being facetious old bean.

 

5 hours ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Currently, it is believed Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapon. 

Despite Iran's missile defence systems, they're not thought to be the most high tech, although capable nonetheless. 

If desired, Israel could hit the Isfahan nuclear facility, or anywhere else, without needing to employ ground troops.

It is also the case that Israel is believed to possess a number of nuclear weapons as a last resort. 

Not that they'd need to use them in this situation.

I'd be surprised if Israel didn't have nuclear weapons considering they invented them!

I'd be more concerned about Iran having a go with a "dirty bomb"... they probably have enough material

3 minutes ago, gonzo said:

I was being facetious old bean.

1 minute ago, Dimron said:

I'd be surprised if Israel didn't have nuclear weapons considering they invented them!

I'd be more concerned about Iran having a go with a "dirty bomb"... they probably have enough material

Eh? Israel has nukes?

3 minutes ago, gonzo said:

I was being facetious old bean.

 

Just catching up

2 minutes ago, Winchester White said:

Eh? Israel has nukes?

They tested with South Africa in 1979 (i think)... "Vela Incident"

They remain secretive but probably have acquired enough fissile material for a couple of hundred warheads

I think my dentist is also Iranian

9 hours ago, Dimron said:

I'd be surprised if Israel didn't have nuclear weapons considering they invented them!

I'd be more concerned about Iran having a go with a "dirty bomb"... they probably have enough material

Not Oppenheimer then?

It isn't a question of whether Israel does or doesn't have them, just a case of how many. 

Estimates are quite ranging- they're clearly cagey about the actual numbers.

11 hours ago, Dimron said:

I'd be surprised if Israel didn't have nuclear weapons considering they invented them!

I'd be more concerned about Iran having a go with a "dirty bomb"... they probably have enough material

 

1 hour ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Not Oppenheimer then?

It isn't a question of whether Israel does or doesn't have them, just a case of how many. 

Estimates are quite ranging- they're clearly cagey about the actual numbers.

Israel didn't exist when the first ones were dropped/tested did they? (as an actual country/state)  - although I think Oppenheimer was Jewish wasn't he?

6 minutes ago, Sweep said:

 

Israel didn't exist when the first ones were dropped/tested did they? (as an actual country/state)  - although I think Oppenheimer was Jewish wasn't he?

I would guess so.

I need to watch the film.

 

Some of the subsequent missile technologies came about via captured Nazi scientists. 

 

6 minutes ago, Sweep said:

 

Israel didn't exist when the first ones were dropped/tested did they? (as an actual country/state)  - although I think Oppenheimer was Jewish wasn't he?

Non-observant - the whole family were, and was more interested in the teachings of Hinduism in adult life.

1 minute ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

I would guess so.

I need to watch the film.

 

Some of the subsequent missile technologies came about via captured Nazi scientists. 

 

I keep meaning to, but every time I go to, I just think it'll be incredibly dull, as the trailers make it look a bit shit (IMO)

Conversations about the use of nuclear missiles indicate the dangerous territory we are now in.  It is a staggering failure of the western allies not to realise that Netanyahu needed reigning in.  The response to the original Hamas terror attack was disproportionate and it is hard to see anything other than a huge conflict developing now that Iran are directly involved. What a crazy world.

30 minutes ago, Sweep said:

I keep meaning to, but every time I go to, I just think it'll be incredibly dull, as the trailers make it look a bit shit (IMO)

It's a decent watch and you don't notice how long it is (think it's about three and half hours) 

I was on a plane though so the options of doing something else were limited 

12 minutes ago, DirtySanchez said:

It's a decent watch and you don't notice how long it is (think it's about three and half hours) 

I was on a plane though so the options of doing something else were limited 

that's beyond my span of concentration 😉  

I'm sure films used to be a nice 90-120 minutes long, and I was happy with that - now they seem to be stretching upwards of 3 hours, or even worse in "two parts" which saps my enjoyment. The weird thing is, I can happily crunch through 4 or 5 consecutive episodes on a box set, with no problem

33 minutes ago, Sweep said:

that's beyond my span of concentration 😉  

I'm sure films used to be a nice 90-120 minutes long, and I was happy with that - now they seem to be stretching upwards of 3 hours, or even worse in "two parts" which saps my enjoyment. The weird thing is, I can happily crunch through 4 or 5 consecutive episodes on a box set, with no problem

It's decent - watched it twice - it's one of those rare films that's deserves a lengthly running time.