Fidel Castro warns of dire nuclear conflict

Run_to_da_hills

Its not often that we hear from this man however I would agree that what he has come out with should not be taken lightly along with the fact that Israel and the US are currently posturing around the Persian Gulf with large armadas as if ready to launch an attack.

In a nutshell Castro is warning the West (Israel and the US) not to under estimate the power of Iran and it allies and the subsequent backlash of an attack from India and Pakistan.

He also emphasized that India, Pakistan and Israel are the three nuclear powers who have refused to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

I have touched on this subject in the Military forum however I think it should be brought up in politics as I believe that the Government should now seriously review on its preparation for this country in the case of an nuclear attack that could effect Irish citizens at home or abroad.

How is our national supply of potassium Iodate?, I believe it was last reviewed and distributed back in 2002. This of course would not account for new household members, immigrants, lost and discarded supplies etc.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/13/fidel-castro-on-cuban-tv-middle-east-iran-us

wes

Personally, I think India and Pakistan should give up there nuclear arsenals (actually everyone should give the damn things up). Now, I say this due to selfish reasons, as I wouldn'y put it by either country to nuke Kashmir, so there other can't have it, or for some other stupid reason. Also, those countries have millions of poor people, who don't have access to basic necessities. Instead of spending money on useless nuclear weapons, they can use the same tech to provide power (there is a dire need of this in Pakistan for example), and use the money saved to take care of there people.

As for Israel, well they shouldn't have them either, and I find it hard to take the US seriously in regards to Iran, when they are ignoring the elephant in the room in the ME.

mike65

Sorry I can't take the random ramblings of an anicent and clearly still frail sick Castro seriously. Anyone could say similair doesn't mean its correct or that they have any particular credbility.

The_Minister

wes wrote: »

Personally, I think India and Pakistan should give up there nuclear arsenals (actually everyone should give the damn things up).

They are the only reason that we live in such peaceful times, the only reason that there is not a war in Europe for the first time in over 1000 years.

ei.sdraob

is he still alive (i mean has he actually been seen in public in a long time)

wes

The_Minister wrote: »

They are the only reason that we live in such peaceful times, the only reason that there is not a war in Europe for the first time in over 1000 years.

I disagree, the reason for peace in Europe is due largely to the EU, and more interconnected state of world economies. Personally, I don't trust anyone with the ability to wipe out most of humanity, and would rather see the threat removed completely.

BlaasForRafa

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Its not often that we hear from this man however I would agree that what he has come out with should not be taken lightly along with the fact that Israel and the US are currently posturing around the Persian Gulf with large armadas as if ready to launch an attack.

What ships do Israel have in and around the Persian Gulf?

Also the americans have no more ships around the gulf than they normally have had since the war in Iraq started.

Denerick

Castro used to go on these mad ramblings all the time, I wouldn't take him too seriously. And I always find it amazing how college kids still admire him, considering he was one of the worst dictators in Latin America, how he was responsible for the execution of hundreds of dissidents, and considering the Cuban State is one of the most totalitarian regimes left in the western hemisphere.

The_Minister

wes wrote: »

I disagree, the reason for peace in Europe is due largely to the EU, and more interconnected state of world economies. Personally, I don't trust anyone with the ability to wipe out most of humanity, and would rather see the threat removed completely.

If every nuclear weapon was destroyed, the knowledge would still remain, and nations would race to build it again and become the sole nuclear power.

And the only reason the EU has worked is that no-one can go to war with anyone anymore. We find it hard to phathom now, but post-WWII the countries in Europe had just finished killing an entire generation of young men - it would not have worked if war was an option.

Denerick

wes wrote: »

I disagree, the reason for peace in Europe is due largely to the EU, and more interconnected state of world economies. Personally, I don't trust anyone with the ability to wipe out most of humanity, and would rather see the threat removed completely.

Without the massive conventional military backing of the USA, and her Nuclear arsenal, there is little doubt that the nebulous European Coal and Steel community would have easily been over-run by the Soviet Union.

invinciblePRSTV

Denerick wrote: »

Castro used to go on these mad ramblings all the time, I wouldn't take him too seriously. And I always find it amazing how college kids still admire him, considering he was one of the worst dictators in Latin America, how he was responsible for the execution of hundreds of dissidents, and considering the Cuban State is one of the most totalitarian regimes left in the western hemisphere.

I disagree, if there were a league table of the worst Latin America dictators of the 20th Century then Castro would be outshone by many others, like your Noriega's, Batista's, Pinochets etc. And of course let's not forget Latin America is prone to dictatorial regimes overthrowing democratically elected ones because of meddling from outside powers.

'College kids' i doubt admire Castro much anymore, maybe they did in the 1960s & 1970s, But i think anyone with a non ldeologically blinkered viewpoint will respect how Castro kept Cuba from going to the wall or the way of North Korea in the 1990s after the demise of the USSR and its aid programmes and in spite of bullyboy US sanctions, which perversely probably strengthened Castros authority rather then undermined it.

wes

The_Minister wrote: »

If every nuclear weapon was destroyed, the knowledge would still remain, and nations would race to build it again and become the sole nuclear power.

Yes, the knowledge would remain, but you assume that people would want such weapons again in the first place. They serve no real use, other than mass destruction. You nuke a place, and the land would be useless to you for example.

The_Minister wrote: »

And the only reason the EU has worked is that no-one can go to war with anyone anymore. We find it hard to phathom now, but post-WWII the countries in Europe had just finished killing an entire generation of young men - it would not have worked if war was an option.

People can and do go to war sadly. Luckily in Europe we have moved beyond that.

wes

Denerick wrote: »

Without the massive conventional military backing of the USA, and her Nuclear arsenal, there is little doubt that the nebulous European Coal and Steel community would have easily been over-run by the Soviet Union.

Well the Soviet Union is gone now. So why bother with these weapons now? Everyone should get rid of them. No point in risking things by having such dangerous weapons lieing around.

FTA69

Denerick wrote: »

Castro used to go on these mad ramblings all the time, I wouldn't take him too seriously. And I always find it amazing how college kids still admire him, considering he was one of the worst dictators in Latin America, how he was responsible for the execution of hundreds of dissidents, and considering the Cuban State is one of the most totalitarian regimes left in the western hemisphere.

Balls, to say that Castro is "worse" than the likes of Pinochet or the likes of the junta in El Salvador is absolute nonsense. There are actually less political prisoners in Cuba today than there was in Ireland 12 years ago.

BlaasForRafa

wes wrote: »

Yes, the knowledge would remain, but you assume that people would want such weapons again in the first place. They serve no real use, other than mass destruction. You nuke a place, and the land would be useless to you for example.



People can and do go to war sadly. Luckily in Europe we have moved beyond that.

I know you mean the EU has moved beyond that but I don't think it could be said that Europeans are more civilised or culturally advanced that war is no longer possible, wars in Croatia/Bosnia/Serbia/Kosovo are not that long ago and tensions around the edges of the old Soviet empire still simmer and conflict in places like Transnistria, Ossetia (North and South), Georgia, Nagorno-Karabach, Chechnya, Dagestan and Ingushetia could break out at pratically any moment.

Nuclear weapons may be distasteful but they do act as a deterrent. India and Pakistan are unlikely to go to full scale war as they did in the 60's and 70's as the the consequences are far more severe.

BlaasForRafa

FTA69 wrote: »

Balls, to say that Castro is "worse" than the likes of Pinochet or the likes of the junta in El Salvador is absolute nonsense. There are actually less political prisoners in Cuba today than there was in Ireland 12 years ago.

I take it you are counting terrorist criminals like the IRA, INLA etc in the "political prisoners" total?

Run_to_da_hills

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

What ships do Israel have in and around the Persian Gulf?

Also the americans have no more ships around the gulf than they normally have had since the war in Iraq started.

Several news sources indicate that an armada of over 12 ships are involved including some Israeli.


http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=131181&sectionid=351020205

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/138164

http://www.alternet.org/world/147265/are_u.s._warships_gearing_up_for_a_confrontation_with_an_iranian_aid_flotilla_to_gaza

PeterIanStaker

"Why you should all be Nuked"

- Op Ed in tomorrows' Indo :rolleyes:

wes

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

I know you mean the EU has moved beyond that but I don't think it could be said that Europeans are more civilised or culturally advanced that war is no longer possible, wars in Croatia/Bosnia/Serbia/Kosovo are not that long ago and tensions around the edges of the old Soviet empire still simmer and conflict in places like Transnistria, Ossetia (North and South), Georgia, Nagorno-Karabach, Chechnya, Dagestan and Ingushetia could break out at pratically any moment.

Yeah, sorry should have said the EU.

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Nuclear weapons may be distasteful but they do act as a deterrent. India and Pakistan are unlikely to go to full scale war as they did in the 60's and 70's as the the consequences are far more severe.

Honestly, I think it very lucky that those 2 countries have not gone into a full scale nuclear war imho. Personally, I think the risk isn't worth it. Surely, economics can act as a deterent instead of nuclear weapons.

FTA69

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

I take it you are counting terrorist criminals like the IRA, INLA etc in the "political prisoners" total?

Yes, I would count IRA and INLA Volunteers as political prisoners.

I'm assuming you are also aware of the fact that many of those incarcerated in Cuba are there as a result of them carrying out terrorist actions?

Denerick

FTA69 wrote: »

Yes, I would count IRA and INLA Volunteers as political prisoners.

I'm assuming you are also aware of the fact that many of those incarcerated in Cuba are there as a result of them carrying out terrorist actions?

Some are, most are peaceful dissidents who want a better life for them and their families.

There is no freedom of the press in Cuba, very few opportunities in which to offer a dissenting opinion without persecution, and their legal system is an utter joke. Pinochet was a fairy by comparison.

Denerick

wes wrote: »

Well the Soviet Union is gone now. So why bother with these weapons now? Everyone should get rid of them. No point in risking things by having such dangerous weapons lieing around.

As others have said, disarmamant won't solve anything. Bad people can still make Nukes and very little can be done to stop them. Iran, for example, will definately have a Nuke unless there is military intervention to stop them.

If America and Russia got rid of their Nukes tomorrow, the only people celebrating would be the tinpot dictators who still have them and who would be able to hold the civilised world to ransom.

wes

Denerick wrote: »

As others have said, disarmamant won't solve anything. Bad people can still make Nukes and very little can be done to stop them. Iran, for example, will definately have a Nuke unless there is military intervention to stop them.

There is still no evidence that they even have a active nuclear weapons program, as it stands. Also, if they are trying to get such weapons, they are probably motivated to get them, due to US threats against them.

Denerick wrote: »

If America and Russia got rid of their Nukes tomorrow, the only people celebrating would be the tinpot dictators who still have them and who would be able to hold the civilised world to ransom.

My entire point was that everyone gets rid of them. A lot of people are motivated to get these weapons in the first place, due to the other guy having them. The USSR got them as the West had them. Pakistan due to India etc.

Denerick

You are correct that even possessing Nuclear weapons creates a domino effect whereby adjacent States seek them as a Nuclear deterrant. Needless to say, the less Nukes and the fewer countries who have them the better.

But unilateral disarmament is crazy. What is to stop an angry mullah in a cave somewhere in the middle of nowhere getting his hands on a 'leftover' of the cold war era? He could literally hold the world to ransom.

And you try reasoning to Kim Yong Il about internationalist humanitarianism.

The CND had its place, but it was hopelessly naive. We have to face up to the fact that there are a lot of utter bastards in the world, rather than hoping and praying that everyone would hold hands together as they march in unison into the sunset.

alastair

The_Minister wrote: »

They are the only reason that we live in such peaceful times, the only reason that there is not a war in Europe for the first time in over 1000 years.

The North Caucasus are still in Europe, and there have been over twenty fully fledged european wars since nuclear weapons were introduced into the equation. In fact the record of nuclear proliferation to active wars doesn't indicate any positive relationship:

Denerick

alastair wrote: »

The North Caucasus are still in Europe, and there have been over twenty fully fledged european wars since nuclear weapons were introduced into the equation. In fact the record of nuclear proliferation to active wars doesn't indicate any positive relationship:

Notice the relative absence of interstate warfare. can you guess why?

Societal warefare is a ridiculously vague term. Under that kind of arbitrary distinction, the Northern Troubles could be classes a societal war. There is a difference between low intensity rebellions and massive national conflict... And Europe has not experienced such mass bloodletting since the end of WWII (With the exception of the Yugoslav wars, of course)

fontanalis

Denerick wrote: »

Some are, most are peaceful dissidents who want a better life for them and their families.

There is no freedom of the press in Cuba, very few opportunities in which to offer a dissenting opinion without persecution, and their legal system is an utter joke. Pinochet was a fairy by comparison.

There's no point trying to argue with followers of the cult of castro.

wes

Denerick wrote: »

You are correct that even possessing Nuclear weapons creates a domino effect whereby adjacent States seek them as a Nuclear deterrant. Needless to say, the less Nukes and the fewer countries who have them the better.

But unilateral disarmament is crazy. What is to stop an angry mullah in a cave somewhere in the middle of nowhere getting his hands on a 'leftover' of the cold war era? He could literally hold the world to ransom.

And you try reasoning to Kim Yong Il about internationalist humanitarianism.

The CND had its place, but it was hopelessly naive. We have to face up to the fact that there are a lot of utter bastards in the world, rather than hoping and praying that everyone would hold hands together as they march in unison into the sunset.

The current situation of only a few state having Nuclear weapons is unsustainable. Sooner or later, everyone will get them, as the other guy has them.

Also, if all weapons are gotten rid of, it means there is little or no chance, some nutter will happen upon one, but with more weapons around, this becomes more likely.

BlaasForRafa

alastair wrote: »

The North Caucasus are still in Europe, and there have been over twenty fully fledged european wars since nuclear weapons were introduced into the equation. In fact the record of nuclear proliferation to active wars doesn't indicate any positive relationship:

Your graph actually proves the point for nuclear weapons rather than disproves it. There have been no World Wars since and the instance of inter-state warfare has gone down.

What has gone up is civil wars (many linked to the breakup of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia and decolonisation in Africa) and proxy wars fought by the major powers ie the Vietnam war, Yom Kippur war etc.

Denerick

wes wrote: »

The current situation of only a few state having Nuclear weapons is unsustainable. Sooner or later, everyone will get them, as the other guy has them.

Also, if all weapons are gotten rid of, it means there is little or no chance, some nutter will happen upon one, but with more weapons around, this becomes more likely.

What if some nutter is running a State?

Actually the current system works rather well. Its the main reason why countries like Brazil and South Africa never bothered developing a Nuke. I fail to see what can be gained from disarmament. Nations can develop nukes at any time they feel a need to - whats more, they can do so in secret. Then all they have to do is turn up at the UN and say, AHAH! I HAVE A NUKE! GIVE MY COUNTRY 50 TRILLION DOLLARS OR I WILL KILL EVERYBODY!

Or something to that effect.

BluePlanet

Denerick wrote: »

You are correct that even possessing Nuclear weapons creates a domino effect whereby adjacent States seek them as a Nuclear deterrant. Needless to say, the less Nukes and the fewer countries who have them the better.

Better for whom?
Those that have them surely, certainly not those that they are aimed at.
I doubt you would feel any safer if every country bar NK disposed of their arsenel?
There would be less nukes and fewer countries having them...

The USA and other western powers should lead by example and destroy their nukes with no strings attached. They would automatically have the moral highground and would be slightly less hypocritical in their dealings with the others.

Denerick

BluePlanet wrote: »

Better for whom?
Those that have them surely, certainly not those that they are aimed at.
I doubt you would feel any safer if every country bar NK disposed of their arsenel?
There would be less nukes and fewer countries having them...

The USA and other western powers should lead by example and destroy their nukes with no strings attached. They would automatically have the moral highground and would be slightly less hypocritical in their dealings with the others.

To do this would deny the basic urges of human nature, as well as lead to a petty tyrant having the ability to hold the civilised world to ransom. I really don't think you've thought this through...

Run_to_da_hills

Denerick wrote: »

What if some nutter is running a State?

Like so.

One couldn't get worse nutters than those that currently control the state of Israel and worse too are those that are in bed with them. :rolleyes:

BluePlanet

Denerick wrote: »

To do this would deny the basic urges of human nature, as well as lead to a petty tyrant having the ability to hold the civilised world to ransom. I really don't think you've thought this through...

Sorry but i believe the threat of a nuclear holocaust or WWIII is soo 1950.
The major military powers of the west (chiefly the USA) have no practical use for such weapons in this day and age.

Can you tell us all what you mean when you say "hold the civilised world to ransom."?
How do you envision such a prospect to occur, and to what end?
It's phraseology that sounds like some sort of soundbite tbh.

Denerick

BluePlanet wrote: »

Sorry but i believe the threat of a nuclear holocaust or WWIII is soo 1950.
The major military powers of the west (chiefly the USA) have no practical use for such weapons in this day and age.

Their detterance value is reason enough. Their very existance makes the possibility of a conventional war involving either the USA, Russia, China, France, Britain, Israel, Pakistan, India or North Korea impossible. The only viable way any of these countries could go to war with each other would be Nuclear armageddon. And by that stage you'll probably wish you were dead anyway.

BluePlanet

Denerick wrote: »

Their detterance value is reason enough. Their very existance makes the possibility of a conventional war involving either the USA, Russia, China, France, Britain, Israel, Pakistan, India or North Korea impossible. The only viable way any of these countries could go to war with each other would be Nuclear armageddon. And by that stage you'll probably wish you were dead anyway.

Oh, well if that's the case then aren't we all better off if everyone has them?
Wouldn't it therefore deter all conventional war with the threat of nuclear armageddon?

I observe some of those nuclear powers prosecuting wars atm are conveniently doing so against non-nuclear powers.
Not very sporting is it?

Surely those non-nuclear powers have a duty and a right to become nuclear powers too.

Denerick

BluePlanet wrote: »

Oh, well if that's the case then aren't we all better off if everyone has them?
Wouldn't it therefore deter all conventional war with the threat of nuclear armageddon?

I observe some of those nuclear powers prosecuting wars atm are conveniently doing so against non-nuclear powers.
Not very sporting is it?

Surely those non-nuclear powers have a duty and a right to become nuclear powers too.

Of course not, but there is a decent case to be made for gigantic countries with gigantic armies to have Nukes, so as to avoid the possibility of two gigantic armies facing each other in battle. I'd much rather that Pakistan and India postured for a couple of decades rather than sending millions of cruise missiles either side of the border every time a diplomat accidentally calls the other side a silly name.

simplistic2

The_Minister wrote: »

They are the only reason that we live in such peaceful times, the only reason that there is not a war in Europe for the first time in over 1000 years.

Yeah your right its a massive game that has ended in stalemate. It is simply too risky for anybody to attack anybody with nukes.

BluePlanet

Denerick wrote: »

Of course not, but there is a decent case to be made for gigantic countries with gigantic armies to have Nukes, so as to avoid the possibility of two gigantic armies facing each other in battle. I'd much rather that Pakistan and India postured for a couple of decades rather than sending millions of cruise missiles either side of the border every time a diplomat accidentally calls the other side a silly name.

I suppose i don't consider India and Pakistan to be among those "gigantic countries."

Rather it sounds a bit like you are making my point that if everybody has nukes we wouldn't have war.
If India and Pakistan can find mutual restraint only after they acquired nukes, then why not also X and Y?

BlaasForRafa

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Like so.

One couldn't get worse nutters than those that currently control the state of Israel and worse too are those that are in bed with them. :rolleyes:

Thats just an incredibly retarded statement to make. Actually scratch that....its a phenomenally retarded statement to make.

Denerick

BluePlanet wrote: »

I suppose i don't consider India and Pakistan to be among those "gigantic countries."

Rather it sounds a bit like you are making my point that if everybody has nukes we wouldn't have war.
If India and Pakistan can find mutual restraint only after they acquired nukes, then why not also X and Y?

While I would never say 'Nukes for everybody' in public, I do believe they are more of a necessary evil than an absolute evil that should be ridden from the world.

My biggest problem is what happens when everybody disarms, and some little upstart from some country ending with 'Stan' or 'avia' holds the rest of the world to ransom from his/her secret little supply of Nukes?

Also add in the fact that the likes of America would simply never ever forego their arsenal. Even if everyone in the world disarmed, they'd still keep a secret supply in a desert basement somewhere.

Have you never seen 'Dr. Strangelove'? The whole point of having a doomsday device is so everybody knows you have it!

invinciblePRSTV

Denerick wrote: »

While I would never say 'Nukes for everybody' in public, I do believe they are more of a necessary evil than an absolute evil that should be ridden from the world.

My biggest problem is what happens when everybody disarms, and some little upstart from some country ending with 'Stan' or 'avia' holds the rest of the world to ransom from his/her secret little supply of Nukes?

Also add in the fact that the likes of America would simply never ever forego their arsenal. Even if everyone in the world disarmed, they'd still keep a secret supply in a desert basement somewhere.

Have you never seen 'Dr. Strangelove'? The whole point of having a doomsday device is so everybody knows you have it!

If you consider nuclear weapons a necessary evil then would you have no objections if the USA or another Nuclear power had requested the Irish Government to allow a nuclear weapons facilities, like those in Greenham Common, in Ireland during the height of the Cold War?

BluePlanet

Denerick wrote: »

While I would never say 'Nukes for everybody' in public, I do believe they are more of a necessary evil than an absolute evil that should be ridden from the world.

My biggest problem is what happens when everybody disarms, and some little upstart from some country ending with 'Stan' or 'avia' holds the rest of the world to ransom from his/her secret little supply of Nukes?

You probably didn't see this earlier, it was a late edit so i'm posting it again:

---

Can you tell us all what you mean when you say "hold the civilised world to ransom."?
How do you envision such a prospect to occur, and to what end?
It's phraseology that sounds like some sort of soundbite tbh.

---

And i'll add: has that occured already since our world has only a limited number of countries with nuclear arms?
If it has occured, can you cite an example.
If it hasn't occured, why not?

Denerick

BluePlanet wrote: »

You probably didn't see this earlier, it was a late edit so i'm posting it again:

---

Can you tell us all what you mean when you say "hold the civilised world to ransom."?
How do you envision such a prospect to occur, and to what end?
It's phraseology that sounds like some sort of soundbite tbh.

---

And i'll add: has that occured already since our world has only a limited number of countries with nuclear arms?
If it has occured, can you cite an example.
If it hasn't occured, why not?

Its rather simple. When one country has nukes and everybody else does not, they can pretty much do what they want on the international stage. Its basic geopolitics.

North Korea gets away with so much **** solely because it has nukes.

BlaasForRafa

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

If you consider nuclear weapons a necessary evil then would you have no objections if the USA or another Nuclear power had requested the Irish Government to allow a nuclear weapons facilities, like those in Greenham Common, in Ireland during the height of the Cold War?

I wouldn't have had any objections, despite the Ronnie Reagan administration not being my particular cup of tea, the ramping up of the arms race did help to lead to the downfall of the communist leadership of the Soviet Union.

Also several hundred megatons would have landed on the UK/Northern Ireland in the event of a large scale nuclear exchange so we would have been screwed whether we were on Natos side or not.

BluePlanet

Denerick wrote: »

Its rather simple. When one country has nukes and everybody else does not, they can pretty much do what they want on the international stage. Its basic geopolitics.

North Korea gets away with so much **** solely because it has nukes.

No actually it's not as simple as you make it.
For example one country can create alliances with others, so if they get attacked or threatend, they can call upon their allies.

NK, SK and USA have been agitating one another for a long time.
NK having nukes has not changed much tbh.
Although like you alluded earlier, maybe it's made conventional war on the Korean pen less likely. So i guess that's a plus.

Run_to_da_hills

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Thats just an incredibly retarded statement to make. Actually scratch that....its a phenomenally retarded statement to make.

Sorry, I ommitted the rogue state of israel in that last statement.

Least we forget, Lebanon 2006, Gaza 2009 to present and of course May 30 2010.

FlutterinBantam

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Its not often that we hear from this man however I would agree that what he has come out with should not be taken lightly along with the fact that Israel and the US are currently posturing around the Persian Gulf with large armadas as if ready to launch an attack.

In a nutshell Castro is warning the West (Israel and the US) not to under estimate the power of Iran and it allies and the subsequent backlash of an attack from India and Pakistan.

He also emphasized that India, Pakistan and Israel are the three nuclear powers who have refused to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

I have touched on this subject in the Military forum however I think it should be brought up in politics as I believe that the Government should now seriously review on its preparation for this country in the case of an nuclear attack that could effect Irish citizens at home or abroad.

How is our national supply of potassium Iodate?, I believe it was last reviewed and distributed back in 2002. This of course would not account for new household members, immigrants, lost and discarded supplies etc.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/13/fidel-castro-on-cuban-tv-middle-east-iran-us

I'd say Israel and the US are quaking in their boots:rolleyes:


As general Alexander Haig said when asked by the President, when he was half asleep at a conference" Well what are we going to do about Cuba?"

Haig said"Uuhh ..jus gimme the word boss ...an I'll turn it into a carpark"

BlaasForRafa

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Sorry, I ommitted the rogue state of israel in that last statement.

Least we forget, Lebanon 2006, Gaza 2009 to present and of course May 30 2010.

And how many nuclear weapons did Israel use in those conflicts eh?

WakeUp

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

What ships do Israel have in and around the Persian Gulf?

Also the americans have no more ships around the gulf than they normally have had since the war in Iraq started.

The US have 3 carrier strike groups and there accompanying attack, supply ships/ subs in waters close to Iran.-link / 2


USS Harry S. Truman
USS Dwight D. Eisenhower
USS Nassau








They also have 10 Aegis class missile destroyers. One of these belongs to Israel.






Sarkozy is sending the French carrier Charles De Gaulle to the region by the end of the year.-link






Israel has permanently deployed at least one Dolphin class sub with nuclear weapons aboard in the Persian Gulf.-link

Run_to_da_hills

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

And how many nuclear weapons did Israel use in those conflicts eh?

Did the Nazis use nukes in any of their conflicts?