Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

Are you sure you want to legalise pre-emptive strikes?

by Colman Tue Apr 4th, 2006 at 09:46:01 AM EST

I saw this story earlier and tried to write something about it but was reduced immediately to ineffective frothing rage. Let's just quote Simon Tisdall on the Guardian's commentisfree:

Iran's leadership would be legally justified in launching pre-emptive military action against the United States to defend itself against an imminent US attack on its nuclear facilties.

Confidential advice proffered in an internal Tehran justice ministry memo? The rantings of a crazy Islamist blogger? No in both cases. The suggestion came in a speech by John Reid, the British defence secretary, delivered in London on Monday.

Mr Reid made no specific mention of Iran, of course. He was talking about the future defence of Britain and its allies against attack by "barbaric" terrorists using weapons of mass destruction. The defence secretary suggested that international law and the rules of war, mostly agreed in the mid-20th century, were out of date and needed to be reviewed. A reasonable concern, no doubt.

But Mr Reid appeared to fail to appreciate that "international" law, by definition, is universally applicable and supplies protections and redress for all - and not for just the self-styled "good guys". And this is where he got into difficulty.

"Another specific area of international law we perhaps need to think more about is whether the concept of imminence - that is to say, the circumstances when a state can act in self-defence without waiting for an attack - is sufficiently well-developed to take account of the new threats faced," Mr Reid said.

Reid, who heads the UK Minipax, commented that September 11th, 2001 changed everything.

Display:
Are you sure you want to legalise pre-emptive strikes? | 33 comments (33 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)
Re: Are you sure you want to legalise (4.00 / 2)
I'm beginning to really hate Blair and his little crowd of authoritarians.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Tue Apr 4th, 2006 at 09:48:32 AM EST
Re: Are you sure you want to legalise (4.00 / 3)
John Reid is always wheeled out when the Govt has something utterly indefensible to say. I've been telling friends for months that when John reid speaks the Government is knowingly telling lies. the only problem being that nowadays they all do it.

Like the wingnut right in america, they talk the talk about being strong because basically they're bullies who got scared.

We adhered to the Geneva convention, even when threatend with nazi occupation. We remained civilised. But a handful of lunatics score a few spectacular successes and suddenly this disappointment of politicians (if disappointment can serve as a collective noun in this context) believe that our very civilisation is threatened.

Much as we seem to be accepting about the Bush administration, it is almost like they are using the fear they are constantly hyping up as a cover for a much darker agenda.

They are too knowingly authoritarian, too creepily determined to remove our civil liberties, rights and privileges that we have enjoyed. Piece by piece, slice by slice. If it was accidental it would be haphazard in effect, but this is too concerted, too effective to be anything other than deliberate.

Godz, pass me a tin-foil hat, I've gone over to the dark side and started belieivng

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Tue Apr 4th, 2006 at 11:10:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Are you sure you want to legalise (none / 1)
I don't think 'Is there a masterplan?' is a bad question.

There's a concerted attack on privacy in the UK with established phone, email and web traffic surveillance, plans for surveillance of car journeys, plans for ID cards and existing use of mobile signals for position monitoring. (This is already used in some criminal cases.)

There's also a concerted attack on long established ideas about civilised behaviour, with the acceptance of torture in questioning, the effective abolition of habeas corpus on the say-so of police and politicians, and now military pre-emption.

Sinister? Well, yes - after two and half world wars and more than a century of IRA terrorism without these measures, is there anything about them that isn't sinister?

And while we're here - what does military pre-emption have to do with terrorism? Launching a missile or two on alleged terrorist camps is a long way from pre-emptively declaring war on a nation state. Legally and ethically, what does one have to do with the other?

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Tue Apr 4th, 2006 at 11:35:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Are you sure you want to legalise (4.00 / 2)
'Legal'? 'Ethical'? I don't understand these words. What do they mean? They sound sort of archaic. Are they pre-9/11speak?
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Tue Apr 4th, 2006 at 11:40:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Are you sure you want to legalise (4.00 / 3)
That's easy for you to say. I'm writing this stuff while trying to load and animate a 3D model of an octopus.

There wasn't really any point to this comment, but I thought I might as well let people know, just because.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Tue Apr 4th, 2006 at 12:17:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Are you sure you want to legalise (none / 0)
I thought the octopus was to illustrate a diary on the tentacles of the Blair total information state.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Apr 4th, 2006 at 12:19:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Concerted attack (none / 0)
I don't think there is any evil master plan, just the tendency of these in power to try to have more "control" over things, more technology that makes it possible, and a great excuse to go for it thanks to 9/11.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Tue Apr 4th, 2006 at 01:04:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Are you sure you want to legalise (none / 0)
I had to laugh. If there is one politician who drives my mother into a frothing rage it is John Reid. She's not particularly lefty either, but she's always has said that he "simply tells lies. Everything he says is a lie."

I hate to add to the tinfoil tone, but it really feels like "Power of Nightmares" had it right at heart.

by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Tue Apr 4th, 2006 at 03:58:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]
legalise pre-emptive strikes???? (none / 0)
Well, great.

I read in a little paper on the way to work this morning, that Iran has developed a super high speed torpedo...I would be worried for any Navy's who had ships in the Persian Gulf. What a mess...I can only hope that cooler heads (but where?) prevail...

"Once in awhile we get shown the light, in the strangest of places, if we look at it right" - Hunter/Garcia

by whataboutbob on Tue Apr 4th, 2006 at 10:01:33 AM EST
Re: legalise pre-emptive strikes???? (none / 0)
We hypothesised in the latest gnomem00t that the torpedo may actually have been purchased from Russia. At the speeds they claim it must be supercavitating and the Russians are world leaders in that technology.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Apr 4th, 2006 at 10:06:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: legalise pre-emptive strikes???? (none / 0)
The probability to see russians selling this "jewel" is quite low and the probability of Iranian mastering this technology is nil (neither US or Europeans have build it successfully)

it looks propaganda, dont you think so ?

by fredouil (fredouil@gmailgmailgmail.com) on Tue Apr 4th, 2006 at 10:43:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: legalise pre-emptive strikes???? (none / 0)
Your first contention is questionable - why do you think the Russians wouldn't sell it? The second also: Iranian engineers can be pretty good and might have better contacts with the Russians involved in the project.

It could be propaganda, it could be real.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Tue Apr 4th, 2006 at 10:55:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: legalise pre-emptive strikes???? (none / 0)
Iran was on good terms with the Soviet Union, and let's not forget that Russia was recently involved in talks with Iran on the uranium enrichment issue. Iran clearly considers Russia an hones broker, and Russia considers Iran relatively reliable. Plus, someone suggested the possibility that Russia is trying to get the US to overreach on Iran. A dangerous game, but not a preposterous idea.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Apr 4th, 2006 at 10:58:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: legalise pre-emptive strikes???? (4.00 / 2)
What I'm getting from military cicles in Russia, at the moment sale of this specific technology to anywhere is considered a no-go for strategic reasons. Getting it through spying may be hard as Russia's security services are busy fending US attempts to get access to it (see Edmond Pope).

Sale of the actual torpedos given the current relationships between Russia and other countries is highly unlikely to any Western country or Western client, unlikely to China due to possible reverse engineering and tehnology transfer and may be possible only to India.

by blackhawk on Tue Apr 4th, 2006 at 11:15:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: legalise pre-emptive strikes???? (none / 0)
The Iranians could be out-and-out lying but that seems unusual for something like this. These trials are normally arranged in order to tout a deterrent in a public way and I'd have thought that they'd do it in a way verifiable by the rest of the world.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Tue Apr 4th, 2006 at 11:28:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: legalise pre-emptive strikes???? (4.00 / 2)
Today there were two few announcements from Iran: indigenously developed anti-ship missiles, shoulder-lanched SAMs and ekranoplans (WIG).

When I hear ekranoplans, I imagine something like Lun (beautiful machines), but reality may be something like Iran's indigenously developed submarines:

by blackhawk on Tue Apr 4th, 2006 at 11:44:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: legalise pre-emptive strikes???? (none / 0)
That's not the way the US conducted its 2001 tests of the Missile Defence Shield...

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Apr 4th, 2006 at 11:45:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: legalise pre-emptive strikes???? (none / 0)
True. But they failed miserably, didn't they? Or were they the ones that killed a target that was broadcasting its location?
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Tue Apr 4th, 2006 at 11:54:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: legalise pre-emptive strikes???? (none / 0)
Yes, they failed, and then they rigged the tests, and then they decided to proceed without tests.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Apr 4th, 2006 at 12:09:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: legalise pre-emptive strikes???? (none / 1)
Believe nothing in the popular press about weapons system development and especially nothing about the success and failures of tests of such systems.  Part of any modern security cover plan is a dis-information/propaganda campaign to confuse and mis-direct.  This is done partially to Cover Their Asses when things go wrong and partially to keep success quiet.

She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre
by ATinNM on Tue Apr 4th, 2006 at 12:42:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: legalise pre-emptive strikes???? (4.00 / 2)
Russia had a secret agreement with US not to sell arms to Iran. As US did not keep to its end of the bargain, recently Russia started sales of the arms to Iran. However, I doubt there will be any technology transfer and the only announced sale was of Tor short-range air-defence system (pretty useless without something long range, like S-300 or S-400).

Most likely source of Shkval-like torpedo is China, which got few dozen from Khazakhstan in mid 90th and was busy developing (or reverse-engineering) simular munitions.

by blackhawk on Tue Apr 4th, 2006 at 10:56:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: legalise pre-emptive strikes???? (none / 0)
China is possible as well, or independent Iranian spying on Russia.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Tue Apr 4th, 2006 at 11:01:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: legalise pre-emptive strikes???? (none / 1)
i do not believe in spying or contacts with engineers, this kind of project should be highly sensitive and russians are well known to take "secret-defense" quite seriously.

If really they sold that kind of weapons than even US didnt implement and are resourceless before it, they will have some hard times to explain that to Bush and co.

i dont believe it, 99% propaganda is my bet.

whatever, they dont need some high tech weapons to close hormuz.

by fredouil (fredouil@gmailgmailgmail.com) on Tue Apr 4th, 2006 at 11:26:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: legalise pre-emptive strikes???? (none / 0)
They may not care what Bush and co think if it's an attempt to forestall action against Iran.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Tue Apr 4th, 2006 at 11:30:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: legalise pre-emptive strikes???? (4.00 / 2)
they dont need some high tech weapons to close hormuz

And there it is.  The Iranians have been buying Silkworm anti-shipping weapons from the Chinese for a long time now or they can plant explosives on a couple of their own ships.  Sink a couple of ships in the shipping channel and that's it.

She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre

by ATinNM on Tue Apr 4th, 2006 at 12:47:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]
video of this "torpedo" (none / 1)
Video of the torpedo

looks real or at least it looks like an underwater rocket, a torpedo do more than go strait, must have an active electronic and steer, and that must be quite challenging under cavitation.

by fredouil (fredouil@gmailgmailgmail.com) on Wed Apr 5th, 2006 at 12:51:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: video of this "torpedo" (none / 0)
May not matter so much for a short-range attack on a big target where you're not too concerned about escaping - if a sub popped up a few km away and fired a couple of these at an aircraft carrier they might have a chance of doing some substantial damage and escaping. Assuming they had a couple of these to fire, of course! I suspect the supply might be limited.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Apr 5th, 2006 at 04:38:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: video of this "torpedo" (none / 0)
Original Shkval is not guided, short-range and follows pre-programmed at the launch path. Moreover, it's a specialized weapon for few specific conditions, namely close attack on a carrier group and last-chance close self-defence for a sub in the launch position.

At least for USSR Navy such weapon only made sense with a tactical nuclear warhead.

by blackhawk on Wed Apr 5th, 2006 at 11:01:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: video of this "torpedo" (none / 0)
namely close attack on a carrier group

Well, yes. That's the point.

Why does it need a tactical nuke?

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Apr 5th, 2006 at 11:13:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: video of this "torpedo" (none / 0)
All Iran would want is to sink or disable a carrier.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Apr 5th, 2006 at 11:16:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: video of this "torpedo" (none / 0)
A point that occurred to me recently: if Iran sunk a carrier with nuclear weapons on board  - which I assume might very well be the case - would there be any confusion about the sort of weapon used in the attack on the carrier from the debris?
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Apr 5th, 2006 at 11:18:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: video of this "torpedo" (none / 0)
There would only be ambiguity (and debris) if Iran blew the carrier to bits. Which will not be the case with a conventional warhead.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Apr 5th, 2006 at 11:30:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: video of this "torpedo" (none / 0)
200kg of conventional payload is not enough to sink a sub, a carrier, or a group. Original intended use is situation where the mission is to perform a lanch, not to play cat and mouse games with a fleet or ships which can be nearby.
by blackhawk on Wed Apr 5th, 2006 at 11:42:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Are you sure you want to legalise pre-emptive strikes? | 33 comments (33 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]