PDA

View Full Version : Bunker Busters shipped to Diego Garcia



Pages : [1] 2

Wayfarer
18 Mar 10,, 02:41
YouTube - Is the US going to attack Iran? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hbde7A3htQ&feature=sub)

Havent been able to watch this video, due to the lack of headphones.


Bunker Busters Shipped to Diego Garcia: Imminent Attack or Strategic Move? | The Seminal (http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/35620)

Like the article states, imminent "surgical strikes" or purely precaution.

Thoughts.

cr9527
18 Mar 10,, 04:30
to sum it up, not to any surprise:

USA bad, US military bad, US military terrorizes poor Iraqis, US military uses horrific weapons, US cannot possibly handle a third "war", US blah blah blah, blah blah evil, blah blah lies, blah blah....

also, since when are Bunker Busters Horrific weapons comparable to that of WMDs? :confused:

Stitch
18 Mar 10,, 05:27
I'm guessing precaution. Besides, those aren't true "bunker busters", like the GBU-28, just Mk. 83's & Mk. 84's with hardened casings & GPS kits.

zraver
18 Mar 10,, 06:04
I'm guessing precaution. Besides, those aren't true "bunker busters", like the GBU-28, just Mk. 83's & Mk. 84's with hardened casings & GPS kits.

It does mean that B-2's can fly from CONUS, bomb divert to DG and rearm and stage from there.

Although they are not deep penetrators are are better suited for hitting command posts.

We also have 3 carriers in the area (2 more at sea), 32of our sub force is underway and 5 amphibs.

The US Navy (http://www.navy.mil/navydata/navy_legacy_hr.asp?id=146)

Also it looks like 2 of the Ohio class SSGN's could be on deployment or ready to sail.

If I am right

the US could start the dance with 20 B-2's, 3 carrier groups, and 2 Ohio SSGN's. That works out to about 750 cruise missiles, and 200 or so combat aircraft. No where near ideal, but a credible threat to Iran's coast. And the coast is where the real battles will be. Break Iran's ability to blockade and she loses.

chakos
18 Mar 10,, 10:29
How is a bunker buster a 'horrific weapon' for use against the people of Iran?

I wouldn't have thought the a weapon with ability to surgically strike underground point targets would be fairly useless against population centers.

Cluster munitions on the other hand...:))

Parihaka
18 Mar 10,, 11:52
Excuse my ignorance but 5 CSG's is rather a lot to all be at sea at once isn't it?

astralis
18 Mar 10,, 14:48
pari,


Excuse my ignorance but 5 CSG's is rather a lot to all be at sea at once isn't it?

USN practices relatively rapid "surges" of 6+ CSGs.

zraver
18 Mar 10,, 14:58
Excuse my ignorance but 5 CSG's is rather a lot to all be at sea at once isn't it?

Not really, there should be 2-3 carriers in each stage- on the way to station/ working up, on station/patrol, on the way home from station, in port. Depending on where each carrier is in its deployment and how long those deployments are,you could have 8-9 carriers at sea at any one time.

However, when you combine the shipments of arms with increased ABM assets in the Persian Gulf region it looks like the US is quietly preparing for war.

U.S. Increases Missile Defense In Persian Gulf, As It Imposes Sanctions Against Iran - cbs2.com (http://cbs2.com/national/us.defense.persian.2.1460202.html)

But is it all a bluff? We are heading towards longer and longer days which isn't necessarily a good thing for us since we own the night. Unless of course we want longer days to make Iranian mining efforts harder to do under the cover of darkness.

We might also be racing the Russian's and the shipment of S-300 SAM's to Iran.

'Russia guarantees delivery of S-300 system to Iran' (http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=117889&sectionid=351020101)

As Alice said, things just keep getting curiouser and curiouser......

Dreadnought
18 Mar 10,, 17:52
*Look at it this way, its a political checkmate. If the US wanted to start something then you wouldn't be reading about these weapons being shipped to their location. They would have already been there without the press or anyone else knowing. The dont advertise this unless they want too. Apparently, Mr Obama wants the Iranian regime to know that time is running short and so is patience. But notice also he has not made any statements and neither have the Israeli's. If Russia is going to arm Iran with the S-300 or even S-400 then its only fitting.

Those kinds of sanctions (ordinance) dont get voted on by China or Russia.:P

zraver
18 Mar 10,, 17:55
Russia has been stalling on S-300 deliveries for years. Russia may be worried the S-300 may not live up to its reputation.

Dreadnought
18 Mar 10,, 18:05
Russia has been stalling on S-300 deliveries for years. Russia may be worried the S-300 may not live up to its reputation.

IMO, The altitude the newest wave of bunker busters or Blu's can be dropped from would pretty much render the sytem usless anyway if we chose not to blind them first.;)

I say a trade off, if Iran continues its course and Russia arms them with the S series SAM'S, then why not a trade, we give the Israeli's the bunker busters, let them take out Iran like they did Syria's reactor in return they send the Mossad after Bin Laden's little group and produce the dessert rats or their bodies, whichever dont bother me in the least.

A win/win result.;)

And just think, no technicalities like passports!:))

Bluesman
18 Mar 10,, 18:45
If the US wanted to start something then you wouldn't be reading about these weapons being shipped to their location. They would have already been there without the press or anyone else knowing. The dont advertise this unless they want too.

That's the first thing I thought, too. We do not EVER announce what ammo exists where, or any other military capability, unless that very info is being used as the 'weapon'.

We know about this because we're supposed to.

And frankly, it was a very bad play. The weapon we've chosen - BLUSTER - is a weak one, when the enemy knows that when it comes right down to it, you lack the will to carry out the threat.

Because if it's a bluff, and I suspect that it is, and I suspect the Iranians also suspect that it's a bluff, it's likely to be called. And that leaves us two bad choices, and we put ourselves in this spot. My prediction: the saber has been rattled, and the Iranians, having taken the measure of this 'man', are not much impressed, and utterly ignore us, or possibly even beard us, provoke us, taunt us, and STILL nothing happens to 'em...

I've been right about this for five years. I predicted this is where we'd end up. I just didn't think we'd be this feckless and beclown ourselves this badly along the way.

This idiot can't play this game in the Big Leagues. He's over-matched.

As I've said since long before his election.

Stitch
18 Mar 10,, 19:09
pari,



USN practices relatively rapid "surges" of 6+ CSGs.

And the Fleet Response Plan states that six of these groups need to be deployed, or ready for deployment within 30 days at any given time, while two additional CSG's must be ready for deployment within 90 days.

S2
18 Mar 10,, 19:24
"I've been right about this for five years. I predicted this is where we'd end up."

Where'd we end up? Staring at an Iran five years further to an objective we can trace back to 1983 and crystalline by 2003? Let's be plain-the Turkish prime minister can look the world in the face the other day and declare that he's comfortable that the Iranian nuclear program has nothing but peaceful intent.

He's an idiot or a duplicitous gambler who cares not about their enrichment capability, development of triggers and delivery systems. America needs to understand that NOBODY will thank us afterward should we take these pricks down. NOBODY. Not Turkey, Iraq, KSA, Pakistan, PRC, Russia, western Europe, Venezuela or the rest of S. America.

The world will, btw, demand that the Powell doctrine be invoked as well-"You broke it. You fix it."

I hope that we quit pissing around, take these miserable fcuks down, and tell the rest of the world that if they need Iran's energy then they can feel free to put Humpty-Dumpty back together again. We've the means to ELIMINATE this problem for the forseeable future and do so within 2-4 months of sustained bombardment time.

And what a mess it'll be when finished and done right. We'll be, btw, just fine. Iran will understand if it ever gets back on its feet that we'll knock the living sh!t out of them if they presume to attempt the same again. So too others.

This interminable dance has proved that our diplomats have the ear of NOBODY and time has come to stop waltzing in la-la land. Sanctions are B.S. and everybody and anybody know it. The leaks will be endless and the time bought by Iran to achieve null effect by us an exercise in blatant stupidity.

A year from now will prove too late. It's about time to go but it won't happen and it long since should.

Dreadnought
18 Mar 10,, 19:27
IMO, The guy is an idiot. He has nothing but his own anti war rant as a basis, no concrete facts and the facts he does speak of are absolutely wrong and have been proven time and time again. And here I thought they were going to interview someone intelligent with insight and not an idiot with his own version of the facts and anti war slant. My fault I guess.:rolleyes:

S2
18 Mar 10,, 19:43
"IMO, The guy is an idiot."

There's a long list of idiots. To which idiot on this issue are you referring?

bigross86
18 Mar 10,, 20:09
I'm fairly certain he was referring to Obama, but any idiot will do.

S2
18 Mar 10,, 20:18
"I'm fairly certain he was referring to Obama, but any idiot will do."

Iran will gain a nuclear weapon capability on his watch or he'll pull the trigger. It's as simple as that and we're at eighteen months or less to one or the other.

Ararat
18 Mar 10,, 20:32
MOP Bunker Buster Bomb. :eek:

http://img294.imageshack.us/img294/6742/threadpicmop.jpg

Flickr Photo Download: B-52 releases the Massive Ordnance Penetrator during a weapons test. (http://www.flickr.com/photos/dod_dtra/4327700817/sizes/o/)

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/ORD_MOP_Mockup_and_Team_lg.jpg

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...nd_Team_lg.jpg

Dreadnought
18 Mar 10,, 20:34
"IMO, The guy is an idiot."

There's a long list of idiots. To which idiot on this issue are you referring?

*The one they interview on youtube (link above) and he gives his version of the US war on terror and why it wont go after Iran. Judging by some of the things he states IMO he should stay out of the think tank and no doubt the gene pool as well.:))

Dreadnought
18 Mar 10,, 20:36
Look at that sucker!:eek::))

S2
18 Mar 10,, 20:48
"The one they interview on youtube..."

Thanks. Yeah, worthless contribution to the knowledge base which makes him a perfect contributor to RT.

cape_royds
19 Mar 10,, 03:34
You do realize, of course, that there's nothing in the NPT that forbids a signatory nation from enriching uranium, or breeding plutonium?

Bluesman
19 Mar 10,, 03:47
Ah. Nothing at all to worry about, then. The Holy Treaty remains inviolate, and thats what really counts.

Dreadnought
19 Mar 10,, 14:03
You do realize, of course, that there's nothing in the NPT that forbids a signatory nation from enriching uranium, or breeding plutonium?

Iran states its for medical Isotopes so your looking at a very low enrichment scale such as up to 15-20%, next they state they will enrich up to 80% if they dont get their way. Thats weapons grade enrichment for a nuke. If they have stated this before, then how can the world believe other then they have other plans given their fine track record of interacting with the rest of the world and the way the regime treats its people. Either be transparent as the NPT states or it will be made transparent with a rather large hole in it. Enough with the fifth grade rhetoric and the foot dragging already. Time is of the essence and its quickly coming to an end for peaceful resolution.;)

S2
19 Mar 10,, 14:54
"Time is of the essence and its quickly coming to an end for peaceful resolution.;)"

Many here need more time so that Iran will possess a nuclear weapon. It's not about the NPT or any other treaty at this point. It's about Iran having a nuke and America seeing no useful purpose to such in our vision of things.

Let's keep it simple, recognize that their objectives and ours are diametrically opposed, realize no sanction on earth can keep them from such if that's Iran's bent, and nuke them while we can.

The worst that'll happen is a bunch of folks who hate us will hate us.

So?

Officer of Engineers
19 Mar 10,, 16:38
You do realize, of course, that there's nothing in the NPT that forbids a signatory nation from enriching uranium, or breeding plutonium?


Article II of the NPT

Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to receive the transfer from any transferor whatsoever of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or of control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; and not to seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.


Pakistani scientist Khan describes Iranian efforts to buy nuclear bombs (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/13/AR2010031302258_pf.html)

...

Bombmaker Abdul Qadeer Khan states in documents obtained by The Washington Post that in lieu of weapons, Pakistan gave Iran bomb-related drawings, parts for centrifuges to purify uranium and a secret worldwide list of suppliers. Iran's centrifuges, which are viewed as building blocks for a nuclear arsenal, are largely based on models and designs obtained from Pakistan.

...

Pakistan has said little about that deal. Iran later told international inspectors that a Pakistani "network" in 1987 offered a host of centrifuge-related specifications and equipment, and turned over a document detailing how to shape enriched uranium for use in a bomb.

...

A 2006 Associated Press article reported Beg's recollection of a 1990 visit by an Iranian delegation: "They asked, 'Can we have a bomb?' My answer was: By all means you can have it but you must make it yourself." But on a Pakistani television program in June, Beg said he has "always" urged the transfer of nuclear arms to Iran.

The violation is clear. Is there anyone who doubts that Iran wanted the bomb?

Dreadnought
19 Mar 10,, 17:22
OOE Sir,
Would it be in your view that Iran has alreadly violated Article II of the NPT. This question would be regarding the Syrian reactor that Iran and North Korea were attempting to build before the Israeli strikes on the facility?

If so, could it not be said that Pakistan, North Korea and Iran broke the NPT in just this one instance and not counting any others?

IMO,This is one MAJOR reason why they can never get their hands on such a device. Wether they have to be bombed or not will be Irans choice and not anyone elses.

Thanks.

Officer of Engineers
19 Mar 10,, 17:32
OOE Sir,
Would it be in your view that Iran has alreadly violated Article II of the NPT. This question would be regarding the Syrian reactor that Iran and North Korea were attempting to build before the Israeli strikes on the facility?No doubt in my mind.


If so, could it not be said that Pakistan, North Korea and Iran broke the NPT in just this one instance and not counting any others?Pakistan never signed the NPT and North Korea withdrew before her weapons program. So, Iran is the only one violating the Treaty while under the advantages of the treaty.

Dreadnought
19 Mar 10,, 17:59
No doubt in my mind.

Pakistan never signed the NPT and North Korea withdrew before her weapons program. So, Iran is the only one violating the Treaty while under the advantages of the treaty.


*Thanks for the clairification.:)

bigross86
19 Mar 10,, 18:22
What are the advantages to the NPT? Whenever I start reading treaties and resolutions and all those my eyes start glazing over after 3 sentences

Officer of Engineers
19 Mar 10,, 19:02
Non-proliferation, disarmament, and peaceful trade of nuclear materials and technologies.

cape_royds
20 Mar 10,, 01:36
OOE, I don't know whether Iran is in violation of the NPT.

I do know, however, that neither the enrichment of uranium, nor the breeding of plutonium, is forbidden by the treaty.

There's no problem under the NPT with Iran producing highly enriched uranium. Any signatory to the NPT can enrich uranium to any level they like, or breed as much plutonium as they like.

The Iranians have therefore been quite right to refuse demands that their uranium be enriched elsewhere. No NPT signatory should have to put up with the sort of harassment and threats Iran has gotten.

JAD_333
20 Mar 10,, 04:33
I don't know, but I think you guys are wrong. A unilateral strike at this point in time would be a major mistake. What I want to see happen before we go it alone is we hit the absolute and final point where we and our European allies all realize there is no other way than to strike. Then if they get cold feet, which wouldn't surprise me in the least, we do the deed alone.

The problem is our tendency to reset the clock every time Iran makes a gesture in our direction. All their gestures come up empty. It's time we blew off their gestures and reminded them we are only after one thing here and time is limited. Unfortunately, it's questionable whether Obama has the grit to do it.

Openly shipping bunker busters to Diego might make the Iranians wonder what else is in the pipeline. The message to Iran is clear: we're getting ready. They can bare their chests and call it a bluff, but they can't know for sure.

Officer of Engineers
20 Mar 10,, 16:11
do know, however, that neither the enrichment of uranium, nor the breeding of plutonium, is forbidden by the treaty.Not if they intend to use that ur or pu for bombs.


The Iranians have therefore been quite right to refuse demands that their uranium be enriched elsewhere. No NPT signatory should have to put up with the sort of harassment and threats Iran has gotten.They've bought bomb making designs, bomb making equipment, bomb making expertise, and bomb making standards from a bomb maker who specifically has stated that Pakistan (two officials acknoledging such facts) that Iran has bought a bomb making kit to build bombs.

Now, they are using that kit and you're saying that they have a right to?

I point this out to you again, Article II does not allow Iran to have bomb making kits no matter what they want to use that kit for ... and Pakistan ... and Iran have stated specifically that they've got bomb making kits.

zraver
20 Mar 10,, 16:38
OOE, I don't know whether Iran is in violation of the NPT.

They are, secret sites are illegal. The mere existence of them is forbidden. They have also failed to disclose what they are doing, or how much yellow cake, LEU/HEU they have.


I do know, however, that neither the enrichment of uranium, nor the breeding of plutonium, is forbidden by the treaty.

There's no problem under the NPT with Iran producing highly enriched uranium. Any signatory to the NPT can enrich uranium to any level they like, or breed as much plutonium as they like.

If their entire program was above board from day 1 then yes you would be correct. However since they have knowingly and willingly violated the NPT on numerous occasions and comboine that with the worlds most aggressive ballsitic missile development program you have the signs of a weaponization program. A program that based on the statements of the Iranian president is probably aimed at Israel.

To this you add the Iranian conventional ballsitic missile terror force and its sea mine economic blockade ability and you have an unstable region sitting on the gateway to the worlds oil making threats against a people who collectively have already suffered 2 genocides in living memory.

You do realize that Iran is warding off attack by threatening to choke the worlds economy, not just the US, the world. They are quite willing to hold 6 billion people hostage to get what they want. They have also threatened to attack the gulf states and Israel is attacked.

Then theres that crazy subset of Shia Islam that thinks you need WWIII to bring back the hidden iman. A-jad subscribes to that school and he is the real power in Iran not Khameni.

Zinja
20 Mar 10,, 17:12
Russia has been stalling on S-300 deliveries for years. Russia may be worried the S-300 may not live up to its reputation.

The Russians are holding the S-300 as a card against the Israelis. The S-300 wouldn't stand against a salvo of US cruise missiles to say the least. Russia has an interest in disuading Israel from Georgia amongst other things, hence it makes sense why they are playing cat and mouse games.

Zinja
20 Mar 10,, 17:41
You do realize, of course, that there's nothing in the NPT that forbids a signatory nation from enriching uranium, or breeding plutonium?

This horse has been bitten so much its not funny anymore.

Iran's pretense to be enriching for medical isotopes is ludicrous to any sane person. Even if they can enrich to required levels, Iran has no technical know how to make the required plates for the medical reactor. The reactor would have long run out of fuel by the time Iran has even began to understand how to make the plates.

ASparr
20 Mar 10,, 18:43
I can't help but feel mighty discouraged whenever I read calls to bomb Iran to solve this problem. I cannot think of a worse course of action for the broader US security interest, than bombing Iran. Sure, it would work in the short term. But in the long term, we'd do severe damage to our middle east security posture.

Dreadnought
20 Mar 10,, 19:33
And just what do you think will happen to the Middle Easts security posture if this regime is capable of making the threats, but if not stopped will also posess the capability of carrying them out? But yet no sense to their religious bias and support for extremeisms and you want to trust that regime with a nuke? These idiots will fan the flames until you do have a full out war in the region, either by their partcipation (as they do now in Afghanistan and Iraq) or in direct support such as in Lebannon and Syria. Or as in proxy through Hamas and Hezbollah. If you have kept up with late news, they have been dragging foot and offering inuendo in a time where they need to come clean with the NPT. They as in the regime have made the threats time and time again, so it is also "they" that better start making progress before "they" have a really big problem with the nations "they" have provoked.

They brought it upon themselves and their people. The blame for this lies upon that regime not US security interests, its in all of those countries interests (Iraq, Saudi's,Afghanistan,Israel Yemen,Bahrain etc) that Iran not be able to weild a nuclear weapon and enforce her extremism influence over any other country or government in the region as they have in Lebannon and Syria.

Hell, this regime cannot even manage basic god given rights to their people as we have seen for a long time, not only do they treat their people like dirt, but also insult them as far as fair and tranparent elections among god knows how many other burdens they have. Do you really think that they can rationally,responsibly manage a nuclear weapon or arsenal based upon their track record over the last 10-20 years?

ASparr
20 Mar 10,, 19:43
No. But if you attack them, you'll only set their nuke program back a few years and have the current regime, which is in a very precarious state with respect to its illegitimate election and the riots and such, a rallying cry. You'll see the anti-government side go from gaining steam and ground, to rallying behind the current government. You want to crush the hopes of a more open, responsible Iran? Bomb them. Add onto that the havoc they would wreak in the oil market, Lebanon and the Strip, Iraq and Afghanistan and you have a recipe for a disaster of epic proportions for our current defense posture.

I know bombing is sexy, but as Berzezinski says, we have to play the long game. Kilcullen theorizes that bombing Iran would give the government 10 more years of semi-legitimate rule as the people would be whipped up in a nationalistic fervor. Besides, the Iranian government isn't just a bag of fundamental nutjobs. There are pragmatic elements with self-preservation instincts. A solid US defense umbrella should be sufficient to deter Iran from any funny business.

JAD_333
20 Mar 10,, 19:49
Dread:

I don't hear anyone here saying never take military action. Sure, it would be a nasty outcome, if it comes to that. I don't agree with Obama's pussyfooting around, but in a way it might help when push comes to shove. We will be able to say, we tried to do it in a nice way, but you turned down the offer.

What we need is a deadline we and our allies agree upon, a policy of rejecting empty gestures from the Iranians and clear threat of what is to come if they don't act.

Dreadnought
20 Mar 10,, 19:57
No. But if you attack them, you'll only set their nuke program back a few years and have the current regime, which is in a very precarious state with respect to its illegitimate election and the riots and such, a rallying cry. You'll see the anti-government side go from gaining steam and ground, to rallying behind the current government. You want to crush the hopes of a more open, responsible Iran? Bomb them. Add onto that the havoc they would wreak in the oil market, Lebanon and the Strip, Iraq and Afghanistan and you have a recipe for a disaster of epic proportions for our current defense posture.

I know bombing is sexy, but as Berzezinski says, we have to play the long game. Kilcullen theorizes that bombing Iran would give the government 10 more years of semi-legitimate rule as the people would be whipped up in a nationalistic fervor. Besides, the Iranian government isn't just a bag of fundamental nutjobs. There are pragmatic elements with self-preservation instincts. A solid US defense umbrella should be sufficient to deter Iran from any funny business.


Bombing sexy? Maybe in political minds but certainly not to those that would have to do it, those that would watch it happen, and those that would have to live with the aftermath. Bombing is not "sexy" at all, if anything a good majority of guys here would tell you that its more of a nightmare then anything else.

So you propose, the coutries that are all concerned just go away and never mind and let them produce even know they constantly break the NPT Treaty along with building clandestine reactors in Syria with NK's help that was bombed by Israel and the other reactor they announced at Qom even know they were about to be exposed for even building another before notifing the NPT? Major Laws and Articles broken in the NPT rite there.

Who would be to blame if they built such a weapon and used it, or helped another radical regime build theirs and they used it? The UN Security council would be to blame. The US included. They have proven they cannot be trusted and I wouldnt blame Israel in the least for knocking Irans dick in the dirt for how many times that regime has threatened them with destruction. Could you? Or hows about the frequent rocket attacks in Gaza. Iran through its Quds forces supplies them it's been known for a long time now and yes they do have proof.

Dreadnought
20 Mar 10,, 20:02
Dread:

I don't hear anyone here saying never take military action. Sure, it would be a nasty outcome, if it comes to that. I don't agree with Obama's pussyfooting around, but in a way it might help when push comes to shove. We will be able to say, we tried to do it in a nice way, but you turned down the offer.

What we need is a deadline we and our allies agree upon, a policy of rejecting empty gestures from the Iranians and clear threat of what is to come if they don't act.

In full agreement JAD but you also know we will never get it from China or Russia until they have bomb in hand since they both have interests there and are both on the Security Council. Those two are the primary reason the sanctions are not allowed to be more severe and crippling.

ASparr
20 Mar 10,, 20:04
Bombing sexy? Maybe in political minds but certainly not to those that would have to do it, those that would watch it happen, and those that would have to live with the aftermath. Bombing is not "sexy" at all, if anything a good majority of guys here would tell you that its more of a nightmare then anything else.

So you propose, the coutries that are all concerned just go away and never mind and let them produce even know they constantly break the NPT Treaty along with building clandestine reactors in Syria with NK's help that was bombed by Israel and the other reactor they announced at Qom even know they were about to be exposed for even building another before notifing the NPT? Law and Aticles broken in the NPT rite there.

Who would be to blame if they built such a weapon and used it, or helped another radical regime build theirs and they used it? The UN Security council would be to blame. The US included. They have proven they cannot be trusted and I wouldnt blame Israel in the least for knocking Irans dick in the dirt for how many times that regime has threatened them with destruction. Could you? Or hows about the frequent rocket attacks in Gaza. Iran supplies them itas been known for a long time now and yes they do have proof.

Bombing is sexy to those who want to look tough on defense without actually knowing what they're doing (politicians looking to burnish their defense credentials). I agree completely that bombing is a nightmare.

No, did I say that? Sanctions are nice, diplomatic isolation, consolidating the threatened arab nations under a formal defense treaty would be good, encouragement of the anti-government minority.

Iran is not as stupid and suicidal as you seem to think. They know the repercussions of such an attack and would only used it if we backed them into a corner. Say, by bombing them. Yes, Iran is a tumor on the international stage. I know. But you'll have much more luck accomplishing your goals if you don't submit to every emotional whim and take the strategic view out past 6 months.

Let me ask you something: What would happen if the US took out all -all- of Iran's nuclear sites? They just say "ok" and withdraw support for hamas and hizbullah, and shiite militias? They just throw up their hands and give up the nuclear program?

zraver
20 Mar 10,, 20:12
No. But if you attack them, you'll only set their nuke program back a few years

This claim is made often but is flat out wrong. Saddam did his best to preserve a modicum of capability but in the end long term sanctions and aggressive inspections backed up by force ruined his aspirations. Knock Iran's industry backwards several decades, cut off gasoline shipments put their oil under a UN lock and key and the regime won't have tools or the cash to push forward. Oil for food was a joke, but it did starve the Iraqis of much of the cash they would have had unfettered.


and have the current regime, which is in a very precarious state with respect to its illegitimate election and the riots and such, a rallying cry.


As we have seen since June, Mao is still right, "Power comes from the barrel of a gun." Until the Guards decide to abandon the regime or the Iranian army takes a stand the regime is safe.


You'll see the anti-government side go from gaining steam and ground, to rallying behind the current government. You want to crush the hopes of a more open, responsible Iran? Bomb them.

Despite all the mistakes, Iraq has had more elections that are worthy of the name since 2003 than in its entire history..... Think about that, the same holds true for Germany and Japan post 1945. Raw force, in its most wicked application is pure evil, but it works. You want to topple a regime- you cut off its ability to supply the goods and services required under its social contract. People will rally to the flag early, but won;t stay long if the pain is hot enough. Force a breakdown society and revision to tribal/community government. Tribes don't build a-bombs. Then once the regime is toppled, move in with massive aid. People with full bellies and steady employment don't hold grudges.


Add onto that the havoc they would wreak in the oil market, Lebanon and the Strip, Iraq and Afghanistan and you have a recipe for a disaster of epic proportions for our current defense posture.

Far less than the chaos caused by a nuclear exchange.... We might be able to sit back and risk the fact that Iran will act rationally once they have the bomb. They can't reach us and even if they could we have a huge nation. Israel however is tiny and under the gun with a history of other people trying to exterminate them. They can't take that risk.


I know bombing is sexy, but as Berzezinski says, we have to play the long game. Kilcullen theorizes that bombing Iran would give the government 10 more years of semi-legitimate rule as the people would be whipped up in a nationalistic fervor. Besides, the Iranian government isn't just a bag of fundamental nutjobs. There are pragmatic elements with self-preservation instincts. A solid US defense umbrella should be sufficient to deter Iran from any funny business.

The nutjobs are in charge. Do some research on A-jad and his "religious experience" at the UN..... Do we really want a Armageddon seeker with the bomb?

Dreadnought
20 Mar 10,, 20:13
A solid US defense umbrella should be sufficient to deter Iran from any funny business.

*One that our tax money pays for? I dont think so.

*Why should our tax money be spent on protecting the region from a country with known bad elements, that threatens others and defies the very treaty they signed time and time again and the very same we abide by. Maybe you dont mind burning that money but I certainly have a problem with that.

*Make them more responsible, not us less responsible.;)

ASparr
20 Mar 10,, 20:26
This claim is made often but is flat out wrong. Saddam did his best to preserve a modicum of capability but in the end long term sanctions and aggressive inspections backed up by force ruined his aspirations. Knock Iran's industry backwards several decades, cut off gasoline shipments put their oil under a UN lock and key and the regime won't have tools or the cash to push forward. Oil for food was a joke, but it did starve the Iraqis of much of the cash they would have had unfettered.


And neither would we. Effectively cutting off Iran as an oil producer, which seems to be what you're advocating, would be disastrous for the global market. Prices would skyrocket, supply would shrink and investors would get a hemorrhage. And again, you're not looking at the whole picture. Not only is this plan impossible, but it's also near suicidal. Iran would lash out at us through every possible avenue. Hizbullah and Hamas would go nuts, global shipping through the Hormuz would be severely disrupted, shiite militias in Iraq would go bonkers and you'd crush the undercurrent of dissatisfaction for the regime with the Iranian people. And Iraq and Iran are not in the same position with their programs, domestic standing and international asshole potential. Comparing them is folly.


As we have seen since June, Mao is still right, "Power comes from the barrel of a gun." Until the Guards decide to abandon the regime or the Iranian army takes a stand the regime is safe.


Which is why military dictatorships never fall? They never get overthrown?


Despite all the mistakes, Iraq has had more elections that are worthy of the name since 2003 than in its entire history..... Think about that, the same holds true for Germany and Japan post 1945. Raw force, in its most wicked application is pure evil, but it works. You want to topple a regime- you cut off its ability to supply the goods and services required under its social contract. People will rally to the flag early, but won;t stay long if the pain is hot enough. Force a breakdown society and revision to tribal/community government. Tribes don't build a-bombs. Then once the regime is toppled, move in with massive aid. People with full bellies and steady employment don't hold grudges.

Sweet Moses. Yes, it is pure evil. Mind you something on the order of $1.2 trillion US was sunk in Iraq, AQ moved in with a vengeance, and 100-140 or so thousand people died and you're using it as an example of how to treat Iran? You have the option to take a course that won't leave thousands and thousands dead and you're pushing for the "bomb them to the stone age followed by occupation" option? You have any idea what would happen to the rest of the Arab world and al-Qaeda if we attacked and occupied yet another Muslim country?


Far less than the chaos caused by a nuclear exchange.... We might be able to sit back and risk the fact that Iran will act rationally once they have the bomb. They can't reach us and even if they could we have a huge nation. Israel however is tiny and under the gun with a history of other people trying to exterminate them. They can't take that risk.


They can't but they have to. The other options are so unpalatable and the actual risks of a nuclear exchange are so small that to go with the 100% certainty of the havoc caused by your course and the 5% chance of an actual nuclear exchange is blind, reactionary folly.


The nutjobs are in charge. Do some research on A-jad and his "religious experience" at the UN..... Do we really want a Armageddon seeker with the bomb?

Iranian government struggles with unruly population. Iranian government waves big stick to get people to bomb it. People rally behind government and Dinnerjacket. Dinnerjacket is seen not as an irresponsible leader who got Iran bombed, but as the courageous hero who stood up to the Jew-Crusader aggression. Sound far fetched?

ASparr
20 Mar 10,, 20:28
A solid US defense umbrella should be sufficient to deter Iran from any funny business.

*One that our tax money pays for? I dont think so.

*Why should our tax money be spent on protecting the region from a country with known bad elements, that threatens others and defies the very treaty they signed time and time again and the very same we abide by. Maybe you dont mind burning that money but I certainly have a problem with that.

*Make them more responsible, not us less responsible.;)

Because it's in our interests to insure that Iran getting the bomb doesn't force the Arab nations into an arms race, culminating with a nuclear exchange.

Officer of Engineers
20 Mar 10,, 20:31
Because it's in our interests to insure that Iran getting the bomb doesn't force the Arab nations into an arms race, culminating with a nuclear exchange.Then, would it not be easier to ensure that Iran doesn't get the bomb?

ASparr
20 Mar 10,, 20:32
Then, would it not be easier to ensure that Iran doesn't get the bomb?

Easier? Yes. Better for our long term defensive posture in the Middle East? No.

EDIT -- I assume you mean by bombing. But if in general, the answer to both of your questions is 'yes'.

Officer of Engineers
20 Mar 10,, 20:45
And neither would we. Effectively cutting off Iran as an oil producer, which seems to be what you're advocating, would be disastrous for the global market. Prices would skyrocket, supply would shrink and investors would get a hemorrhage. And again, you're not looking at the whole picture. Not only is this plan impossible, but it's also near suicidal. Iran would lash out at us through every possible avenue. Hizbullah and Hamas would go nuts, global shipping through the Hormuz would be severely disrupted, shiite militias in Iraq would go bonkers and you'd crush the undercurrent of dissatisfaction for the regime with the Iranian people. And Iraq and Iran are not in the same position with their programs, domestic standing and international asshole potential. Comparing them is folly.Will you please take a look at the friggin map. Most oil going to Europe goes through the Suez, not Hormuz. Hormuz oil goes to China, India, Japan. Aside from that, you've got major oil producers not in the ME, Canada, Mexico, Russia, Venezula. About the only one who is going to suffer through an oil war in this context is Iran.

Hezbollah and Hamas bled the Israelis all right but they're doing so by outbleeding the Israelis ... and they don't have that much blood left.


Sweet Moses. Yes, it is pure evil. Mind you something on the order of $1.2 trillion US was sunk in Iraq, AQ moved in with a vengeance, and 100-140 or so thousand people died and you're using it as an example of how to treat Iran? You have the option to take a course that won't leave thousands and thousands dead and you're pushing for the "bomb them to the stone age followed by occupation" option? You have any idea what would happen to the rest of the Arab world and al-Qaeda if we attacked and occupied yet another Muslim country?Have you ever studied history? Conquest is always followed by insurgency. What the US is cheap by comparison of empires in the past. The Mongols kept an army of 300,000 in Iraq alone.


They can't but they have to. The other options are so unpalatable and the actual risks of a nuclear exchange are so small that to go with the 100% certainty of the havoc caused by your course and the 5% chance of an actual nuclear exchange is blind, reactionary folly.You have a country deliberately using the NPT to make nukes. I think you're the one who is blind to their ambitions.


Iranian government struggles with unruly population. Iranian government waves big stick to get people to bomb it. People rally behind government and Dinnerjacket. Dinnerjacket is seen not as an irresponsible leader who got Iran bombed, but as the courageous hero who stood up to the Jew-Crusader aggression. Sound far fetched?You're assuming that the leadership would still be alive and effective.

Zinja
20 Mar 10,, 20:48
I can't help but feel mighty discouraged whenever I read calls to bomb Iran to solve this problem. I cannot think of a worse course of action for the broader US security interest, than bombing Iran. Sure, it would work in the short term. But in the long term, we'd do severe damage to our middle east security posture.

No one likes war. Innocent people get killed in war but reality should not be ignored and hard decisions deffered just because war is undesirable. Some times strikes remain as the only way to avert an otherwise worse outcome. The allies could have tried deffering war in WWII and Nazi Germany would have been happy sending the allies on a vicious rabit trails signing Chamberlain treaties and Molotov treaties.

The choice here with Iran is now obvious, either accept a nuclear Iran and the consequences therewith, or stop Iran and the consequences therewith - which one would you choose?


No. But if you attack them, you'll only set their nuke program back a few years and have the current regime,

Not if you work them so hard that it becomes astronomically expensive to start all over again.


which is in a very precarious state with respect to its illegitimate election and the riots and such, a rallying cry.

This notion that thorough going despote detemined to stay in power no matter what would suddenly be toppled mass protests when he has the state's machination at his desposal and is not shy to use it, to me is somewhat naive. We have seen it in China before we have seen in Zimbabwe recently and it hasn't worked fantastically has it?


Add onto that the havoc they would wreak in the oil market, Lebanon and the Strip, Iraq and Afghanistan and you have a recipe for a disaster of epic proportions for our current defense posture.

They can only cause havoc to the oil market if you let them close the straight of Harmuz


Besides, the Iranian government isn't just a bag of fundamental nutjobs.

It can be argued whether they are 'nutjobs' or not, but you can not argue that they are fundamentalists.


A solid US defense umbrella should be sufficient to deter Iran from any funny business.

The world does not need another North Korea.

Finally, I don't know what others here think but the world does not revolve around Iran. There are better things that the UN, US, EU, Russia, China etc shoud be occupied with. The is world poverty, natural disasters, cleaner energies that the world should be occupying itself with. It is not fair for one nation to be occupying so much of the attention diverting it from other worthier causes, just because they can defy the world.

ASparr
20 Mar 10,, 20:53
Will you please take a look at the friggin map. Most oil going to Europe goes through the Suez, not Hormuz. Hormuz oil goes to China, India, Japan. Aside from that, you've got major oil producers not in the ME, Canada, Mexico, Russia, Venezula. About the only one who is going to suffer through an oil war in this context is Iran.

Hezbollah and Hamas bled the Israelis all right but they're doing so by outbleeding the Israelis ... and they don't have that much blood left.

China's demand for oil helps fuel world demand and heavily impacts the world market. As do India and Japan. They can't get their oil from Hormuz, they get it elsewhere. That pushes up prices. They also get really pissed at us for doing that to them. Say adios to any Chinese help for the near term if we screw them like that. And OPEC will initially benefit from the higher prices, you can bet they won't be 1:1 upping output to help us. A return to $140/barrel oil is just the thing for a cash strapped autocracy. And Venezuela, Russia? You make Europe more dependent on Russia while flooding them with money. Not a good mix. And Venezuela would just laugh.

For now, perhaps. But you can bet they will do everything they can.


Have you ever studied history? Conquest is always followed by insurgency. What the US is cheap by comparison of empires in the past. The Mongols kept an army of 300,000 in Iraq alone.

I have, and if we could keep it to a somewhat respectful tone, I'd be much obliged. Yes, I know that. But so? It doesn't make it worth it or economically tenable. The whole AQ "exhaustion" strategy gets a major leg up with another costly, unilateral ME adventure for the US.


You have a country deliberately using the NPT to make nukes. I think you're the one who is blind to their ambitions.

And, sir, I believe you and others are so worried by the word "nuke" you allow it to cloud your judgment and your immediate emotions to get the better of you.


You're assuming that the leadership would still be alive and effective.

Dinnerjacket is unpopular, but he's unpopular like Bush was. We'd still rally behind him or his memory if an outside power killed him. And killing off the civilian leadership is exactly the kind of thing that would let a IRG thug take over. Martyring him is a rancid idea.

Zinja
20 Mar 10,, 20:57
Bombing is sexy to those who want to look tough on defense without actually knowing what they're doing (politicians looking to burnish their defense credentials).

[QUOTE]consolidating the threatened arab nations under a formal defense treaty would be good
Are you going to provide, enforce, and pay for the treaty?


Let me ask you something: What would happen if the US took out all -all- of Iran's nuclear sites? They just say "ok" and withdraw support for hamas and hizbullah, and shiite militias? They just throw up their hands and give up the nuclear program?
Osirak 1981.

ASparr
20 Mar 10,, 21:04
No one likes war. Innocent people get killed in war but reality should not be ignored and hard decisions deffered just because war is undesirable. Some times strikes remain as the only way to avert an otherwise worse outcome. The allies could have tried deffering war in WWII and Nazi Germany would have been happy sending the allies on a vicious rabit trails signing Chamberlain treaties and Molotov treaties.

The choice here with Iran is now obvious, either accept a nuclear Iran and the consequences therewith, or stop Iran and the consequences therewith - which one would you choose?

Yes, I agree. War is bad, but it is sometimes needed. I don't disagree with anything you really say here. I merely contend that a military strike against their nuke sites would be a wretched option for our long term (10+ years) security outlook.

And I wouldn't because you're not correctly presenting the question. You assume we can feasibly stop Iran dead in it's tracks with a strike. Do you honestly think that Iran would stop their ambitions in the face of their sites getting bombed? Also, do you believe that the US could invade and occupy Iran as our current financial and military posture goes?

And to less indirectly answer your question: A nuclear Iran is a wretched outcome that should be avoided. But it is not the end of the world.


Not if you work them so hard that it becomes astronomically expensive to start all over again.

I think this regime has shown it's more than willing to shoulder that cost.


This notion that thorough going despote detemined to stay in power no matter what would suddenly be toppled mass protests when he has the state's machination at his desposal and is not shy to use it, to me is somewhat naive. We have seen it in China before we have seen in Zimbabwe recently and it hasn't worked fantastically has it?

No, it does not automatically mean that Dinnerjacket can be ousted by the people. But it is worth a shot because, well, it has worked in the past.


They can only cause havoc to the oil market if you let them close the straight of Harmuz

No, they can't close it for any real length of time. But if it's a warzone, companies can refuse to ship across until the violence subsides. I also wouldn't rule out them trying to bomb or scuttle a few freighters. The actual cut in output wouldn't be apocalyptic, it's the reaction of the investors and markets that would be.


It can be argued whether they are 'nutjobs' or not, but you can not argue that they are fundamentalists.

Perhaps. But that word gets tossed around alot to mean "unreasonable" and while they do generally go hand in hand, it would be incorrect to assume that a relatively politically savvy Iran would suddenly go, if you'll forgive the expression, batshit bonkers with a nuke.


The world does not need another North Korea.

Finally, I don't know what others here think but the world does not revolve around Iran. There are better things that the UN, US, EU, Russia, China etc shoud be occupied with. The is world poverty, natural disasters, cleaner energies that the world should be occupying itself with. It is not fair for one nation to be occupying so much of the attention diverting it from other worthier causes, just because they can defy the world.

True, but it may be the only palatable option.

Well, Iran does carry very severe implications for international security both militarily and economically -- that's why it's such a big issue. Also, nukes are invoked so that ratchets up the stakes even more.

ASparr
20 Mar 10,, 21:06
Are you going to provide, enforce, and pay for the treaty?

The same way we'd provide, enforce and pay for the occupation some here advocate.


Osirak 1981

False comparison. The size, knowledge, material and will of Iran to continue such a path regardless of temporary setbacks.

Zinja
20 Mar 10,, 21:12
[QUOTE]Sweet Moses. Yes, it is pure evil. Mind you something on the order of $1.2 trillion US was sunk in Iraq, AQ moved in with a vengeance, and 100-140 or so thousand people died and you're using it as an example of how to treat Iran? You have the option to take a course that won't leave thousands and thousands dead and you're pushing for the "bomb them to the stone age followed by occupation" option? You have any idea what would happen to the rest of the Arab world and al-Qaeda if we attacked and occupied yet another Muslim country?
Who said anything about occupation?


.... and the actual risks of a nuclear exchange are so small that to go with the 100% certainty of the havoc caused by your course and the 5% chance of an actual nuclear exchange is blind, reactionary folly.
Firstly, what are the chances that anyone could say that the holocaust never happened? What are the chances that someone could say 9/11 was not caused by Islamic fundamentalist, it was a US government job? - figure.

Secondly, these are nuclear weapons we are talking about Sparr not 8mm revolvers. There is no second chance.

Zinja
20 Mar 10,, 21:16
Because it's in our interests to insure that Iran getting the bomb doesn't force the Arab nations into an arms race, culminating with a nuclear exchange.
Why should the US tie itself to another unaffordable expense when it does not have to? And then you go on to admit of a consequence of a nuclear exchange if Iran was allowed to obtain its bomb. So cut to the chase and stop them in their tracks and you will have neither nuclear exchange nor unaffordable defense expenditure in the ambrella you are proposing.

ASparr
20 Mar 10,, 21:17
Who said anything about occupation?


JAD did, I believe.


Firstly, what are the chances that anyone could say that the holocaust never happened? What are the chances that someone could say 9/11 was not caused by Islamic fundamentalist, it was a US government job? - figure.

Secondly, these are nuclear weapons we are talking about Sparr not 8mm revolvers. There is no second chance.

I know that. But you cannot let the fact that these are nuclear weapons cause a knee jerk reaction without considering the long term implications of your strategy. My strategy can fail, I know. And there is the ever present possibility that that failure means a nuclear exchange. But I am willing to accept these risks because of the highy unpalateble nature of the alternatives and the benefits of success.

Of course he says that, it's his job. What are the chances? Good enough, but to draw a comparison between hateful rhetoric and the use of a nuclear weapon is highly suspect.

ASparr
20 Mar 10,, 21:18
Why should the US tie itself to another unaffordable expense when it does not have to? And then you go on to admit of a consequence of a nuclear exchange if Iran was allowed to obtain its bomb. So cut to the chase and stop them in their tracks and you will have neither nuclear exchange nor unaffordable defense expenditure in the ambrella you are proposing.

Again, a false comparison. There is no guarantee that such a strike would halt their program. It actually may strengthen their resolve. We could end up dealing only a temporary setback to their program while destroying the only real chance we have for Iran to discontinue it's pariah status in their fledgling but growing disaffected population.

Zinja
20 Mar 10,, 21:26
China's demand for oil helps fuel world demand and heavily impacts the world market. As do India and Japan. They can't get their oil from Hormuz, they get it elsewhere. That pushes up prices. They also get really pissed at us for doing that to them.
Then they should be signing the sanctions 'with teeth', it is their interest as well after all. Otherwise, the same arguement is true for the US in that it will be acting on its interest as well if China won't co-operate.

ASparr
20 Mar 10,, 21:28
Then they should be signing the sanctions 'with teeth', it is their interest as well after all. Otherwise, the same arguement is true for the US in that it will be acting on its interest as well if China won't co-operate.

They are wary about such sanctions doing the same thing -- reducing the available supply of Iranian oil. Perhaps if we can convince them Iraq has the ability to take that place, they'd be more willing.

citanon
20 Mar 10,, 21:28
Again, a false comparison. There is no guarantee that such a strike would halt their program. It actually may strengthen their resolve. .

What makes you think we'd strike only once? Or that we'd limit the strikes to a few sites? Or that we won't strike infrastructure and dual use? Or that the strikes won't continue for weeks and weeks? Or that they could not escalate to encompass leadership and regime targets?


We could end up dealing only a temporary setback to their program while destroying the only real chance we have for Iran to discontinue it's pariah status in their fledgling but growing disaffected population

Of course. Once the bombs start falling the population will forget all about their discontent. It worked well for Slobodan Milosevic, why not for the Mullahs?

ASparr
20 Mar 10,, 21:34
What makes you think we'd strike only once? Or that we'd limit the strikes to a few sites? Or that we won't strike infrastructure and dual use? Or that the strikes won't continue for weeks and weeks? Or that they could not escalate to encompass leadership and regime targets?

I don't discount that possibility. But again, such strikes would wreak havoc on the global oil supply (especially if you're talking about hitting major infrastructure --like pipelines), make all of the Iranian affiliated proxies go nuts, coalesce popular support behind Dinnerjacket and cause severe harm to US soft power and credibility in the world.


Of course. Once the bombs start falling the population will forget all about their discontent. It worked well for Slobodan Milosevic, why not for the Mullahs?

Har. Again, not the same. Iran is an established state with a fairly modern economy and infrastrucure with a large, disaffected youth population. Dinnerjacket and Slobo may both be nutters, but that doesn't mean what works for one, works for the other.

And if you really object to the idea, talk to Kilcullen.

zraver
20 Mar 10,, 21:38
And neither would we. Effectively cutting off Iran as an oil producer, which seems to be what you're advocating, would be disastrous for the global market. Prices would skyrocket, supply would shrink and investors would get a hemorrhage. And again, you're not looking at the whole picture.

Care to take a gander at oil prices during the Iraqi sanctions.... Iranian oil is important, but not critical. Right now global reserves are increasing and the US is shutting down refineries. The loss of Iranian oil is indegestion, not a heart attack.



Not only is this plan impossible, but it's also near suicidal. Iran would lash out at us through every possible avenue. Hizbullah and Hamas would go nuts, global shipping through the Hormuz would be severely disrupted, shiite militias in Iraq would go bonkers and you'd crush the undercurrent of dissatisfaction for the regime with the Iranian people. And Iraq and Iran are not in the same position with their programs, domestic standing and international asshole potential. Comparing them is folly.

And you avoid that you'd do what surrender and hope for the best? Far better to face it head on, in the manner and at the time of our choosing


Which is why military dictatorships never fall? They never get overthrown?

care to list any?




Sweet Moses. Yes, it is pure evil. Mind you something on the order of $1.2 trillion US was sunk in Iraq, AQ moved in with a vengeance, and 100-140 or so thousand people died and you're using it as an example of how to treat Iran?

Yup because it works- if the US had done the work roght in 2003 and sent in enough troops to occupy back by enough dollars to employ the population 90% OF THOSE PEOPLE WOULD NOT HAVE DIED. In the case of Iran however you don't have two hostile religions living with one another.



You have the option to take a course that won't leave thousands and thousands dead and you're pushing for the "bomb them to the stone age followed by occupation" option?

When has appeasement worked?


You have any idea what would happen to the rest of the Arab world and al-Qaeda if we attacked and occupied yet another Muslim country?

The Arab's prefer us to them, in case you missed it the US is a distant overlord who keeps the historic regional hegemon at bay. Even inside Shia Iraq calling someone a Persian is an insult. There might be some demonstrations, but for the most part Arab's are Sunni and they hate the shia, and really HATE Iran.

If there is one thing the Arab regimes fear, its the US leaving the region and them to Iran's ambitions.


They can't but they have to. The other options are so unpalatable and the actual risks of a nuclear exchange are so small that to go with the 100% certainty of the havoc caused by your course and the 5% chance of an actual nuclear exchange is blind, reactionary folly.

They will, when it comes to protecting Jews from another Holocuast no-one and nothing is off limits to Israel. Israel will burn a billion lives to protect 6 million, and nobody better forget that.



Iranian government struggles with unruly population. Iranian government waves big stick to get people to bomb it. People rally behind government and Dinnerjacket. Dinnerjacket is seen not as an irresponsible leader who got Iran bombed, but as the courageous hero who stood up to the Jew-Crusader aggression. Sound far fetched?

People only rally until they get hungry, there is no such thing as a starving nationalist.

I guess you don;t get just how effective force is. Raw naked force is the decider, it has settled more intra-group conflicts in human history than other method. Ask the native Americans, the Celts or the Germans how effective unrestricted force is at ending conflicts.

ASparr
20 Mar 10,, 21:49
Care to take a gander at oil prices during the Iraqi sanctions.... Iranian oil is important, but not critical. Right now global reserves are increasing and the US is shutting down refineries. The loss of Iranian oil is indegestion, not a heart attack.

A sanction is not the same as a sudden market jolt from an unknown strike. Sanctions were discussed, gave people time to consider and plan for them. A strike nobody sees coming is not the same thing.


And you avoid that you'd do what surrender and hope for the best? Far better to face it head on, in the manner and at the time of our choosing

No, do not ascribe opinions to me. You face it head on and you're gonna lose your eyebrows when it blows up in your face. Again, what are the prospects for your plan in the long term? What would happen?


care to list any?


Uh, 1979 Iran?


Yup because it works- if the US had done the work roght in 2003 and sent in enough troops to occupy back by enough dollars to employ the population 90% OF THOSE PEOPLE WOULD NOT HAVE DIED. In the case of Iran however you don't have two hostile religions living with one another.

Not sure what the shouting is supposed to do. But in any case, please stop.
Anyway, yes I know that. And great, they wouldn't fight each other. They'd just fight us. A much better proposition.


When has appeasement worked?

I'll let ya know when I start advocating that. Until then, stop ascribing positions to me.


The Arab's prefer us to them, in case you missed it the US is a distant overlord who keeps the historic regional hegemon at bay. Even inside Shia Iraq calling someone a Persian is an insult. There might be some demonstrations, but for the most part Arab's are Sunni and they hate the shia, and really HATE Iran.

If there is one thing the Arab regimes fear, its the US leaving the region and them to Iran's ambitions.


Yes, I know. But you can bet there would be a significant proportion that would object to the US invading another Muslim country. Shia v. Sunni disappears pretty quick when it becomes Muslim v. Kufr. they may hate them, but this is the same "we will be heralded as heroes" folly that got us snakebit in Iraq.

Arab regimes do not equal their people, if that wasn't already crushingly obvious.


They will, when it comes to protecting Jews from another Holocuast no-one and nothing is off limits to Israel. Israel will burn a billion lives to protect 6 million, and nobody better forget that.


Yes they will. And it's a terrifying thought.


People only rally until they get hungry, there is no such thing as a starving nationalist.

I guess that's why ol' Johnny Reb turned tail and surrendered when the going got tough.


I guess you don;t get just how effective force is. Raw naked force is the decider, it has settled more intra-group conflicts in human history than other method. Ask the native Americans, the Celts or the Germans how effective unrestricted force is at ending conflicts.

We're not the Mongol Horde, we can actually resolve our differences without having the streets run red with blood. I guess that's why we just should a nuked Cuba during the Crisis then, huh? After all, nothing like a few Minutemen making the skyline glow to really drive our point home.

EDIT- And you're referencing the Nazis and genocide to support your point. Not the example I want our Republic following.

Zinja
20 Mar 10,, 22:04
Yes, I agree. War is bad, but it is sometimes needed. I don't disagree with anything you really say here. I merely contend that a military strike against their nuke sites would be a wretched option for our long term (10+ years) security outlook.

I don't know what long term security you are talking about here. Afghan have no love for the Persians. The Afghan population is not keen on anybody except themselves, they certainly will not do the bidding for Iran. Heck they wouldn't rally behind their own clansman (Taliban).


And I wouldn't because you're not correctly presenting the question. You assume we can feasibly stop Iran dead in it's tracks with a strike. Maybe here we genuinely see things differently. I say a concerted US strikes can stop them in their tracks, but obviously you think otherwise.


Also, do you believe that the US could invade and occupy Iran as our current financial and military posture goes? No invasion and occupation required.


And to less indirectly answer your question: A nuclear Iran is a wretched outcome that should be avoided. But it is not the end of the world. Actually it can mean the end of the world. Once nuclear exchange starts between between any two countries, there no way to tell where it would all end. You should read around how the Israel conflicts in the 70s and 80s almost dragged the superpowers right into the thick of it.



I think this regime has shown it's more than willing to shoulder that cost.
Not if people are queing day in day out for the slightest drop of petrol and diesel, the is no food in the shops, unemployment is in the 50-80%, inflation is going through the roof.

Secondly, the aftermath of such strikes will curtail the cash inflows tha Iran currently enjoys - learn from Iraq.



No, it does not automatically mean that Dinnerjacket can be ousted by the people. But it is worth a shot because, well, it has worked in the past. Well, it hasn't worked in the past 8 years, if anything Iran has advanced closer to a bomb.



No, they can't close it for any real length of time. But if it's a warzone, companies can refuse to ship across until the violence subsides. Not if they have military escort and the straight is tightly under US military control. Heck, there are pirates marauding in the Gulf of Aden and investors have lost millions but its still business as usual.


True, but it may be the only palatable option. It doesn't have to be the only palatable option.


Well, Iran does carry very severe implications for international security both militarily and economically -- that's why it's such a big issue. Also, nukes are invoked so that ratchets up the stakes even more.
A DANGEROUS nuclear armed Iran carries sever implications, i say take out the 'dangerous nuclear' and you have a happier and safer world. Also don't over estimate Iran, it is not as as significant as you make it out to be in the grand scale of things.

Zinja
20 Mar 10,, 22:10
The same way we'd provide, enforce and pay for the occupation some here advocate.
i don't know anyone here who is advocating for occupation.


False comparison. The size, knowledge, material and will of Iran to continue such a path regardless of temporary setbacks. Its a fair comparison. Osirak was for an equally determined regime that would gas its own people and invade its neighbours for its selfish end. But when their site was flattened and screws turned really tight on them, they broke. Everyone has an endurance limit.

ASparr
20 Mar 10,, 22:15
I don't know what long term security you are talking about here. Afghan have no love for the Persians. The Afghan population is not keen on anybody except themselves, they certainly will not do the bidding for Iran. Heck they wouldn't rally behind their own clansman (Taliban).


Afghanistan is not the only way in which our security prospects would be harmed.


Maybe here we genuinely see things differently. I say a concerted US strikes can stop them in their tracks, but obviously you think otherwise.

In the scope being talked about in the mainstream political theater, I do not believe it could. In theory, it could force the to restart but A) I don't believe it'd be worth it for us and B) They'd probably just restart the program.

But if we disagree, that's perfectly fine. I don't think your idea is "stupid" I just think it is folly and not in our best interests.


No invasion and occupation required.

Blech, I get your ideas and the ideas of others confused. Apologies for misrepresenting your position.


Actually it can mean the end of the world. Once nuclear exchange starts between between any two countries, there no way to tell where it would all end. You should read around how the Israel conflicts in the 70s and 80s almost dragged the superpowers right into the thick of it.

An exchange might be; but just because they have them, doesn't mean they'll use them. Is it a risk? Is it a huge risk? Yes, of course. But I don't see any alternative.


Not if people are queing day in day out for the slightest drop of petrol and diesel, the is no food in the shops, unemployment is in the 50-80%, inflation is going through the roof.

Secondly, the aftermath of such strikes will curtail the cash inflows tha Iran currently enjoys - learn from Iraq.


You suppose that a strike would do that? That sounds more like the result of sanctions to me.


Well, it hasn't worked in the past 8 years, if anything Iran has advanced closer to a bomb.

And the regime has gotten shakier and the people louder. When I say long game, I mean long game. Til 2020-2030.


Not if they have military escort and the straight is tightly under US military control. Heck, there are pirates marauding in the Gulf of Aden and investors have lost millions but its still business as usual.

Iran has much more capacity to raise hell. And if they send a few freighters to the bottom, I'd bet the companies would refuse to ship for at least a while until they could be sure of the safety of the area. But also, there would be nothing leaving the Iranian ports, in addition to the disruption they cause.


It doesn't have to be the only palatable option.

Having reviewed the others -- it is to me.


A DANGEROUS nuclear armed Iran carries sever implications, i say take out the 'dangerous nuclear' and you have a happier and safer world. Also don't over estimate Iran, it is not as as significant as you make it out to be in the grand scale of things.

Of course. Believe me, I'd love it if Iran would peaceably give up the nuclear program tomorrow. Huge load off my chest. But I don't see that happening. And no, Iran is not the Soviet Union and does not carry the same long term dangers. But it still is a substantial issue for our regional security in a very fragile time.

EDIT --


Its a fair comparison. Osirak was for an equally determined regime that would gas its own people and invade its neighbours for its selfish end. But when their site was flattened and screws turned really tight on them, they broke. Everyone has an endurance limit.

Osirak is one reactor we knew the location of, built by the French. Iran has many facilities across the country built locally with the local know how. Much easier for them to recover. And it never really became the same headline grabbing story for Iraq as it did Iran.

Zinja
20 Mar 10,, 22:18
JAD did, I believe.

Quote him


And there is the ever present possibility that that failure means a nuclear exchange. A possibility which some of us are not willing to even contemplate hence action needs to be taken.


But I am willing to accept these risks Not if you are the one to be directly on the receiving end of these risks - Israel.


because of the highy unpalateble nature of the alternatives and the benefits of success. What could be more unpalateble than being nuked?


Of course he says that, it's his job. What are the chances? Good enough, but to draw a comparison between hateful rhetoric and the use of a nuclear weapon is highly suspect. You can trust A'jacket if you want, but im sorry i don't, certainly not a holocaust denier who believes in a mahdi who will can be brought forth by amagedon, thinks 9/11 was the US idea of fun and thinks other nations have no right to exist - sorry, not me.

Zinja
20 Mar 10,, 22:22
Again, a false comparison. There is no guarantee that such a strike would halt their program.

It will halt the program. If gloves come off and the US is determined to eliminate the program, it can. Every military installation, every senior figure, every nuclear installation becomes fair play.

ASparr
20 Mar 10,, 22:23
Quote him

It wasn't JAD, sorry.


Force a breakdown society and revision to tribal/community government. Tribes don't build a-bombs. Then once the regime is toppled, move in with massive aid. People with full bellies and steady employment don't hold grudges.


Top of page 4.


A possibility which some of us are not willing to even contemplate hence action needs to be taken.

Would you have invaded Cuba?


Not if you are the one to be directly on the receiving end of these risks - Israel.

Since when does Israel get to decide American policy?


What could be more unpalateble than being nuked?

not much, but that's not what I'm saying.


You can trust A'jacket if you want, but im sorry i don't, certainly not a holocaust denier who believes in a mahdi who will can be brought forth by amagedon, thinks 9/11 was the US idea of fun and thinks other nations have no right to exist - sorry, not me.

I don't. But I do trust I can reasonably predict him to act in a fairly rational way. I, for one, am not going to let my emotions cloud my judgment over security policy.

ASparr
20 Mar 10,, 22:24
It will halt the program. If gloves come off and the US is determined to eliminate the program, it can. Every military installation, every senior figure, every nuclear installation becomes fair play.

And then?

Zinja
20 Mar 10,, 22:24
They are wary about such sanctions doing the same thing -- reducing the available supply of Iranian oil.
Iran is not the available SOLE supplier of oil, and the Chinese know that. China's position has little to do with oil supply than it is about business oppotunities it has with Iran.

ASparr
20 Mar 10,, 22:25
Iran is not the available SOLE supplier of oil, and the Chinese know that.

The Chinese also know that a large spike in oil prices hurts them. And hell, they're not threatened by Iran.

Zinja
20 Mar 10,, 22:32
But again, such strikes would wreak havoc on the global oil supply ....make all of the Iranian affiliated proxies go nuts,

You really over-estimate Iran's position.

The Proxies you are talking about, are not some invinsible power somewhere in space. They can be taken care of nicely, why do you think Dec 08 - Jan 09 is a source of bitterness for some people.

citanon
20 Mar 10,, 22:34
I don't discount that possibility. But again, such strikes would wreak havoc on the global oil supply (especially if you're talking about hitting major infrastructure --like pipelines),

You have to compare the limited economic damage brought by increasing oil prices with the unlimited catastrophe for nuclear proliferation. My sense is that the former will be forgotten in a couple of years while the later will have disastrous repercussions that will alter the course of history. I'd take the former any day.



make all of the Iranian affiliated proxies go nuts,

And do??? Conditions are ripe for their destruction. They might cause problems, but in the end they will get the short end of the stick.


coalesce popular support behind Dinnerjacket

Temporarily, and then he'll be left with a wrecked economy, a wrecked military, and the ignominy of defeat. Things that will contribute nothing to the regime's long term survival. His power base will crumble shortly after the conflict is over, and the Iranian leadership, if it survives, will think very very carefully about trying this crap again.


and cause severe harm to US soft power and credibility in the world.

Where as right now the entire world is taking us very seriously.


Har. Again, not the same. Iran is an established state with a fairly modern economy and infrastrucure with a large, disaffected youth population.

And Yugoslavia was not modern, did not have infrastructure, and did not have disaffected youths? Those things contributed to Milosevic's collapse. The Iranian government is more established, but that doesn't mean defeat and economic disaster would make it more popular.


Dinnerjacket and Slobo may both be nutters, but that doesn't mean what works for one, works for the other.

No, and what didn't work for one, may not necessarily work for the other either.

But let's say that however implausibly, Dinnerjacket does gain popular support and we do incur significant economic damage from the war. At the end of the day I think OOE makes the most cogent argument: does the cost of doing nothing outweigh the cost of war? On this issue I think it certainly does.

ASparr
20 Mar 10,, 22:34
You really over-estimate Iran's position.

The Proxies you are talking about, are not some invinsible power somewhere in space. They can be taken care of nicely, why do you think Dec 08 - Jan 09 is a source of bitterness for some people.

And you really underestimate their tenacity. And I never suggested that. What I said was that they'd raise cain. Possibly to the level to force another Gaza War or 2006 Lebanon War by Israel.

citanon
20 Mar 10,, 22:34
And you really underestimate their tenacity. And I never suggested that. What I said was that they'd raise cain. Possibly to the level to force another Gaza War or 2006 Lebanon War by Israel.

I wouldn't be surprised if Israel is looking for that very opportunity.

ASparr
20 Mar 10,, 22:39
You have to compare the limited economic damage brought by increasing oil prices with the unlimited catastrophe for nuclear proliferation. My sense is that the former will be forgotten in a couple of years while the later will have disastrous repercussions that will alter the course of history. I'd take the former any day.

Well, there's very little I can do about that then. I disagree obviously but c'est la vie.


And do??? Conditions are ripe for their destruction. They might cause problems, but in the end they will get the short end of the stick.


How so? Just like they were in 2006 and 08-09?


Temporarily, and then he'll be left with a wrecked economy, a wrecked military, and the ignominy of defeat. Things that will contribute nothing to the regime's long term survival. His power base will crumble shortly after the conflict is over, and the Iranian leadership, if it survives, will think very very carefully about trying this crap again.

Tell it to Kilcullen.

Beyond Bullets: Strategies for Countering Violent Extremism | Center for a New American Security (http://www.cnas.org/node/795)


Where as right now the entire world is taking us very seriously.

being taken seriously is not the issue.


Yugoslavia was not?
Not to the same degree and again, the comparison is folly. See above


But let's say that however implausibly, Dinnerjacket does gain popular support and we do incur significant economic damage from the war. At the end of the day I think OOE makes the most cogent argument: does the cost of doing nothing outweigh the cost of war? On this issue I think it certainly does.

Not when Iran gets nukes in 2017.

ASparr
20 Mar 10,, 22:39
I wouldn't be surprised if Israel is looking for that very opportunity.

Because it always works so well.

citanon
20 Mar 10,, 22:40
The Chinese also know that a large spike in oil prices hurts them. And hell, they're not threatened by Iran.

And since they know it, they might actually feel like doing something about Iranian sanctions if they suspected we were preparing for war.

ASparr
20 Mar 10,, 22:42
And since they know it, they might actually feel like doing something about Iranian sanctions if they suspected we were preparing for war.

We've always left that option very visibly open. They aint movin.

citanon
20 Mar 10,, 22:48
Well, there's very little I can do about that then. I disagree obviously but c'est la vie.
How so? Just like they were in 2006 and 08-09?

Hamas got creamed in Gaza, and Hezbollah did not exactly fare too well from the last war. Oh, by the way, Israel has been retooling and retraining and re-strategized precisely to roll them in the next conflict. You could see the differences, in fact, in Cast Lead.


Tell it to Kilcullen.

Beyond Bullets: Strategies for Countering Violent Extremism | Center for a New American Security (http://www.cnas.org/node/795)


He's not the one I'm talking to. If he has good points you believe in, present them.



being taken seriously is not the issue.

So I suppose effective influencing other nations is not an issue? Or do you claim that one could influence others without being taken seriously?



Not when Iran gets nukes in 2017.

That's the point. We'll hit them so hard they wont'. And if they do, another chance to pummel them again.

citanon
20 Mar 10,, 22:48
We've always left that option very visibly open. They aint movin.

Why do you think they aren't? Perhaps it could be that they don't take us seriously?

ASparr
20 Mar 10,, 22:50
Why do you think they aren't? Perhaps it could be that they don't take us seriously?

Because Russia still stands in our way for sanctions and nobody would believe us if we started hamming an attack up whilst simultaneously slipping the paper under their noses.

ASparr
20 Mar 10,, 22:54
Hamas got creamed in Gaza, and Hezbollah did not exactly fare too well from the last war. Oh, by the way, Israel has been retooling and retraining and re-strategized precisely to roll them in the next conflict. You could see the differences, in fact, in Cast Lead.

yes. But as any student of insurgencies and history can tell you, a temporary military victory is never truly solidified until a political solution backs it up. yeah, hamas got creamed in the war. Nobody expected they wouldn't.


He's not the one I'm talking to. If he has good points you believe in, present them.

I have. I am now pointing you in his direction in the hope you'll actually believe them when he says it.


So I suppose effective influencing other nations is not an issue? Or do you claim that one could influence others without being taken seriously?

I'm not talking about interactions between nations. I'm talking about our perception in the arab world by the arab people.


That's the point. We'll hit them so hard they wont'. And if they do, another chance to pummel them again.

You cant without destroying significant portions of their economy and infrastructure. And then, you're just going to give the illegitimate government more legitimacy while we look like fools celebrating a 3 year victory.

citanon
20 Mar 10,, 22:58
He's not the one I'm talking to. If he has good points you believe in, present them.


Actually I'll save you the trouble:

From his paper:


Contain the Iranian regime by driving a wedge • between the regime and the people. Initiatives to bomb Iran in order to disrupt progress toward a nuclear device are extremely unlikely to succeed. Via the “9/11 effect” such activities would most likely consolidate the people on nationalistic grounds behind the regime, however unpopular, and might buy the regime an extra ten years in power. Instead, in order to contain Iran during the consolidation phase, the United States should make the regime a series of diplomatic offers that it could not accept, but which the Iranian people would see as extremely positive, thus driving a wedge between the regime and its people. Such a move would force the regime to expend significant “bandwidth” in internal control and repressive activities that would limit its resources for external disruption, while further weakening its grasp. These diplomatic offers could include access to a substantial number of light water nuclear reactors without
| 57
the capacity for fuel rod reprocessing, major fuel import and trading concessions, removal from the “axis of evil” list, opening of diplomatic relations with the United States, relaxation of visa restrictions, a large-scale educational exchange program and, potentially, a presidential visit to Tehran. This set of offers, if made publicly, would be extremely unlikely to be accepted by the regime, but their non-acceptance would probably create widespread dissatisfaction with the regime among the Iranian people.

I'm sorry but this passage makes Killcullen sound like a grade A wanker (maybe he's done other impressive work).

One does not need to be a genius to ask George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld and the Republicans in Congress how long the 9/11 effect lasted, and how well it worked, and this while the country that was still doing well economically and where the government enjoyed far higher levels of support before 9/11.

Now imaging Bush's popularity if people believed the War actually wrecked the economy. Oh wait, just look at the poll numbers. :rolleyes:

ASparr
20 Mar 10,, 23:01
I'm sorry but this passage makes Killcullen sound like a grade A wanker (maybe he's done other impressive work).

One does not need to be a genius to ask George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld and the Republicans in Congress how long the 9/11 effect lasted, and how well it worked, and this while the country that was still doing well economically and where the government enjoyed far higher levels of support before 9/11.

If the same thing happened in Iran Dinnerjacket would be toast.

Actually, he's one of the most impressive analysts I've seen today. Google him, why don't ya?

citanon
20 Mar 10,, 23:13
Actually, he's one of the most impressive analysts I've seen today. Google him, why don't ya?

I've seen his work. I wouldn't call what he put in that particular report you cited: analysis. It's another example where someone who's done good thinking about one thing, goes into something different and starts believing that he automatically has deep wisdom about that different thing, and gets it completely wrong.

Instances of this abound. The most clear cut cases can be found in science:

Francis Crick, Albert Einstein, a number of the peak oil crowd, so on and so forth.

Present good arguments and deep logical analysis that makes sense. Name dropping doesn't help your case. :rolleyes:

ASparr
20 Mar 10,, 23:15
I've just seen his work, and I wouldn't call that particular passage: analysis.

:rolleyes:


You're more than free to disagree. But I'm gonna take the distinguished theorist and practitioner's opinion on this issue.

Officer of Engineers
20 Mar 10,, 23:17
You still have not made the case why an Iran who lied, cheated, threatened, bullied to get nuclear weapons should be trusted with nuclear weapons that they've promised to erase Israel with.

ASparr
20 Mar 10,, 23:20
You still have not made the case why an Iran who lied, cheated, threatened, bullied to get nuclear weapons should be trusted with nuclear weapons that they've promised to erase Israel with.

I also didn't make the case that everyone should own a monkey. Why? Because it's not my point and it's silly. What's even sillier is to presume that Dinnerjacket, who has been pretty savvy so far, is going to go apeshit and destroy Israel and himself in the process the second he gets a nuclear weapon.

zraver
20 Mar 10,, 23:21
A sanction is not the same as a sudden market jolt from an unknown strike. Sanctions were discussed, gave people time to consider and plan for them. A strike nobody sees coming is not the same thing.

people have seen the war clouds gathering for a couple of years now.


No, do not ascribe opinions to me. You face it head on and you're gonna lose your eyebrows when it blows up in your face. Again, what are the prospects for your plan in the long term? What would happen?

That is getter than getting it in the backside. If we don't act we risk war not of our making. Peace is not in any danger of breaking out.


Uh, 1979 Iran?

Uh no, Iran was a monarchy not a military dictatorship.



Not sure what the shouting is supposed to do. But in any case, please stop.
Anyway, yes I know that. And great, they wouldn't fight each other. They'd just fight us. A much better proposition.

They would not have fought us. Please read what I actually post- full bellies and employment is the best tool to stop insurgencies.


I'll let ya know when I start advocating that. Until then, stop ascribing positions to me.

Then what exactly are you advocating?


Yes, I know. But you can bet there would be a significant proportion that would object to the US invading another Muslim country.

Sure there would, the same half that would cheer Iran nuking Tel Aviv. I didn't know the opinions of barbarians mattered.


Shia v. Sunni disappears pretty quick when it becomes Muslim v. Kufr.

Did you really just say that?..... Then explain the Iraqi Civil War in the midst of the US Occupation.



they may hate them, but this is the same "we will be heralded as heroes" folly that got us snakebit in Iraq.

Those same Arab government and masses that you claim will rise up to defend Persians gave us bases to attack Arabs.....


Arab regimes do not equal their people, if that wasn't already crushingly obvious.

You right, but the hard core jihadists are dead, most Arabs despise the Persians and everyone loves winner.


Yes they will. And it's a terrifying thought.

Its rather rational, the willingness to play the role of a Global Samson works, or has until now.


I guess that's why ol' Johnny Reb turned tail and surrendered when the going got tough.

May I make a suggestion? Look into when Ol' Johnny Reb threw in the towel. His heartland was in ruins, his breadbasket was burnt stubble, his nation was cut in thirds and he was facing relentless pressure from a military force that would not stop until the day after he did.


We're not the Mongol Horde, we can actually resolve our differences without having the streets run red with blood.

diplomacy takes two willing partners, Iran is not willing.


I guess that's why we just should a nuked Cuba during the Crisis then, huh? After all, nothing like a few Minutemen making the skyline glow to really drive our point home.

The Soviet's backed down when we showed we were ready to do exact;ly that.


EDIT- And you're referencing the Nazis and genocide to support your point. Not the example I want our Republic following.

What? Where have I referenced the Nazi's as a model to be followed?

citanon
20 Mar 10,, 23:24
You're more than free to disagree. But I'm gonna take the distinguished theorist and practitioner's opinion on this issue.

Trust me I work in a field where plenty of distinguished and brilliant people frequently have their heads up their rears. Often it's temporary, but it happens. Being distinguished != infallible, especially when going into a new area.

ASparr
20 Mar 10,, 23:33
people have seen the war clouds gathering for a couple of years now.


So you're ready for a strike that for all you know is coming tomorrow?


That is getter than getting it in the backside. If we don't act we risk war not of our making. Peace is not in any danger of breaking out.

I'd take that bet.


Uh no, Iran was a monarchy not a military dictatorship.

Is it now?


They would not have fought us. Please read what I actually post- full bellies and employment is the best tool to stop insurgencies.

And I just bet they'll sit patiently while we occupy their country and give them food. They'll be thrilled to see us! Wait, where have I heard that before?


Then what exactly are you advocating?

Sanctions, diplomatic isolation, getting China and Russia on board, supporting the anti-government forces.


Sure there would, the same half that would cheer Iran nuking Tel Aviv. I didn't know the opinions of barbarians mattered.

Gonna do you a favor and skip this one.


Did you really just say that?..... Then explain the Iraqi Civil War in the midst of the US Occupation.

I didn't say the Iranians would do it. I said AQ would use it and it would look bad for the US. You really think they're gonna be having a parade in Syria if we invade? Of course they always fight but AQ hated Saddam and they couldn't help themselves but to rush in after 2003.


Those same Arab government and masses that you claim will rise up to defend Persians gave us bases to attack Arabs.....

I wasn't aware the Saudi government put up a referendum on whether or not to have the US military in their country.


You right, but the hard core jihadists are dead, most Arabs despise the Persians and everyone loves winner.

You seriously suggesting you can kill your way out of a problem like AQ?


Its rather rational, the willingness to play the role of a Global Samson works, or has until now.

The willingness to kill a billion to save 6 million is perfectly rational. I guess it helps if you make the other side "barbarians" first.


May I make a suggestion? Look into when Ol' Johnny Reb threw in the towel. His heartland was in ruins, his breadbasket was burnt stubble, his nation was cut in thirds and he was facing relentless pressure from a military force that would not stop until the day after he did.

And it had been that way for awhile. The South wasn't exactly well fed throughout the course of the war.


diplomacy takes two willing partners, Iran is not willing.

So invasion and occupation is the only solution?


The Soviet's backed down when we showed we were ready to do exact;ly that.

We have showed we're willing to attack Iran. Doesn't seem to have worked.


What? Where have I referenced the Nazi's as a model to be followed?


I guess you don;t get just how effective force is. Raw naked force is the decider, it has settled more intra-group conflicts in human history than other method. Ask the native Americans, the Celts or the Germans how effective unrestricted force is at ending conflicts.


Trust me I work in a field where plenty of distinguished and brilliant people frequently have their heads up their rears. Often it's temporary, but it happens. Being distinguished != infallible, especially when going into a new area.

I'm sure it happens all the time. I'm sure it's not happening now.

Dreadnought
21 Mar 10,, 00:39
Because it's in our interests to insure that Iran getting the bomb doesn't force the Arab nations into an arms race, culminating with a nuclear exchange.

Wrong, its in every single signer to the NPT Treaty to insure that proliferation and clandestine weapons programs are not brought forth. Russia and China also happen to be signers of the NPT as well and both are fighting stronger sanctions. Its in their interest. Its also in Israel's interest to exist as a country not to be prevoked by Iran and the hatred and calls for destruction they spew on a continuing basis.

They have yet to demonstrate responsibility in regard to the NPT or as any sense of leadership.

Officer of Engineers
21 Mar 10,, 01:20
I also didn't make the case that everyone should own a monkey. Why? Because it's not my point and it's silly.You've got to be sh!tting me. Iran's arguement and ours has been based entirely on the NPT. Iran claims not to have violated while we have proof that they did.


What's even sillier is to presume that Dinnerjacket, who has been pretty savvy so far, is going to go apeshit and destroy Israel and himself in the process the second he gets a nuclear weapon.What's sillier is that you don't even read the man. He had turned a defacto ally during the Iran-Iraq War into a hostile upfront enemy. So, yes, I believe his willing if not able to go toe-to-toe with Israel.

ASparr
21 Mar 10,, 01:40
The exclamation mark doesn't change the meaning of the word and I'm pretty sure that we can handle a little bit of foul language, being adults and all.


You've got to be sh!tting me. Iran's arguement and ours has been based entirely on the NPT. Iran claims not to have violated while we have proof that they did.

Strange you bring it in because I hadn't mentioned the NPT. Of course Iran is violating the NPT. I never denied this and it would be damned foolish to do as such.


What's sillier is that you don't even read the man. He had turned a defacto ally during the Iran-Iraq War into a hostile upfront enemy. So, yes, I believe his willing if not able to go toe-to-toe with Israel.

There's a wide gulf between diplomatic tables being turned and warheads being exchanged. Iran knows what would happen if they used a nuke -- they aren't morons. But since you obviously wont take my word for it, let's consult Ehud Barak.

Ehud Barak

Barak also said he doubts Iran would launch a nuclear attack against Israel, but warned that a nuclear-armed Iran could destabilize the Middle East, disrupt oil supplies and strengthen Hezbollah and Hamas, which Iran sponsors financially and militarily.

Barak: A nuclear Iran threatens world stability - Haaretz - Israel News (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1152613.html)

Or Brzezinski


This American defense umbrella "should be sufficient to deter Iran," Mr. Brzezinski says. He thinks it significant that Ehud Barak, the defense minister of Israel, the nation most threatened by Iran's nuclear program, said in a Washington speech last week that Iranian leaders were "sophisticated" enough to "fully understand what might follow" the actual use of nuclear arms, and likely would use them for intimidation.

Advice From Brzezinski on How to Curb Iran - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748704187204575101560801756150.html)


Moreover, the general impression here seems to be that I'm some sort of Iran apologist. I'm not. I dislike Iran and would dearly like to see Dinnerjacket and co kicked to the curb and Iran abandon nuclear ambitions. It's a hugely destabilizing factor and serious security threat. I just happen to think we should go about addressing this issue in a different manner.

astralis
21 Mar 10,, 02:34
Asparr,


What's even sillier is to presume that Dinnerjacket, who has been pretty savvy so far, is going to go apeshit and destroy Israel and himself in the process the second he gets a nuclear weapon.

as you've seen in my earlier debate with blues, i personally don't think iran will actually, out of the blue, conduct some sort of nuclear strike to usher in the rule of the hidden Imam. but these days i've been having second thoughts myself about the usefulness of deterrence in this scenario, because i am growing more and more convinced that israel will go apeshit and strike iran-- and strike iran hard, potentially with nukes, because their IAF simply isn't big enough to carry out a conventional long-range bombing campaign necessary to destroy the widely spread-out iranian nuclear infrastructure.

and i have no problem believing that in any iran-israeli conflict, the iranian incentive to use the nuke would be -extremely high-, because they have to use-it-or-lose-it, they have (as OoE mentioned) a very poor sense of risk calculation, AND they've already expressed their willingness to wipe israel from the map. given israel's size, that's potentially possible.

to me, that's the main danger an iranian nuke poses; that and having a nuke go missing.

ASparr
21 Mar 10,, 02:51
Asparr,



as you've seen in my earlier debate with blues, i personally don't think iran will actually, out of the blue, conduct some sort of nuclear strike to usher in the rule of the hidden Imam. but these days i've been having second thoughts myself about the usefulness of deterrence in this scenario, because i am growing more and more convinced that israel will go apeshit and strike iran-- and strike iran hard, potentially with nukes, because their IAF simply isn't big enough to carry out a conventional long-range bombing campaign necessary to destroy the widely spread-out iranian nuclear infrastructure.

and i have no problem believing that in any iran-israeli conflict, the iranian incentive to use the nuke would be -extremely high-, because they have to use-it-or-lose-it, they have (as OoE mentioned) a very poor sense of risk calculation, AND they've already expressed their willingness to wipe israel from the map. given israel's size, that's potentially possible.

to me, that's the main danger an iranian nuke poses; that and having a nuke go missing.

And I agree. If there is a conflict, there is a high degree of probability that it would go nuclear. Although I cheered on seeing the US finally getting angry at Israel and rethinking the alliance, I do worry that our influence would be such that we couldn't restrain Israel if they were about to do it [bomb Iran].

Iran would not use the nuke out of the blue as some sort of prophetic doomsday scenario and if we can keep Israel from reacting and attacking, the situation can be contained. That and the ticking clock for the current regime we may end up with a peaceful solution to all of this. Don't think I'm being naive though as I'd be more than willing to use force if it really came down to that as the only viable option and I certainly don't harbor any delusions about Iran having a peaceful or benign intent for the nukes. But it's a club and insurance policy. You have once ace up your sleeve, you don't play it at the first opportunity. They'd try and use it to muscle around the neighborhood, but as Barak said, I highly doubt they'd be the first to use a nuke.

I don't see Iran giving a nuke to a non-state actor like Hizbullah either, personally. Again, it's a risk that can't be ignored but they'd be crazy to think that'd change our response if it was them directly or Hizbullah who did it. If someone blows up Jerusalem, then that country [Iran] will burn to the ground with the retaliation.

zraver
21 Mar 10,, 02:59
So you're ready for a strike that for all you know is coming tomorrow?

yup


I'd take that bet.

And that makes you a fool.


Is it now?

yes, the Gyuards staged a silent coup in June.


And I just bet they'll sit patiently while we occupy their country and give them food. They'll be thrilled to see us! Wait, where have I heard that before?

they'll hate us, but they will take bread and work over war.


Sanctions, diplomatic isolation, getting China and Russia on board, supporting the anti-government forces.

China is not going to get on board, that ship sailed.


I didn't say the Iranians would do it. I said AQ would use it and it would look bad for the US. You really think they're gonna be having a parade in Syria if we invade? Of course they always fight but AQ hated Saddam and they couldn't help themselves but to rush in after 2003.

The hard core Arab jihadis are dead.


I wasn't aware the Saudi government put up a referendum on whether or not to have the US military in their country.

And public opinion didn't stop then.


You seriously suggesting you can kill your way out of a problem like AQ?

Yes


The willingness to kill a billion to save 6 million is perfectly rational. I guess it helps if you make the other side "barbarians" first.

Its called making the final solution for the Jewish question- The Final Solution for Mankind and its worked.


And it had been that way for awhile. The South wasn't exactly well fed throughout the course of the war.

The CSA collapsed 5 months after Sherman reached Savannah.


So invasion and occupation is the only solution?

I did not say invasion, but war. When diplomacy fails you either have to take the other sides will or enforce yours.


We have showed we're willing to attack Iran. Doesn't seem to have worked.

We have not showed we are willing to attack, and we should not. If we strike it should be with everything we have short of nukes, as hard as we can with as liberal a target list as possible with the goal to inflict as much pain and destruction as possible and rapidly as possible for the as long as it takes.


As for the Nazi reference, your bassackwards- Germany launched 3 wars in 70 years that cost over 100 million lives by the time the dying was done and left a continent in ruins. it took the allies- USSR,UK,US and the bit players physically occupying Germany and crushing its national spirit under a rain of bombs and death to stop German militarism.

ASparr
21 Mar 10,, 03:22
yup

Good for you. Now become the world's only global commodity trader and I'll care.


And that makes you a fool.

And you're a narrow minded, ignorant tosser. See? I can insult people too!


yes, the Gyuards staged a silent coup in June.

Does this matter? The government is illegitimate, everyone knows that. If you want, you're more than welcome to lookup all the military dictatorships that have ended in the past 100 years. Here's a list.

* Algeria Algeria (1965-1978; 1992-1994)
* Benin Benin (1963-1964; 1965-1991)
* Burkina Faso Burkina Faso (1966-present)
* Burundi Burundi (1966-1993; 1996-2003)
* Central African Republic Central African Republic (1966-1979; 1981-1993; 2003-present)
* Chad Chad (1975-1979; 1982-present)
* Comoros Comoros (1975-1976; 1978; 1995; 1999-2006)
* Democratic Republic of the Congo Democratic Republic of the Congo (1960-1961; 1965-1997)
* Republic of the Congo Republic of the Congo (1968-1992)
* Côte d'Ivoire Cote d'Ivoire (1999-2000)
* Egypt Egypt (1952-1970)
* Equatorial Guinea Equatorial Guinea (1979-present)
* Ethiopia Ethiopia (1974-1991)
* The Gambia The Gambia (1994-present)
* Ghana Ghana (1966-1970; 1972-1979; 1981-2001)
* Guinea Guinea (1984-present)
* Guinea-Bissau Guinea-Bissau (1980-1984; 1984-1999; 2003-2004)
* Lesotho Lesotho (1986-1993)
* Liberia Liberia (1980-1990)
* Libya Libya (1969-present)
* Madagascar Madagascar (1972-1993)
* Mali Mali (1968-1992)
* Mauritania Mauritania (1978-2007; 2008-present)
* Niger Niger (1974-1993; 1996-1999; 2010-present)
* Nigeria Nigeria (1966-1979; 1983-1999)
* Rwanda Rwanda (1973-1994)
* Sierra Leone Sierra Leone (1967-1968; 1992-1996; 1997-1998)
* Somalia Somalia (1969-1991; local militia rule since 1991)
* Sudan Sudan (1958-1964; 1969-1986; 1989-present)
* Togo Togo (1967-2005)
* Uganda Uganda (1971-1979; 1985-1986)

[edit] The Americas

* Argentina Argentina (1930-1932; 1943-1946; 1955-1958; 1966-1973; 1976-1983)
* Bolivia Bolivia (1828-1848; 1861-1871; 1876-1880; 1930-1931; 1936-1944; 1951-1952; 1964-1966; 1969-1979; 1980-1982)
* Brazil Brazil (1889-1894; 1964-1985)
* Chile Chile (1891-1896; 1924-1925; 1927-1931; 1973-1990)
* Colombia Colombia (1855-1857; 1953-1958)
* Costa Rica Costa Rica (1863-1866; 1868-1876; 1877-1882; 1917-1919; 1948-1949)
* Cuba Cuba (1933-1940; 1952-1955)
* Dominican Republic Dominican Republic (1930-1961)
* Ecuador Ecuador (1876-1883; 1937-1938; 1963-1966; 1972-1979)
* El Salvador El Salvador (1885-1911; 1931-1935; 1944-1980)
* Guatemala Guatemala (1944-1945; 1957-1958; 1963-1966; 1970-1986)
* Haiti Haiti (1950-1956; 1986-1990)
* Honduras Honduras (1903-1907; 1956-1957; 1963-1971; 1972-1982)
* Mexico Mexico (1884-1911)
* Nicaragua Nicaragua (1937-1947; 1950-1956; 1967-1979)
* Panama Panama (1968-1989)
* Paraguay Paraguay (1940-1948; 1954-1993)
* Peru Peru (1838-1872; 1876-1879; 1886-1895; 1914-1915; 1930-1931; 1933-1939; 1948-1950; 1962-1963; 1968-1980)
* Suriname Suriname (1980-1988)
* Uruguay Uruguay (1876-1879; 1981-1985)
* Venezuela Venezuela (1935-1945; 1948-1959)

[edit] Asia

* Bangladesh Bangladesh (1975-1981; 1982-1990)
* Burma Burma (Myanmar) (1958-1960, 1962-present)
* Cambodia Cambodia (1966-1967; 1969-1975)
* Republic of China Republic of China (1928-1975; local militia rule 1912-1928)
* Indonesia Indonesia (1966-1998)
* Iran Iran (1921-1925)
* Iraq Iraq (1949-1950; 1952-1953; 1958-1979)
* Japan Japan (1936-1945)
* South Korea South Korea (1961-1963; 1980)
* Laos Laos (1959-1960)
* Pakistan Pakistan (1958-1971; 1977-1988; 1999-2008)
* Syria Syria (1951-1954; 1963-1972)
* Thailand Thailand (1933-1945; 1946-1947; 1948-1973; 1976-1992; 2006-2008)
* South Vietnam South Vietnam (1963-1975)
* Yemen Arab Republic North Yemen (1962-1978)

Europe

* Bulgaria Bulgaria (1881-1883; 1934-1935; 1944-1946)
* France France (1870-1871)
* Greece Greece (1922-1924; 1925-1926; 1936-1941; 1967-1974)
* Hungary Hungary (1944-1945)
* Poland Poland (1926-1935; 1981-1983)
* Portugal Portugal (1917-1921; 1926-1933; 1974-1976)
* Romania Romania (1940-1945)
* Spain Spain (1840-1843; 1923-1930; 1939-1975)
* Turkey Turkey (1922-1938; 1960-1961; 1970-1973; 1980-1989)

[edit] Oceania

* Fiji Fiji (1987; 2000; 2006-present)

Yes, I copied from Wikipedia. I don't care.


they'll hate us, but they will take bread and work over war.

Are you sure you've studied counterinsurgency?


China is not going to get on board, that ship sailed.

For now.


The hard core Arab jihadis are dead.

I'll be sure to alert Dr. Zawahiri that he's dead.


And public opinion didn't stop then.

And yet a large number of the jihadis are Saudi. Hmmmmmmmm

Oh wait, I forgot -- they're dead. Nevermind.


Yes
And that makes you a fool.


Its called making the final solution for the Jewish question- The Final Solution for Mankind and its worked.

And that makes it ok. :rolleyes:


The CSA collapsed 5 months after Sherman reached Savannah.

And up until that point, their armies had always been well fed and well equipped.


I did not say invasion, but war. When diplomacy fails you either have to take the other sides will or enforce yours.

No, you said bomb them back into the tribal state and move in with aid. Pretty sure you're gonna want some troops with that aid unless you want a massacre of red cross workers.


We have not showed we are willing to attack, and we should not. If we strike it should be with everything we have short of nukes, as hard as we can with as liberal a target list as possible with the goal to inflict as much pain and destruction as possible and rapidly as possible for the as long as it takes.

I can't see anyway in which that could fail or bite us in the ass. Go for it.


As for the Nazi reference, your bassackwards- Germany launched 3 wars in 70 years that cost over 100 million lives by the time the dying was done and left a continent in ruins. it took the allies- USSR,UK,US and the bit players physically occupying Germany and crushing its national spirit under a rain of bombs and death to stop German militarism.

As for the Nazi reference -- I didn't make it and I never said you said that's the model we should follow. I'm saying that following 1940's total war military doctrine in the middle east is like blowing up the city block to get at one house and wondering why everyone is pissed at you.

astralis
21 Mar 10,, 04:13
okay guys-- no more personal insults. any more and i'm closing the thread.

zraver
21 Mar 10,, 04:14
Good for you. Now become the world's only global commodity trader and I'll care.

don;t ask questions if you don't think you'll like the answer.


And you're a narrow minded, ignorant tosser. See? I can insult people too!

See there is a problem, actually several of them

A- you didn't read the survival guide

B- your a fool

C- your fvcking moron who somehow thinks it will all just work itself out.


Does this matter? The government is illegitimate, everyone knows that. If you want, you're more than welcome to lookup all the military dictatorships that have ended in the past 100 years. Here's a list.
Yes, I copied from Wikipedia. I don't care.

How many were overthrown by peaceniks? Juntas either give up power voluntarily when some leader comes forward who believes in law and order, or a new junta replaces them.


Are you sure you've studied counterinsurgency?

If you don't believe me show the evidence that argues against me. Say the Iraqi Sunni insurgents.... Oh wait, we moved in with dollars and used the them to hire our former enemies to root out a common foe. This gave all those men employment and a purpose.


For now.

Until now is more accurate with no signs of changing.


I'll be sure to alert Dr. Zawahiri that he's dead.

He has very little power to affect events.


And yet a large number of the jihadis are Saudi. Hmmmmmmmm

Not anymore, towards the end, AQI was recruiting from North African countries.

Oh wait, I forgot -- they're dead. Nevermind.



And that makes you a fool.

It makes me a student of history.


And that makes it ok. :rolleyes:

The final judge of something is whether or not it works. From a Jewish perspective, they have zero reason to give a rats ass about anyone else since no one bothered to give a rats ass about them. Israel's only reason for being is Israel.


And up until that point, their armies had always been well fed and well equipped.

No but they had enough, and they had hope. Grant and Sherman crushed the latter when they crushed the former.

ASparr
21 Mar 10,, 04:26
astralis is right and I'll do my part by ignoring your first two replies.


How many were overthrown by peaceniks? Juntas either give up power voluntarily when some leader comes forward who believes in law and order, or a new junta replaces them.

If you think the current political dissatisfaction will never blow up violently, you might have a good shot at being hired by the Iranian regime.


If you don't believe me show the evidence that argues against me. Say the Iraqi Sunni insurgents.... Oh wait, we moved in with dollars and used the them to hire our former enemies to root out a common foe. This gave all those men employment and a purpose.

You're looking at one facet of one particular insurgency. As you know as well as I do that insurgencies are so variable comparing the Iraqi one to a likely Iranian one is an exercise in futility. Bottom line: You don't get the loyalty of the population by feeding them. You get it by protecting them and providing them with opportunities.


Until now is more accurate with no signs of changing.

China is so opaque and hard to read that this is in essence meaningless.


He has very little power to affect events.

The head of al-Qaeda has very little power? Wow.


Not anymore, towards the end, AQI was recruiting from North African countries.

Towards the end of one of al-Qaedas offshoots, they used North African recruits. Convincing.


It makes me a student of history.

How's this? Egypt has been dealing with violent Islamists since the early 20th century and has tried little else but killing and capturing them. How has that worked out?


The final judge of something is whether or not it works. From a Jewish perspective, they have zero reason to give a rats ass about anyone else since no one bothered to give a rats ass about them. Israel's only reason for being is Israel.

Really? So the final judge about the Holocaust was whether or not it worked to exterminate the Jews? It's intent and means don't matter, just whether or not it achieved its goals?


No but they had enough, and they had hope. Grant and Sherman crushed the latter when they crushed the former.

Plenty of rebel soldiers were hungry, poorly equipped and trained throughout the course of the war. Yet they still kept fighting. And this is really belaboring a single example.

zraver
21 Mar 10,, 05:26
If you think the current political dissatisfaction will never blow up violently, you might have a good shot at being hired by the Iranian regime.

There are two armed groups in Iran- the Guards who are in power and the army. The army is staying out of it, and unless that changes or a faction of the guards splinters off million student marches won't be much use.


You're looking at one facet of one particular insurgency. As you know as well as I do that insurgencies are so variable comparing the Iraqi one to a likely Iranian one is an exercise in futility. Bottom line: You don't get the loyalty of the population by feeding them. You get it by protecting them and providing them with opportunities.

food security is protection, so is employment as is hope. You win an insurgency by cutting it off from the population. You doi this by 1 or 2 means- wall the population off or become more attractive to the population than the insurgents. Like I said there is no such thing as a starving nationalist, there is also no such thing as a major insurgency in a region with nearly full employment of the areas 16-40yo male population.


China is so opaque and hard to read that this is in essence meaningless.


That is wishful thinking, China is Iran's patron.



The head of al-Qaeda has very little power? Wow.

Don't be ontuse, Al Queda is on the run, almost all of its top leadership is dead or in our hands, the bulk of its fighters are dead.


Towards the end of one of al-Qaedas offshoots, they used North African recruits. Convincing.

It means the AQI message lost its appeal.


How's this? Egypt has been dealing with violent Islamists since the early 20th century and has tried little else but killing and capturing them. How has that worked out?

Egypt hasn't followed through, force gives you the time and space to affect a reality shift, but if you don't use the time and space the problem pops back up.


Really? So the final judge about the Holocaust was whether or not it worked to exterminate the Jews? It's intent and means don't matter, just whether or not it achieved its goals?

No its intents and means don't matter. If the Nazi regime had cared about such in moralistic terms they would not have done it. We judge their actions post facto from our POV. Israel's POV is protect Jews, and if the world allows another Holocaust then Fvck'em and they can share in the pain. Its very rational. Whats irrational is you thinking nation built on the bones of a genocide has to sit back and take it a second time.


Plenty of rebel soldiers were hungry, poorly equipped and trained throughout the course of the war. Yet they still kept fighting. And this is really belaboring a single example.

They kept fighting until they lost hope. The US broke their will.

ASparr
21 Mar 10,, 05:32
Whats irrational is you thinking nation built on the bones of a genocide has to sit back and take it a second time.

Your complete inability, whether through choice or ignorance, to grasp my point and your constant misrepresentations of my position have finally convinced me that a debate with you is literally not worth the half a calorie I spend moving my fingers to type. Good day.

zraver
21 Mar 10,, 06:01
Your complete inability, whether through choice or ignorance, to grasp my point and your constant misrepresentations of my position have finally convinced me that a debate with you is literally not worth the half a calorie I spend moving my fingers to type. Good day.

I have misrepresented nothing.


I said,


Israel however is tiny and under the gun with a history of other people trying to exterminate them. They can't take that risk.

You said,


They can't but they have to. The other options are so unpalatable and the actual risks of a nuclear exchange are so small that to go with the 100% certainty of the havoc caused by your course and the 5% chance of an actual nuclear exchange is blind, reactionary folly.

You don't seem to grasp that they don't have to. Israel has 1 reason for being- protect Jews.

A nuclear armed Iran makes that mission almost impossible. Iran would be able to put Israel under a nuclear threat and thereby give Syria a freehand, Iran could slip a bomb to (nuke or dirty) Hezzbollah or Hamas, step up funding and push for more wars like 2006/07 etc. Since Iran will not behave rationally the only choices left is who suffers most and who throws the first punch.

Striking first lets the US keep real live nuclear weapons out of play. Israel has proven that if we do act they won't. They are willing to let us do the dirty work, but if we won't they will. Except lacking a massive strategic air force and navy they have far fewer tools. F-15I's armed with nuclear cruise missiles. Popeyes with nuclear cruise missiles and a few Jericho ballistic missiles with nuke warheads is about all they have.

Striking first Lets us hit the boat sheds, barracks and sub pens Iran depends on to block the Strait of Hormuz. It also lets us take down the radars that the bulk of Iranian AshM need for mid course correction data as well as pasting their airfields when a convoy sails into or out of the Gulf.

Striking first lets us take down more of the communication grid and leadership (c4SRi) before they have a handle on the situation. This means the chances of Iran successfully salvoing enough missiles at one time (ballsitic or otherwise) to swamp our defenses is greatly reduced.

Striking first lets us start with assets as close to optimal as possible instead of a sudden scramble. It also means we can get the big fat juicy targets out of the gulf and alert our allies to prepare their mine warfare ships for a dash to the Persian Gulf.

Plus a whole lot more reasons. If Israel or Iran throws the first blow, we face the same problems but from a much worse footing. We may end up with a carrier trapped in the Gulf with the Strait of Hormuz mined and the Iranians fully mobilized and dispersed for war.

But hey what do I know..... run along. :rolleyes:

JAD_333
21 Mar 10,, 06:13
Who said anything about occupation?

JAD did, I believe.

nope, not me.

Since you rang my bell. Let's talk oil. One of your arguments for not taking military action against iran now is that oil supplies would be cut and prices would skyrocket. Wouldn't that be the case no matter when military action is taken?

While iran is the fifth largest oil exporter at 2.5 million bbls a day, there are 26 exporting nations producing between 500k and 8.9 million bbls a day. Even the us exports 1.4 million bbls a day. Sure, cutting iran's exports would have an effect on prices and supplies, but a temporary increase in output by other exporters could easily make up the shortfall.

We are not talking about bombing their oil fields or their civilian infrastructure, rather facilities crucial to making nukes. The question boils down to what is worse: A nuclear-armed iran or a temporary shortage of oil?

If you wish to argue against striking iran that's fine, but your case is not helped by pointing out the inconveniences which always accompany military action.

Probabilities also don't make a case. You said a few posts ago that we can live with 5% probability that iran would use nukes it they possessed them. I would say the probability of their using them in a first strike is closer to zero, but what concerns us more is the regional dominance iran would gain by possessing nukes and the deterrent effect they would have against any country in the region that seeks to resist iran's encroachments. Iran's chest beating and its religious centric government are not to be taken lightly.

JAD_333
21 Mar 10,, 06:54
Having now caught up on the last three pages of posts, some of them quite insulting but amusing, it appears we are all in agreement that should Iran persist in building nukes, we must stop her, if necessary by military action. Where we differ is on the timing. Tomorrow? Or, after more dickering and sanctions? Or somewhere in between? I don't know the answer. Tomorrow seems too soon. What is the drop dead point?

Kilo 2-3
21 Mar 10,, 07:46
Having now caught up on the last three pages of posts, some of them quite insulting but amusing, it appears we are all in agreement that should Iran persist in building nukes, we must stop her, if necessary by military action. Where we differ is on the timing. Tomorrow? Or, after more dickering and sanctions? Or somewhere in between? I don't know the answer. Tomorrow seems too soon. What is the drop dead point?

I think that it would largely be contingent on what Iran does. A pre-emptive strike by the US doesn't seem likely at this point, however, should Iran declare itself nuclear-armed, test a weapon, and begin to back up its current rhetoric with with aggressive actions in the region, be it naval actions in the Persian Gulf or air or ground buildups threatening US-aligned neighbors.

I'd say this timeframe would fit best in the next 2-10 years, if it were to occur at all.

Were the events to occur, my guess would be that the US response would not be a full-scale invasion, but rather retaliatory air- and missile strikes from US Navy ships in the Gulf and from USAF bombers operating from Gulf area bases, Great Britain, CONUS, Diego Garcia, and possibly Turkey.

zraver
21 Mar 10,, 14:49
I think that it would largely be contingent on what Iran does. A pre-emptive strike by the US doesn't seem likely at this point, however, should Iran declare itself nuclear-armed, test a weapon, and begin to back up its current rhetoric with with aggressive actions in the region, be it naval actions in the Persian Gulf or air or ground buildups threatening US-aligned neighbors.

if you take the secret sites, the pursuit of bomb plans, and the move to make HEU at face value then Iran already has already done all those things but test a weapon.


I'd say this timeframe would fit best in the next 2-10 years, if it were to occur at all.

We have 2-3 months max before the main reactor goes hot. Once its hot, Iran can use the site to do what ever it wants under its protective cloud of possible fallout if we strike. Iran is also building more boghammers, mines and ballsitic missiles each month. The recent launch of a satellite means iran is on the cusp of ICBM technology as well. At what point do we pull our collective heads out of the sand?

JAD_333
21 Mar 10,, 18:13
Z:

What is our drop dead point? Sounds like you're saying 3 months.

That may not be enough time for Obama to intellectualize how we should act. :biggrin: We know from the Afgan example that it takes him at least that long to make a decision. Or, has a decision been made? Bunker busters to Diego being the overt signal that we've started the clock?

What else have we got? Seems to me the hope that an internal political upset will change Iran's course is a pipe dream. The government plans to execute 6 Iranians charged with leading illegal demonstrations. This is not the act of a government on the ropes.

Will the French, etal, go in with us? Will countries in the region give us tacit approval? Will China cause problems for us for messing with their oil sources? (I doubt it. They're pragmatic. We mean more to them than Iran.) What will Russia do? (Huff and puff). Can we afford the cost of an attack and the aftermath given the state of the economy?

The Obama and the dems say about health care legislation, "just do it, because it' the right thing to do." I'm wondering if they'll say the same about cutting Iran off at the pass.

JAD_333
21 Mar 10,, 18:26
I think that it would largely be contingent on what Iran does.

It has done and is doing what is moving us toward military action. They refuse to comply with the NPT and show no inclination to observe it. What else do you think they can do to convince us they are not sincere?



A pre-emptive strike by the US doesn't seem likely at this point, however, should Iran declare itself nuclear-armed, test a weapon, and begin to back up its current rhetoric with with aggressive actions in the region, be it naval actions in the Persian Gulf or air or ground buildups threatening US-aligned neighbors.

As the old saying goes, it doesn't do any good to close the barn door after the horse has gotten free.




I'd say this timeframe would fit best in the next 2-10 years, if it were to occur at all.

2 years already sounds like too long.


Were the events to occur, my guess would be that the US response would not be a full-scale invasion, but rather retaliatory air- and missile strikes from US Navy ships in the Gulf and from USAF bombers operating from Gulf area bases, Great Britain, CONUS, Diego Garcia, and possibly Turkey.

Yes, the Israeli model. Quick strikes on nuke facilities. And then?

zraver
21 Mar 10,, 18:36
Z:

What is our drop dead point? Sounds like you're saying 3 months.


3 is the outside, once those fuel rods are shipped from Russia the game changes.


That may not be enough time for Obama to intellectualize how we should act. :biggrin: We know from the Afgan example that it takes him at least that long to make a decision. Or, has a decision been made? Bunker busters to Diego being the overt signal that we've started the clock?

I hope the shipment of bombs was a signal that the time is up. 2000lb bombs are not really big enough to go after the nuke plants, but they can play hell with Iran's C4SRI that she would need to organize an effective response.


What else have we got? Seems to me the hope that an internal political upset will change Iran's course is a pipe dream. The government plans to execute 6 Iranians charged with leading illegal demonstrations. This is not the act of a government on the ropes.

I agree the government is not going to suddenly topple. This means the only tool left is force. If we decide to use it, the goal, the only goal is to blow the Iranians back away from the Straits of Hormuz. There is a very narrow strip where their missiles are at peak capability. (after the destruction or seizure of several small islands and floating platforms used to provide target correction data.) Deny them this area and heavily protected convoys can get into and out of the Gulf


Will the French, etal, go in with us? Will countries in the region give us tacit approval? Will China cause problems for us for messing with their oil sources? (I doubt it. They're pragmatic. We mean more to them than Iran.) What will Russia do? (Huff and puff). Can we afford the cost of an attack and the aftermath given the state of the economy?

NATO might not jump in day 1, but they will have their mine warfare assets enroute shortly, after all their economies need the oil. Russia will huff and puff and suck up the redirected petrodollars. China will huff and puff but not do much else.

As for our economy. If we strike hard enough and get enough of the critical Iranian assets early and keep Iran's ability to respond suppressed to manageable levels the oil will flow. You'll see a major spike, but it won't last. Expect Recession V2.0 but that is still better than global thermonuclear war.

Also if Iran strikes first- global depression. They can block the straits and keep them blocked for weeks until an international coalition is built up and arrives to force the issue. This will also hurt Iran, but if they feel they are in a use it or lose it situation it won't matter how much it hurts if they can do hurt to the enemy.

Mihais
22 Mar 10,, 00:14
I agree the government is not going to suddenly topple. This means the only tool left is force. If we decide to use it, the goal, the only goal is to blow the Iranians back away from the Straits of Hormuz. There is a very narrow strip where their missiles are at peak capability. (after the destruction or seizure of several small islands and floating platforms used to provide target correction data.) Deny them this area and heavily protected convoys can get into and out of the Gulf


Do you think you can do it by a mix of SOF and firepower,or do you consider that landing 1-2 Div's,in the old fashion way will be needed?In either case,preventing the Iranians from returning will be paramount,which will result in permanent occupation of the Iranian shore.And somehow,I don't see American military playing defense with their backs to the sea.About the efficiency of bombings of everything of value in Iran,I would be a bit more cautious.They might not be the Serbs,but it would also be a mistake to underestimate them.
You can do a good deal of damage.The idea of bombing a nation into submission is dear to you,but unless you're ready from the start to go in with ground forces,Iran will always find a way to hide important stuff.Air campaign only doesn't work.Never has and I don't see any particular reason why it should work now.
This whole ''we'll bomb Iran into Stone Age'' makes me remember again about Kosovo.In the end Milosevici backed off because Russia withdrew it's support.If Iran will prove to be of sterner stuff,who will demand Iran to give up?

Aryajet
22 Mar 10,, 02:09
We have 2-3 months max before the main reactor goes hot. Once its hot, Iran can use the site to do what ever it wants under its protective cloud of possible fallout if we strike. Iran is also building more boghammers, mines and ballsitic missiles each month. The recent launch of a satellite means iran is on the cusp of ICBM technology as well. At what point do we pull our collective heads out of the sand?

I presume you are referring to Bushehr reactor getting hot in 2-3 month (which has been delayed again and again). Isn't Bushehr a light water reactor all under Russian control?
AFAIK the fuel rods will be supplied and waste carried away by Russians. If that is true then what sort of military (weaponization) purposes IRI can achieve with it?
thanx,

zraver
22 Mar 10,, 02:11
Do you think you can do it by a mix of SOF and firepower,or do you consider that landing 1-2 Div's,in the old fashion way will be needed?


sheer fire, the threat is Iran's ability to fire large amounts of missiles and mine the straits. The idea is to knock them back so they can't mount a coordinated massive response but respond piecemeal so we can manage the threat.

[quote]In either case,preventing the Iranians from returning will be paramount,which will result in permanent occupation of the Iranian shore.And somehow,I don't see American military playing defense with their backs to the sea.

Not permament. Iran is an import/export dependent country. Stage 1 blow back the threat to the oil, stage 2 cripple the mil-ind and scientific sites that suport the regime and its nuke plans, stage 3 blockade until they cry uncle.


About the efficiency of bombings of everything of value in Iran,I would be a bit more cautious.They might not be the Serbs,but it would also be a mistake to underestimate them.
You can do a good deal of damage.The idea of bombing a nation into submission is dear to you,but unless you're ready from the start to go in with ground forces,Iran will always find a way to hide important stuff.Air campaign only doesn't work.Never has and I don't see any particular reason why it should work now.
This whole ''we'll bomb Iran into Stone Age'' makes me remember again about Kosovo.In the end Milosevici backed off because Russia withdrew it's support.If Iran will prove to be of sterner stuff,who will demand Iran to give up?

Mihais
22 Mar 10,, 09:33
A war you start,but you're not prepared to do the utmost to finish it would be better not started.Iran may be a dependent on exports,and a war may ruin that,but a nation can take a lot before quitting.They aren't pantsies,you know.They won't stand idle and they won't attack you in your strongest points either.The world won't be better off with a nuclear Iran and that needs to be dealt with.But the world won't a be a better place with what could be the ''mother of asymmetric battles''.Iran's C2 can be damaged but not neutralized by air campaign.Iranian morale won't colapse because of bombings.The epidemics that are likely to start won't kill all of them and people can eat a lot of unlikely things to survive.You said there are no starving nationalists.You're correct,but a lot of time is needed to arrive to THAT kind of starvation that is bad enough.Also the geopolitcs aren't as clear as you make them sound.So you either do it properly which will be relatively short and very brutal(which will require a significant effort),do it from air only,which will be a mess with unforseeable consequences or deal with nuclear Iran.Neither choice is easy.

zraver
22 Mar 10,, 14:17
A war you start,but you're not prepared to do the utmost to finish it would be better not started.

Absolutrly, but not every war needs an occupation. Do we want to effect a regime change, or simply remove the regimes ability to thug on the international stage.


Iran may be a dependent on exports,and a war may ruin that,but a nation can take a lot before quitting.They aren't pantsies,you know.

I fully expect Iran to use every tool it can lay its hands on. However Iran is more than just export dependent, its also import dependent. Long term control of gasoline and food is a powerful tool as the Iraq sanctions showed. it can't topple a regime, but blockade can ruin ambitions.


They won't stand idle and they won't attack you in your strongest points either.

Yup, they have made it very clear they they will. Hence the attack on their ability to use their tools in a concerted effort.

[quite]The world won't be better off with a nuclear Iran and that needs to be dealt with.But the world won't a be a better place with what could be the ''mother of asymmetric battles''.Iran's C2 can be damaged but not neutralized by air campaign.[/quote]

Here we have a bit of disagreement. I don't want to knock out 100%. Just enough to keep them from being able to do mass attacks on her neighbors and shipping.


Iranian morale won't colapse because of bombings.The epidemics that are likely to start won't kill all of them and people can eat a lot of unlikely things to survive.You said there are no starving nationalists.You're correct,but a lot of time is needed to arrive to THAT kind of starvation that is bad enough.

Bombing or military and industrial sites, direct military defeats, failure of the much touted Iranian responses, shortages at the bazaars, hungry bellies, no gasoline, CNN and Al Jazerra reports beamed into Iranian TV's when there is power, the population living under air raid sirens....



Also the geopolitcs aren't as clear as you make them sound.So you either do it properly which will be relatively short and very brutal(which will require a significant effort),do it from air only,which will be a mess with unforseeable consequences or deal with nuclear Iran.Neither choice is easy.

I like short but very very brutal fro the air backed by good ol' fashioned blockade. Air power can win wars, just ask the Dutch. Combine death from above with blockade and you have a very serious threat. If you want to do a proper curb stumping on someone, find out what they hold most dear and destroy it. Iran takes great pride in its advancement since 1979. We (west) have not made it clear that when war comes all those factories, advances and accomplishments are going to be assigned to the scrap heap. The most wired population in the Mideast, the only (semi) industrial power in the Mideast besides Israel, world leader in things like cloning, their aerospace and electronics industries..... everything gone- reduced back to the level of simple oil merchants and rug weavers. The Iranian people and regime do not seem to understand this basic fact.

Swift Sword
22 Mar 10,, 14:23
IIRC, it was determined of Iraq that when it came to preemptive war to prevent WMD acquisition, ground control from the air was not enough: we needed boots on the ground. Question: is this position still valid with regards to Iran?

William

JAD_333
22 Mar 10,, 16:34
A war you start,but you're not prepared to do the utmost to finish it would be better not started.

I don't think a war in the conventional sense is needed. I see it more as a demolition project. No good can come from making Iranians as whole suffer and there is even no real need to blow away the government. Our purpose is to neuter their nuke weapon ambitions. To do that all we need to do is to take away their nuke toys.

Dreadnought
22 Mar 10,, 17:45
I don't think a war in the conventional sense is needed. I see it more as a demolition project. No good can come from making Iranians as whole suffer and there is even no real need to blow away the government. Our purpose is to neuter their nuke weapon ambitions. To do that all we need to do is to take away their nuke toys.

Excellent post JAD!:)

Officer of Engineers
22 Mar 10,, 19:19
In order for us to take away the nuke toys, we have to destroy the infrastruture used to make those nuke toys and that means power grids and water mains. Make no mistake about this, we are going to make life miserable for a lot of Iranians.

Dreadnought
22 Mar 10,, 20:08
In order for us to take away the nuke toys, we have to destroy the infrastruture used to make those nuke toys and that means power grids and water mains. Make no mistake about this, we are going to make life miserable for a lot of Iranians.

With any luck Sir, they will know it is the regimes rhetoric and threats that have led to this and not the good people that caused this. This regime will leave the rest of the world no choice just like they leave their people without any choice as well. The regime will blame all of us but in the end its their cross to bear. So be it, its their ignorance that will cause it.

Bluesman
22 Mar 10,, 20:36
Fellas, as much as I like the last two posts, it just ain't gonna happen. There is simply nothing the Iranians could do that would so provoke our 'President' into doing anything effective.

Both of you, me, and a few others find the prospect of Iranian nukes unacceptable. Obama and his administration, however, have always taken that view that military action against them is unacceptable.

There IS another choice, and this idiot has made it: the Iranians are going to get nuclear weapons. Once they do, there is simply nothing at all that can be done about it then. And so, ONCE AGAIN, we are faced with the absolutely predictable outcome of the American electorate's tantrum, and it comes home to all of us that elections have extremely serious consequences.

Officer of Engineers
22 Mar 10,, 20:42
At the very least, kick Iran out of the NPT.

Bluesman
22 Mar 10,, 20:51
At the very least, kick Iran out of the NPT.

The fact that it hasn't happened is all you need to know about the value of any agreement with a bad actor. And those that believe in the value of treaties with a bad actor.

Mihais
22 Mar 10,, 20:57
JAD,Dreadnought.I don't know gentlemen how can you say such things.When a state attacks another is a war.No need to invent euphemisms.Serve only for self delusion.When a foreigner attacks,people never blame their own government.Especially a people like the Iranians today.
Now even if you call whatever you wish,but Iran will be at war.The longer it lasts,an Iranian campaign against US public or private assets worldwide will have time to make headway.In their place I would have by now a few hundreds sleeper cells in CONUS.Does your nation have the motivation to exchange blows with Iran?

And whatever it happens to Iran,they might think they can rebuild it in 15 years.They might take the gamble.

Dreadnought
22 Mar 10,, 21:26
Mihais, Perhaps you might want to ask the Iranian regime how they can say such things and provoke such feelings. It is becuase of this, that we have the situation we have now. If she gets a nuclear weapon the ME will never be the same again. Personally I dont want to see this happen and more then likely neither does anyone else, but what choice will we have if she continues her course?

Mihais
22 Mar 10,, 22:04
Dread,killing their nuke program may be achievable.Killing their grand prospects won't be so easy.Half-hearted measures will still result in a war.But it won't be in your terms.Everyone on Earth is aware what USAF is able to do.There will be no surprise.Then the initiative will pass to them.Can you handle 100 snipers shooting in various locations in the States every week?Can your people handle attacks on power grids or pipelines going to Bum****,Iowa(just learned about this new great tourist attraction:rolleyes:) without going on war footing?Same about shipments going worldwide.Can your airlines handle MANPADS killing internal flights in Alaska? That's what I would do in their place.I'd have nothing to lose.I know their C2 will be hit and that will slow them,but they have time.Buried telephone lines are harder to get,while motorcycle couriers(heck,3000 years horse speed was good enough) simply cannot be touched.
I don't say you can't achieve your purpose.But plans don't survive the first contact.You plan to bomb,then stand idle.Heck,from the start you don't plan much.You might want to confine the conflict,but there are 2 dancing.You hope for Iranian people to rebel.People don't rebel in times of war against those speaking the same language.And hope isn't a solution.''Real'' war is.It's your nation that must decide if Iran is worth the effort.IMV,you will either stand idle or sc..w it royally.I'm not happier for it.

Officer of Engineers
22 Mar 10,, 22:33
Saddam called out for the exact same thing. Nothing happenned. No further need to look further than Chechnya and Xinjiang. Despite the big attactions (Moscow theatre, Beslan, and Xingiang riots), how many car bombs went off in those countries?

Zinja
22 Mar 10,, 23:01
At the very least, kick Iran out of the NPT.

They wont leave the NPT sir, because they know that once they leave the NPT they become fair play.

Mihais
22 Mar 10,, 23:20
Sir,I don't know enough of Xinjiang to have an opinion.Saddam didn't wanted to do such a desperate step in GW1,while in GW2 Iraqi capabilities were damaged by years of isolation.That may be a broad generalization,but I don't think it's too far fetched.
Chechens still managed to carry such attacks in Russia.There were even more in regions neighboring Chechenya.I may be prejudiced,but I consider Russian internal security(even in its somewhat corrupt state)a bit above anything US currently has.And Russia did not win by being squemish.They destroyed Chechenya.
Iran has a large unconventional force.It has an effective intelligence service,connections on the American continent(Venezuela),while the pathfinders on the Mexican border will take anyone's money.It had enough time to establish safehouses,clandestine weapons and ammo caches,infiltrate sleepers etc....I don't know about the concrete Chinese reactions towards a US war with Iran.But if they will provide Iran intel is still enough.

I have no idea if such preparations were undertaken by the Iranians.But is one of their few cards available.I'm not saying US will be defeated by such things.It would be ridiculous.But it will force a decision on them.Either mobilize for the ''real deal'' or accept an international solution(one where Iran's allies and clients will have a big say).In 10 years we'll be back where we are now.

Officer of Engineers
22 Mar 10,, 23:23
How about the opposite effect? P!ss off the American public to the point that they demand to nuke Iran? That's what happened at Beslan. Russian gloves came off. While Tehran might be betting to intimitate Hockey Mom, the chances are equally good that Obama would have no choice but to nuke Tehran.

Bluesman
23 Mar 10,, 00:07
How about the opposite effect? P!ss off the American public to the point that they demand to nuke Iran? That's what happened at Beslan. Russian gloves came off. While Tehran might be betting to intimitate Hockey Mom, the chances are equally good that Obama would have no choice but to nuke Tehran.

I'm afraid he WILL do that. I think if he believes he'll lose in '12, he will use USAF bombing runs like a whistle-stop campaign, hoping for the rally-'round-der-Fuehrer effect. If he sees all of life and especially his job as running for President instead of BEING President, and we have all seen how dam' cynical the man is, it is easy to see him using the military as just another tool to be used to gain and maintain his power.

We could have taken a really credible, even-odds shot at getting out of this thing on the cheap. It was squandered. And even if it had NOT resulted in regime change, as I think was likely, we STILL would've been on-record for liberty and freedom to the Iranian people.

Instead...we sat silent while the regime killed its own people in the street, preferring to shower them with flattery, and treat with them like they really were a legitimate government. Low. Base. Shameful.

And an utterly pissed-away chance to get out of a corner.

It will come to be seen in the passage of time to have been a tragedy that need not have happened.

zraver
23 Mar 10,, 00:31
I have no idea if such preparations were undertaken by the Iranians.But is one of their few cards available.I'm not saying US will be defeated by such things.It would be ridiculous.But it will force a decision on them.Either mobilize for the ''real deal'' or accept an international solution(one where Iran's allies and clients will have a big say).In 10 years we'll be back where we are now.

Shopping mall massacres won't deter us, and it won't save them. One reason the Iranian regime is still in place is because despite everything else, they have been able to build a modern nation. Iran is not first world, but she is the best industrial power inside of the Islamic world. She is also the best educated. They take as much pride in the fact that they make cars and trucks as they do their nuclear program. Knocking Iran into the stone age means hitting all the things they take pride in.

We bomb and blockade until they cry uncle and agree to our terms. Until they cry uncle we bomb: factories, university research centers, telephone exchanges, server farms, pipeline pumping stations, fuel stocks, refineries, bridges, rail hubs, government buildings, water pumping stations, sewage treatment plants, docks and piers, anything at all that has the slightest military value eats a bomb or three.

We shoot down her pilots and her missiles, we sink her navy, blockade her trade, occupy the Tund Islands making noises about returning it to the UAE,., turn Qeshm Island into a festering prison island.

We pay particular attention to her nuke sites, reducing the above ground ones to rubble and sealing the underground sites. The goal is to leave Iran wrecked, and we do it as fast as possible so that their self image of glorious resistance crumbles under the evidence of Iranian powerlessness.

On cable news networks we have talkign heads pointing out how despite X number of missiles being fired by Iran the USAF/USN are dropping tens times that Iran. We use tweets and phone calls to help the spread of information....

We hit them at their centers of gravity- militarily, politically, industrially, socially....

citanon
23 Mar 10,, 00:54
Can you handle 100 snipers shooting in various locations in the States every week?

That reminds me of the message that Clinton's envoy delivered to Somalia after Blackhawk Down.

Philadelphia Online | Blackhawk Down (http://inquirer.philly.com/packages/somalia/dec14/default14.asp)


WHEN ROBERT OAKLEY arrived in Mogadishu on Oct. 8, Aidid was still in hiding. He met instead with the warlord's clan. He told the Habr Gidr leaders that the U.S. military operation against Aidid was over, and that Task Force Ranger's original mission had ended. The Somalis were skeptical.

``You'll see for yourself over time that it's true,'' Oakley said. Then he told them that President Clinton wanted Durant released immediately, without conditions. The Somalis were adamant. Task Force Ranger had rounded up 60 or 70 men from their leadership. The top men, including the two most important men taken on Oct. 3, Omar Salad and Mohammed Hassan Awale, were being held in a makeshift prison camp on an island off the coast. Any release of Durant would have to involve a trade. That was the Somalian way.

``I'll do my best to see that these people are released, but I can't promise anything,'' Oakley said. ``I'll even talk to the President about it, but only after you've released Durant.''

Oakley was careful to say, ``This is not a threat,'' but then he laid out a chilling scenario. He offered it as friendly advice.

``I have no plan for this, and I'll do everything I can to prevent it, but what will happen if a few weeks go by and Mr. Durant is not released? Not only will you lose any credit you may get now, but we will decide that we have to rescue him. I guarantee you we are not going to pay or trade for him in any way, shape or form. . . .

``So what we'll decide is we have to rescue him, and whether we have the right place or the wrong place, there's going to be a fight with your people. The minute the guns start again, all restraint on the U.S. side goes. Just look at the stuff coming in here now. An aircraft carrier, tanks, gunships . . . the works. Once the fighting starts, all this pent-up anger is going to be released. This whole part of the city will be destroyed, men, women, children, camels, cats, dogs, goats, donkeys, everything. . . . That would really be tragic for all of us, but that's what will happen.''

The Somalis delivered his message and ``friendly advice'' to Aidid, in hiding, who offered to hand the pilot right over. Oakley asked them to delay for a few hours to give him time to leave the country. He told them to turn Durant over to Howe, and he flew back to Washington.

At the time the Somalis chose not to find out whether he was bluffing. What you're proposing for the Iranians to do would be to call that bluff, 100 times over all over the US. At that point the Iranians won't be getting a warning and a withdrawal. The American public will be crying out for blood and revenge. Residents of Tehran could well look to Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki to prepare for what will come next.

JAD_333
23 Mar 10,, 05:46
In order for us to take away the nuke toys, we have to destroy the infrastruture used to make those nuke toys and that means power grids and water mains. Make no mistake about this, we are going to make life miserable for a lot of Iranians.

I take your point. Taking out the grid and water mains would cripple their ability to rebuild functional reactors. But I believe a direct attack on the nuke facilities would be enough to begin with. The Iranian people are consonant with the risk their government is running. Should pinpoint bombing destroy the facilities that we have long warned their leadership were unacceptable will anger the public, but not defy their expectations. On the other hand if we target utilities and other things which they depend on for their daily life, we will make a wholly different enemy of them, e.g. intractable to future relations, etc.

I would approach the task in phases. Phase 1 being, take out the nuke toys; Phase 2 being the action necessary because phase 1 failed; phase 3, 4.
ditto...

Officer of Engineers
23 Mar 10,, 05:53
Kosovo II? I believe our immediate failure in Kosovo was that the Serbs did not believe we were serious. It took the Canadians and the British preparing for a ground penetration and the Russians advising Slobo to convince him that the real war was about to start that he caved in.

In short, I believe no one other than the militaries on both sides know what the real war actually is. Not A-Jad and not Obama.

Officer of Engineers
23 Mar 10,, 06:03
2nd point here. The Mullahs lost a war before - to Saddam and they still remained in power. Granted that they retained their original goals when Saddam started the war but they failed in conquering Iraq and had to retreat before a superior force and signed a peace on Saddam's terms.

JAD_333
23 Mar 10,, 06:05
JAD,Dreadnought.I don't know gentlemen how can you say such things.When a state attacks another is a war.No need to invent euphemisms.

Israel bombed Iraq's reactor and more recently Syria's. War perhaps, but not as we commonly understand the term. It's no euphemism to use a word that doesn't conjure up storming the beaches, invading with tank columns, and bombing cities... IMO, "demolition" works just fine.


In their place I would have by now a few hundreds sleeper cells in CONUS.Does your nation have the motivation to exchange blows with Iran?


I understand your point, but you apparently don't understand the trade-off. Why would the US be deterred from eliminating a nuclear threat for fear of possible terrorist attacks that may never come. If the US heeded the warnings of terrorists, would it be in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen and on Iran's doorstep? And with Iran's nuke facilities in ashes, would vindictive terrorist attacks bring them back? Sir, you read the US wrongly.




And whatever it happens to Iran,they might think they can rebuild it in 15 years.They might take the gamble.

We speak of Iran but mean the current leadership. Post demolition, will the Iranian public stand for their government putting them back in the hot seat? Iran could contribute much to the ME and world stability if it wished; it can have respect without nukes.

S2
23 Mar 10,, 06:12
I'm generally not a fan of calibrated responses however I'm convinced that any attack on Iran would be calibrated.

It would require a sustained air/land/sea campaign. The land portion would be minimal to include seizure of key Hormuz islands. It may require insertion of ground troops to assess damage assessment of key targets.

The air portion, however, will be extensive. It will be inititated by a comprehensive effort to dismantle the Iranian IADS. I'm certain we'll destroy their air force and navy wherever they are found. The al Quds/IRGC would almost certainly be a priority target. Establishing ingress/egress air corridors and maintaining such would be next.

Then the targets. We'll progress from their obvious nuke sites to the not-so-obvious and all associated military targets that facilitate and defend such. Once gone, if Iran has not acceded to unilateral inspections by the IAEA, we'll progress to those ancillary targets like electrical grids. We'll likely have taken their comms networks down to a great extent although its possible that nodes may be left up to allow our info operations to work among the Iranian people. We may do our best to identify and attack their military-civil command and control. If that means dead mullahs, fine.

If they STILL prove recalcitrant, we'll begin leaning on their societal support-water, sewage, and key industrial targets. I'd presume that we'll leave their oil/nat'l gas industry alone for the time being.

Iran can asymmetric their way as best they can in retaliation. I don't presume we can pre-empt all that they're capable of doing. I do presume that any Iranian successes will only make our resolve to continue until our terms are acceded to all the more likely.

I don't think this will be done in a half-baked fashion and I don't presume even this president is going to be able to waffle much once it's "game-on". For an air campaign to work to our ends it will have to be thorough, sustained, and visibly and obviously devastating.

The Iranian people will always have the recourse of overthrowing their government at anytime they wish. Holding our breath for such would be foolish. Holding it for such in the abject belief that the subsequent Iranian government might have a more favorable view regarding their inalienable rights to nuclear whatever would be a forelorn hope as well.

Only America can do this and the rest of the world will have a field-day lambasting our efforts. We'll be second-guessed at every turn and openly accused of disproportionate force. I pray we won't seek counsel from the fear of others on this matter. If we're in for a penny, we're in for a pound.

Mankind can pick up the pieces, if they desire, once we've completed our objectives. Not before.

JAD_333
23 Mar 10,, 06:16
Kosovo II? I believe our immediate failure in Kosovo was that the Serbs did not believe we were serious. It took the Canadians and the British preparing for a ground penetration and the Russians advising Slobo to convince him that the real war was about to start that he caved in.

In short, I believe no one other than the militaries on both sides know what the real war actually is. Not A-Jad and not Obama.

Again, point well taken. But did it not become necessary to escalate only after initial measures failed to crack slobo? It seems to me that Kosovo would serve as an example to the Iranian government as to what would happen if they persisted. But, first, we should see if they persist like slobo did.

Officer of Engineers
23 Mar 10,, 06:19
ASparr and the rest of you anti-military action people, I hope you get the sense of how truly ugly we see this situation. War is never a good option and I hope that we have painted how ugly that option is. However, war may be the lesser of two evils and that is saying something, especially in how we painted the picture.

If given enough time, we can reverse the damage done by a broken water main. We cannot reverse the damage done by a mushroom cloud.

JAD_333
23 Mar 10,, 06:25
I'm generally not a fan of calibrated responses however I'm convinced that any attack on Iran would be calibrated.

It would require a sustained air/land/sea campaign. The land portion would be minimal to include seizure of key Hormuz islands. It may require insertion of ground troops to assess damage assessment of key targets.

The air portion, however, will be extensive. It will be inititated by a comprehensive effort to dismantle the Iranian IADS. I'm certain we'll destroy their air force and navy wherever they are found. The al Quds/IRGC would almost certainly be a priority target. Establishing ingress/egress air corridors and maintaining such would be next.

Then the targets. We'll progress from their obvious nuke sites to the not-so-obvious and all associated military targets that facilitate and defend such. Once gone, if Iran has not acceded to unilateral inspections by the IAEA, we'll progress to those ancillary targets like electrical grids. We'll likely have taken their comms networks down to a great extent although its possible that nodes may be left up to allow our info operations to work among the Iranian people. We may do our best to identify and attack their military-civil command and control. If that means dead mullahs, fine.

If they STILL prove recalcitrant, we'll begin leaning on their societal support-water, sewage, and key industrial targets. I'd presume that we'll leave their oil/nat'l gas industry alone for the time being.

Iran can asymmetric their way as best they can in retaliation. I don't presume we can pre-empt all that they're capable of doing. I do presume that any Iranian successes will only make our resolve to continue until our terms are acceded to all the more likely.

I don't think this will be done in a half-baked fashion and I don't presume even this president is going to be able to waffle much once it's "game-on". For an air campaign to work to our ends it will have to be thorough, sustained, and visibly and obviously devastating.

The Iranian people will always have the recourse of overthrowing their government at anytime they wish. Holding our breath for such would be foolish. Holding it for such in the abject belief that the subsequent Iranian government might have a more favorable view regarding their inalienable rights to nuclear whatever would be a forelorn hope as well.

Only America can do this and the rest of the world will have a field-day lambasting our efforts. We'll be second-guessed at every turn and openly accused of disproportionate force. I pray we won't seek counsel from the fear of others on this matter. If we're in for a penny, we're in for a pound.

Mankind can pick up the pieces, if they desire, once we've completed our objectives. Not before.

Obviously, I am not a military strategist. My question, which I hope is not too naive is this: Could we not take a run at all their nuke facilities without at the same time destroying their air force, etc, and simply take out any forces they send at us as they come?

I agree we have to secure the Hormuz. Can we do that without invading or broadening our aggression?

Officer of Engineers
23 Mar 10,, 06:28
Obviously, I am not a military strategist. My question, which I hope is not too naive is this: Could we not take a run at all their nuke facilities without at the same time destroying their air force, etc, and simply take out any forces they send at us as they come? No. We have to cripple their entire nuclear weapons infrastruture and that includes the C3 to release the nukes and their abilities to deliver nukes in whatever shape or form.

JAD_333
23 Mar 10,, 07:26
No. We have to cripple their entire nuclear weapons infrastruture and that includes the C3 to release the nukes and their abilities to deliver nukes in whatever shape or form.

That seems reasonable. What limitations would you place on an initial attack?

Off topic: This reminds me of a few White House sit room discussions I had the honor to attend during the Reagan administration when military action was being explored. Civilians such as myself were looking to understand how the military would achieve the objective, while the military guys were trying to understand what the policy objectives were. All in all, I think it's a good and necessary process.

S2
23 Mar 10,, 07:46
"My question, which I hope is not too naive is this: Could we not take a run at all their nuke facilities without at the same time destroying their air force, etc, and simply take out any forces they send at us as they come?"

The nuclear-related target set is, as I understand it via OoE, extensive. We'll need a sustained air campaign to address all the targets. Doing so requires addressing the IADS and attacking all those means that can be mobilized to attack us during that sustained campaign.

I don't see how we can attack a discrete facet (the nuke sub-set) of my overall target list without getting into the necessary peripherals. Their navy and air force, such as they are, have got to go.

I'd leave the Iranian regular army untouched short of them becoming involved in the fight. Their choice.

Mihais
23 Mar 10,, 08:27
Kosovo II? I believe our immediate failure in Kosovo was that the Serbs did not believe we were serious. It took the Canadians and the British preparing for a ground penetration and the Russians advising Slobo to convince him that the real war was about to start that he caved in.

In short, I believe no one other than the militaries on both sides know what the real war actually is. Not A-Jad and not Obama.

Sir,a thing that troubles me about Kosovo.I had the opportunity to talk to a Serbian BatCom in the 3d Army.Although the 3d Army was spread all over Kosovo the guy was quite convinced they would have halted you,thanks to their extensive defensive preps and the terrain that channeled your offensive.I wasn't that sure,so asking someone elses opinion doesn't hurt.IIRC you were a BatCom there and then,albeit on the other side.

IIRC,Chernomyrdin didn't want to extend Russian embarassement over the issue and pressured Milosevic to accept a situation where Russia would have had a degree of influence over the situation.Under the threat of withdrawal of Russian support.

Mihais
23 Mar 10,, 08:42
Gentlemen,it seems the majority of you thinks you can handle an eventual Iranian escalation.You seem pretty sure it will offer you the opportunity to extend your own ops. Maybe you're right.Personally I'll believe it when I'll see it.No offense.

zraver
23 Mar 10,, 12:39
Then the targets. We'll progress from their obvious nuke sites to the not-so-obvious and all associated military targets that facilitate and defend such. Once gone, if Iran has not acceded to unilateral inspections by the IAEA, we'll progress to those ancillary targets like electrical grids. We'll likely have taken their comms networks down to a great extent although its possible that nodes may be left up to allow our info operations to work among the Iranian people. We may do our best to identify and attack their military-civil command and control. If that means dead mullahs, fine.

If they STILL prove recalcitrant, we'll begin leaning on their societal support-water, sewage, and key industrial targets. I'd presume that we'll leave their oil/nat'l gas industry alone for the time being.

S-2, while we didn't go after the electrical grid in Iraq the first night, we did hit it the very next day. Going after power grids is a great way to spread the pain among the population. When the AC/fans go and the food in the fridge starts to stink people get real uncomfortable. It adds to the stress of the air sirens, sounds of explosions and uncertainty.

S2
23 Mar 10,, 12:47
"Going after power grids is a great way to spread the pain among the population."

No argument and I think my comment makes that clear regarding its value premised upon ratcheting the pain among their citizenry. I simply believe that we'll be busy the first couple of nights servicing those targets that will afford us unimpeded access to their skies to do whatever it is we intend doing.

If we don't get satisfaction and access necessary to assure the compliance we seek, I see no reason not to take down their general grid. I've little doubt that specific nodes will go down near immediately if we believe it's the best means of rendering a specific nuclear-related facility inoperative. Putting the lights out in suburbs of Teheran may not be immediately necessary however.

Wayfarer
23 Mar 10,, 12:56
To s2s above post,

Imo quite a large percentage of the populace is disgruntled with the current regime, bombing the civilian power grid would give the Ayatollah and the populace reason to unite over a "foreign invader". Arming and aiding in forming a resistance should be looked into.

S2
23 Mar 10,, 13:06
"bombing the civilian power grid would give the Ayatollah and the populace reason to unite over a 'foreign invader'."

The ol' gang was chanting "Death To Obama" and "Death To America" yesterday. That's been the mantra since 1978. Most of those opposed to the present regime are, however, quite likely in favor Iran's "inalienable nuclear rights" in any case.

Personally, I could give a sh!t if we turn their lights off because they weren't quicker to the draw on dumping their mullocracy and coming to their senses.

"Arming and aiding in forming a resistance should be looked into."

Quite likely it has and been rejected as pointless. The objective is to keep Iran from a nuclear weapon. That promises no speedy remedy.

zraver
23 Mar 10,, 14:06
"Going after power grids is a great way to spread the pain among the population."

No argument and I think my comment makes that clear regarding its value premised upon ratcheting the pain among their citizenry. I simply believe that we'll be busy the first couple of nights servicing those targets that will afford us unimpeded access to their skies to do whatever it is we intend doing.

If we don't get satisfaction and access necessary to assure the compliance we seek, I see no reason not to take down their general grid. I've little doubt that specific nodes will go down near immediately if we believe it's the best means of rendering a specific nuclear-related facility inoperative. Putting the lights out in suburbs of Teheran may not be immediately necessary however.

Unlike Iraq where we had massive air bases and carriers in the gulf, access to Iran won't be so easy. Even our cruise missiles are mostly out of range. Hitting deep in Iran is going to be the work of B-1's and B-2's. The real fight will be along the coast near the Strait of Hormuz. The Tomahawks we can fire via B-52's coming in over Iraq would be best served going after softer targets since they are not bunker busters. Power grids and other duel use infrastructure sites are high payoff targets and they don't give the population time to adjust to the fact they are at war. They go strait from life is normal to this sucks.

The kids stay home from school, they can't go outside and play because of the ordnance exploding overhead, the markets are closed, there is no fresh food, there is no water, no power to cook or cool the house with. Insta-seige and it forces the regime to devote resources to maintaining the social contract. The fact that 80% of Iran's population is in or near Tehran makes this job so much easier.

If we really want to fvck with them, we leave the grid to the richest neighborhoods up. The richest of the university families living in among the clerics and guards will see this one way but the poor will see the clerics and guards having a special "bomb proof" access to basic services....

Officer of Engineers
23 Mar 10,, 17:46
Sir,a thing that troubles me about Kosovo.I had the opportunity to talk to a Serbian BatCom in the 3d Army.Although the 3d Army was spread all over Kosovo the guy was quite convinced they would have halted you,thanks to their extensive defensive preps and the terrain that channeled your offensive.I wasn't that sure,so asking someone elses opinion doesn't hurt.IIRC you were a BatCom there and then,albeit on the other side.I was with 1CMBG HQ at the time, not Battle Group CO. When we were ready to do a ground penetration, the war was called off.

That being said, the penetration was going to be lasering targets, not a breaching operation though 3 RCR BG and LdSH (RC) BG was massing on the border. The actual penetration was going to be done by the 22SAS and JTF2. The massing of Canadian and British BGs were to force the 3JA to mass to oppose us and thus concentrating their assets for the 22SAS and JTF2 guys to laser.

We were far from ready to do a full breach mainly the Americans got a late start to getting ready. We needed another month before the Americans would have been prepared.

As for stopping us once we were prepared, I doubt it. The 3JA BN CO has a job to be confident but once the war was over, we've shown how we were going to advance and the fact was that we were going to use a verticle envelopment. A French BG was helo inserted in deep into Kosovo. Albeit they were trapped by a minefield, it never the less represented a force in the 3JA's rear while 3 RCR BG was already making its move forward. In other words, we had them surrounded.

zraver
23 Mar 10,, 20:21
ASparr and the rest of you anti-military action people, I hope you get the sense of how truly ugly we see this situation. War is never a good option and I hope that we have painted how ugly that option is. However, war may be the lesser of two evils and that is saying something, especially in how we painted the picture.

If given enough time, we can reverse the damage done by a broken water main. We cannot reverse the damage done by a mushroom cloud.

Sir, I don't know if they can get it. I think a lot of them can't get past people will die and that we seem to be hawks who think it will be easy. I wish they understood that we don't think it will be easy. A lot of people are going to die if war comes and their deaths are going to wreck even more lives. One of the words oldest cultures is facing a wrath more terrible than the Mongol invasion. A proud people who have made so much progress and who are a testament to their nation stand to lose it all because of a cliche of rulers who is completely out of touch.

I don't want war, Iran and the US should be natural allies. Iranian Americans thrive here and have contributed to American society. But if the choice is wrecking Iran or seeing the Mideast consumed in war and the global economy wrecked then its a triage situation and Iran isn't worth saving. 100,000 dead and 10 years of terror attacks with oil prices staying over $300 a barrel is preferable to a WMD exchange. The Tel Aviv metro area has a population of 3.15 million while the Tehran metro area is 13.41 million. Another 14.58 million live in the Damascus Syria metro area. The Mideast is not the land of pastoral existence. it is a highly urbanized region meaning it is highly vulnerable to nuclear or other WMD attacks.

This is the threat a nuclear armed Iran presents.

Mihais
23 Mar 10,, 20:51
OoE,Thanks for your answer,Sir.

S2
23 Mar 10,, 21:14
"I don't want war, Iran and the US should be natural allies. Iranian Americans thrive here and have contributed to American society. But if the choice is wrecking Iran or seeing the Mideast consumed in war and the global economy wrecked then its a triage situation and Iran isn't worth saving."

That seems to sum matters nicely. It's been a long dance to reach the point where we're rapidly closing down upon. Too bad that rational heads couldn't prevail in Persia but they've annointed themselves with some perverse wisdom about what they're entitled and the manner in which they'll seek entitlement.

Probably needs to stop before a whole bunch of people get seriously hurt.

Mihais
23 Mar 10,, 21:14
Sir, I don't know if they can get it. I think a lot of them can't get past people will die and that we seem to be hawks who think it will be easy. I wish they understood that we don't think it will be easy. A lot of people are going to die if war comes and their deaths are going to wreck even more lives. One of the words oldest cultures is facing a wrath more terrible than the Mongol invasion. A proud people who have made so much progress and who are a testament to their nation stand to lose it all because of a cliche of rulers who is completely out of touch.


The only problem,Z,is that peoples minds are a battlefield.As long as people don't see the business end of a barrel in their face they tend to ignore the threat.A too long history of human complacency makes me a pessimist about this whole endeavour.I'd like to be wrong.


But if the choice is wrecking Iran or seeing the Mideast consumed in war and the global economy wrecked then its a triage situation and Iran isn't worth saving. 100,000 dead and 10 years of terror attacks with oil prices staying over $300 a barrel is preferable to a WMD exchange.

I don't think there will be a choice between two evils.Iran will be wrecked and Mideast will be consumed in war.World economy will be a mess.No matter what Obama,A-jad or Bibi Netanyahu might plan,the current set of events can only lead there.Sooner or later,we'll arrive at a hellish moment,of one sort or another.What you Americans should do is plan for as many outcomes as possible.There is really no point debating how the air strikes will occur.What happens next with all that have a stake in Iran is important.

zraver
24 Mar 10,, 05:44
I don't think there will be a choice between two evils.Iran will be wrecked and Mideast will be consumed in war.World economy will be a mess.No matter what Obama,A-jad or Bibi Netanyahu might plan,the current set of events can only lead there.Sooner or later,we'll arrive at a hellish moment,of one sort or another.[quote]

The choice is what kind of hellish moment. Like I said, its a triage situation- Iran v the world.


[quote]What you Americans should do is plan for as many outcomes as possible.There is really no point debating how the air strikes will occur.What happens next with all that have a stake in Iran is important.

The best way to control the situation is to curb stomp them and keep curb stomping them until they are dead or you've beat the fight out of them.

pennsy
24 Mar 10,, 09:20
That seems reasonable. What limitations would you place on an initial attack?

Off topic: This reminds me of a few White House sit room discussions I had the honor to attend during the Reagan administration when military action was being explored. Civilians such as myself were looking to understand how the military would achieve the objective, while the military guys were trying to understand what the policy objectives were. All in all, I think it's a good and necessary process.

Interesting comments JAD 333.

Not being a military professional or expert the present situation seems more dangerous than the two Gulf Wars. If this is the case, in your opinion is regime change prerequisite to a successful outcome of any military action?

Dreadnought
24 Mar 10,, 14:01
Probably needs to stop before a whole bunch of people get seriously hurt.

*Amen to that one JAD.:redface:

S2
24 Mar 10,, 14:40
"Amen to that one JAD"

Ummm...Dread, that was me.:biggrin:

Dreadnought
24 Mar 10,, 14:56
"Amen to that one JAD"

Ummm...Dread, that was me.:biggrin:

My bust, sorry S-2.:redface:

Dreadnought
24 Mar 10,, 15:12
New evidence showing Iranian arms and mines confiscated from the Taliban. Its been known for sometime that they have been sending weapons,cell phones, phone cards, land mines, hand grenades etc. The serial numbers dont lie and nobody else writes in Persian for serial numbers. They have also confiscated new age Russian made rockets that Iran has purchased and passed along to the Tailban in order to attack US troops and NATO forces.
Iran does this and yet want to be friendly with Afghans government. Irans trying to do what she does in her other proxies such as Syria, Lebannon, Gaza etc.

*Now you know why some of us wont feel bad at all if Iran and its regime crumbles under the blast of US/NATO/Israeli bombing campaigns.

CNN.com - Breaking News, U.S., World, Weather, Entertainment & Video News (http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2010/03/23/ctw.elbagir.iran.taliban.weapons.cnn?hpt=Sbin)

Mihais
24 Mar 10,, 16:13
A modern dictatorship doesn't colapse as long as it has a few people willing to use a machine gun.Hitler said something along this lines and A-jad is viewed by the Israelis as a new Hitler.:eek:
Bombings won't succeed in removing the regime.If they do,it will be the most surprising event of the decade,at least for me.Or a trick to dupe everyone.

Dreadnought
24 Mar 10,, 16:26
A modern dictatorship doesn't colapse as long as it has a few people willing to use a machine gun.Hitler said something along this lines and A-jad is viewed by the Israelis as a new Hitler.:eek:
Bombings won't succeed in removing the regime.If they do,it will be the most surprising event of the decade,at least for me.Or a trick to dupe everyone.

Then use the Mossad against the regime, strike and in and out then hit the sites and any infastructure used in their building. We have shown direct proof of their regimes involvement in acts against NATO forces that have killed countless in a country other then their own. Its coming time to pay the check for which the cost will be VERY expensive for the regime. Blame whoever IMO I dont really care.

JAD_333
25 Mar 10,, 06:04
Interesting comments JAD 333.

First a disclaimer. Your comment made be re-read what I wrote about White House Situation Room meetings I attended during the Reagan admin. I was not a principal, but rather a stand-in for my boss, who was an assistant secretary of defense. Also the purpose of the meetings was not to make military go-no-go decisions, but to craft public diplomacy plans should a go decision be made.



Not being a military professional or expert the present situation seems more dangerous than the two Gulf Wars.

You don't need to be an expert to see what is more dangerous. Taking no action in the present situation would have far worse consequences than had none been taken in either Gulf War.


If this is the case, in your opinion is regime change prerequisite to a successful outcome of any military action?

A prerequisite is a prelude. That may not be what you mean. More than likely a regime change would happen during or after military action. Yes, I think it has to happen for that kind of action to be successful.

But success could also come without regime change. For example, if the regime decided to change course and reach a verifiable agreement with the west, it might survive for some time.

JAD_333
25 Mar 10,, 06:57
Bombings won't succeed in removing the regime.If they do,it will be the most surprising event of the decade,at least for me.Or a trick to dupe everyone.

Well, I am the president and along with my military chiefs and our allies I've approved a date for the air attack to begin. It is one year hence. The date is to be kept absolutely secret with no "official" leaks.

The Iranians have known for some time that it may come down to military action if they fail to enter into serious negotiations to defuse the situation. At the same time they seem to have made a calculation that US and its allies would not act in the face of Russian and Chinese opposition and for fear of igniting a massive reaction in the ME. One objective in our plan is to dissuade them from this thinking before the attack happens.

Therefore, I've ordered that six months before the date of the planned attack, a squadron B-52s escorted by fighter planes will fly over Iran in formation at maximum altitude. No bombs will be dropped. Countermeasures will be taken should the Iranians attempt to shoot down or attack our planes.

That ought to put a scare into the Iranian regime. If it publicly protests, a 2nd flight will follow immediately and a third. My hope is to shock their minds into realizing the seriousness of our resolve and with that change of mind, to provoke a willingness to begin serious negotiations. The urge to survive is the key.

Kilo 2-3
25 Mar 10,, 08:22
Therefore, I've ordered that six months before the date of the planned attack, a squadron B-52s escorted by fighter planes will fly over Iran in formation at maximum altitude. No bombs will be dropped. Countermeasures will be taken should the Iranians attempt to shoot down or attack our planes.

That ought to put a scare into the Iranian regime. If it publicly protests, a 2nd flight will follow immediately and a third. My hope is to shock their minds into realizing the seriousness of our resolve and with that change of mind, to provoke a willingness to begin serious negotiations. The urge to survive is the key.


Smithsonian published an article a while back which argued that one of the only reasons the Iran gov't was viable was essentially because it was by average Iranian the seen as the lesser of two evils. American "aggression," the author argued, only gave the regime legitimacy to the Iranians. Many Iranians saw the regime as the only way to be protected, and it was an image the regime has relied up heavily since.

The target in my mind is thus not Iran or its people, but the credibility of its leaders.

The method you propose would be effective in dissuading its leadership from aggressive action, which is a crucial goal, but it may or may not impact the average civilian. The bombers would be too high to see or hear, and Iranian propaganda could easily cover-up any reports of the bombers being there, limiting public exposure to and any anti-regime outcry the flyovers might cause.

It's in Iran best interest not to publically protest, as that could erode its support with the Iranian public (although it might easily go the other way and only increase support for it, large groups of people are highly unpredictable in that regard)

You have a carefully planned and nuanced strategy, one which is focused on meeting a specific set of goals through a specific pathway.

I'd propose a broadly similar route to the same goal, although this one would emphasize targeting the Iranian public more directly.

Basically, take B-1Bs and F-22s in at low-level, throttles firewalled, full mil power, right over every major Iranian population center, suddenly, and without warning, with multiple strike packages to allow for near-simultaneous coverage of nearly every major Iranian city. Shock and awe, sans the bombs.

...am I totally off my rocker here..? I have a feeling that I'm missing something major here... :confused:

S2
25 Mar 10,, 09:55
"...am I totally off my rocker here..? I have a feeling that I'm missing something major here..."

Might be asking a lot of our pilots and air-planners to pull that off without knocking back their IADS.

I'd sure hate to see some pilots paraded in front of their cameras while having committed an act of war that carried no intention of dumping some ordnance on them.

Are we afraid of killing Iranians? Is that the real problem here? I personally like the idea of having exhausted all reasonable diplomatic means to avert such a war to just keep right on talking until the minute we knock the snot out of them. America owes neither Iran nor the world any explanation about why we'd choose to do so.

Those needing such an explanation wouldn't choose nor possess the capacity to understand in any case. If we do this, I'd like to do it correctly and lay considerable waste to their military and nuclear infrastructure. If that's not adequate, then I'm all for laying waste to their civil infrastructure too.

There's a penalty any public incurs for their choice of governance. The best proof that their government can't protect them from our government is to do fully recognizable harm to our objectives and anything which gets in the way of such.

Mihais
25 Mar 10,, 10:56
. America owes neither Iran nor the world any explanation about why we'd choose to do so.
Those needing such an explanation wouldn't choose nor possess the capacity to understand in any case. If we do this, I'd like to do it correctly and lay considerable waste to their military and nuclear infrastructure. If that's not adequate, then I'm all for laying waste to their civil infrastructure too.

Or they would simply be on the other side according to their interests.No need to explain to an opponent why you kick his allies and harm his interests.But you must consider everything those guys might do in response and prepare accordingly.As it has been repeated many times,kicking Iran means kicking Japan(ally)India(neutral>friendly)China(marriage of convenience).Also it is indirectly causing harm to Europe and annoying Russia(these guys are annoyed at everything you do and viceversa so no news here).I'm perfectly fine for you to remove the nukes and the regime,since I'm no fan of any ME country with hegemonic aspirations in the region.But the effort required dwarfs Iraq and A-stan combined.And I see no real preparations for dealing with the possible consequences(I'm not talking of Clancyesque US vs THE WORLD).It would be ridiculous to hear on CNN -''we bombed Iran and Europe(or India,China,S Korea etc...) hates us for our freedoms''.Is not about owing the world an explanation.Is about a well planned strategy.For now the message average Joe,Pierre and Fritz hears is that US is going to bust another oil rich ME country that has a dubious policy regarding nuclear stuff and Israel going nuts over a future threat that might or might not be real.It is not about what Iran has done-breaching the NPT.The debate over Iraqi WMD was ridiculous at times.But it was a debate.Everyone could take a guess. Iranian situation is simply very poorly presented.And here is not about guesses,is about known facts.

Dreadnought
25 Mar 10,, 13:43
Everyone could take a guess. Iranian situation is simply very poorly presented.And here is not about guesses,is about known facts.

*A few known facts,

1) Iran has broken the NPT time and time again. It was caught building a reactor in Syria, along with the Syrian and North Korean cooperation. The reactor sight was bombed and destroyed. The isotope samples taken trail back to North Korea and their clandestine program. The site at Qom was announced by Iran just before the International community was about to find out. Its illegal according to the NPT and reinforces the fact that its not a reactor for medical research. Thats two times in the last year they were caught flatfooted breaking the treaty and constructing reactors with no other purpose then developing a nuclear weapons program no matter how much they lie and state other.

2) Iran and North Korea have been in bed over ballistic missle technology for some time. Its a well known fact as has been for some time.

3) Iran courted Pakistan in order to get their hands on a working design, blueprints, machinery etc for a nuclear weapon not a medical reactor facility.

4) Iran supports and supplies weaponry that kills US troops and NATO troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. The video I posted is proof of this beyond question.

5) Iran constantly threatens Israel with destruction and no doubt supplies Hamas and Hezbollah with arms and support and the rockets that land in Israeli neighborhoods.

6) Iran has also given safe haven to the criminals of Iraq and Afghanistan, allowing them safe passage back and fourth over the border to conduct terrorist attacks on not just NATO forces but the civilian populations as well. They train them and supply them the necessary tools to conduct these attacks.

*How many more facts would you like before you conclude that the regime and its followers must go and they should not aquire a nuclear weapon while telling the world its for medical purposes and suppling terrorists that target our troops and other countries forces in other countries then Iran?

*Countries have gone to war for far less reasons then are listed above. And Irans time is coming if things dont change rather quickly. And that is a fact.

Mihais
25 Mar 10,, 15:46
*How many more facts would you like before you conclude that the regime and its followers must go and they should not aquire a nuclear weapon while telling the world its for medical purposes and suppling terrorists that target our troops and other countries forces in other countries then Iran?

*Countries have gone to war for far less reasons then are listed above. And Irans time is coming if things dont change rather quickly. And that is a fact.

From where did you got the idea that I oppose removing the nukes?

What I oppose is rash actions.Not rash in the sense that Iranian situation is unknown for years.But in the sense that no serious preparations have been undertaken.You can bomb'em tomorrow for all I care.You can bomb them 2-3 months until you run out of targets.Then you may call it a victory,since obviously Iran's nuke program will be turned where it was in 1992. Where are your preparations to deal with the fallout from this affair?It won't be the bigger mess of a nuclear Iran,but it will the still be one heck of a situation.And,like I argued above,it may not be even the end of the war.

Guys,if you like to think the nukes are the problem here,I'll quote a piece of American wisdom-''guns don't kill people,people kill people''.All I have seen in this thread are :a.hopes for the regime to come to its senses(either by itself or by threats) and give up the nuke program
b.scenarios for an air campaign that will destroy Iran's industry and infrastructure
Industry and infrastructure can be rebuild in 10-15 years,maybe less.It had taken Iran to build it from near scratch 30 years,of which a decade was spent fighting Saddam.The manpower will be there,the ambition will remain,while China and Russia(and not only)are eager to make a buck.My question to you is:do you really want to solve the problem,or to delay it?

S2
25 Mar 10,, 18:19
"Everyone could take a guess. Iranian situation is simply very poorly presented.And here is not about guesses,is about known facts."

The facts are freely available. What you're REALLY discussing here are the pre-dispositions of many to ignore those facts in preference to convenient self-interest.

That is why I said this earlier-

"Those needing such an explanation wouldn't choose nor possess the capacity to understand in any case."

Mihais
25 Mar 10,, 19:15
Sir,with all due respect,the average guys that form the consensus don't have the ability nor the time to educate themselves on military matters,treaties and so forth.The facts may be there,but those who should tell them day after after day such things simply keep quiet.For all his faults and mistakes,the ''idiot cowboy'' Bush and his administration made clear what was going to happen with Iraq and why,many months before actually doing something.It was THE SUBJECT.Iran is not the frontpage,even if Iran is more dangerous and more difficult.In 2002-2003 everyone knew that US is going to war due to intel estimates(that was what caused the controversy).From this pov Iran is a much easier propaganda subject.Yet your administration doesn't make the slightest effort to make Iran the frontpage subject.There was much ambiguity regarding Iraq,that allowed those who opposed you to pose as defenders of international law and order.Iran's violations allow no such escape.Your country either doesn't plan to do anything in the immediate future( Bluesman's may have a point with his 2012 elections) or it will be a mess that will decrease your influence.

My opinion,which is worth less than a 5.45 round.Based however on observations.

S2
25 Mar 10,, 19:36
"...those who should tell them day after after day such things simply keep quiet."

I don't know that it's America who should be repeating the facts daily. I'd prefer those facts to be repeated daily by your own nat'l leaders. That THEY appear unwilling to state the baldly obvious is where the problem begins.

You'll pardon me for saying this but, typically, among bright people the truth of circumstance rarely needs uttering more than once. Those with intelligence hear or read such, research independantly for verification if they've concerns and move on.

It's commonly how matters progress in this world and is generally preferable to "dog chases tail". Then there are those who engage in intentional dissemblance of the facts. That's another matter but only appeals to those willing to listen and indulge that engagement. Thus predisposition.

"There was much ambiguity regarding Iraq,that allowed those who opposed you to pose as defenders of international law and order..."

So I'm told. I disagree. We intentionally complicated matters. There was no peace treaty with Iraq-simply a cease-fire agreement. It was violated numerous times. That alone should have been amply sufficient to make war, no?

WMD? Who cares? They'd possessed such, used such, and retained the infrastructure to seek it again. A rationale but one embedded in logic and reasonable...but unnecessary from my POV.

JMHO.

Mihais
25 Mar 10,, 19:59
[B]
I don't know that it's America who should be repeating the facts daily. I'd prefer those facts to be repeated daily by your own nat'l leaders. That THEY appear unwilling to state the baldly obvious is where the problem begins.
You'll pardon me for saying this but, typically, among bright people the truth of circumstance rarely needs uttering more than once. Those with intelligence hear or read such, research independantly for verification if they've concerns and move on.


As a digression,foreign policy isn't the top subject at least in my own beloved motherland.If you ever go in Iran,we'll be there,a while after the big shooting stops:rolleyes:. Regarding the Western Europe,your word still carries a lot of weight.It's the big boys that may have direct interests in Iran,but is the average guy that votes.And average ain't bright,but is the most numerous.

S2
25 Mar 10,, 20:33
"If you ever go in Iran..."

I pray to Christ Almighty that the only Americans whom set foot in Iran are those required to laze targets from the ground or occupy key coastal/island nodes. Finally, perhaps those diplomats required to ink any acquiescence permitting the unfettered/unhindered inspection of their nuke facilities to our satisfaction.

I don't give a rat's azz who governs them. That's their misery if they've not the moxie required to govern themselves responsibly. I wish to destroy that which stands in the way of our objectives and punatively punish until they accede to our requirements.

If we can do so from the skies above and MUST do so in that manner until the day comes when the sun refuses to rise, so be it.

"Regarding the Western Europe,your word still carries a lot of weight."

Not really. They no longer have a Red Army staring down their throats. Our weight matters most where the Russians pose the greatest threat to Europeans. That's further east. Eastern Europe is now Western Europe's convenient buffer zone that permit indulgences in neo-socialist fantasies.

Your eastern friends and you can afford no such indulgences and entertain more practical views of matters.

We know that.

"It's the big boys that may have direct interests in Iran,but is the average guy that votes."

There are no big boys in Europe. I see no hair grown around their ballz.

Mihais
25 Mar 10,, 20:44
[
There are no big boys in Europe. I see no hair grown around their ballz.

WARNING.American Imperialist a threat to world health.May(almost)cause falling from the chair.:biggrin::biggrin:

S2
25 Mar 10,, 20:52
"WARNING.American Imperialist a threat to world health..."

Thank you.:)

Zinja
25 Mar 10,, 23:10
Iran does this and yet want to be friendly with Afghans government.
That is the bit i don't understand with these ME countries. Why are these countries grovelling to Iran in such a pathetic manner? Same with Iraq. They are willing to sacrifice their own people even their own administrations just to earn favour with Iran? I find this very strange indeed.

zraver
26 Mar 10,, 01:16
That is the bit i don't understand with these ME countries. Why are these countries grovelling to Iran in such a pathetic manner? Same with Iraq. They are willing to sacrifice their own people even their own administrations just to earn favour with Iran? I find this very strange indeed.

For Afghanistan it makes sense. Parts of Southern Afghanistan used to be part of Iran, there are ethnic links and both are friendly with India and China who both want an A-stan pipeline to them from Iran loaded with gas and oil.

JAD_333
26 Mar 10,, 01:36
Smithsonian published an article a while back which argued that one of the only reasons the Iran gov't was viable was essentially because it was by average Iranian the seen as the lesser of two evils. American "aggression," the author argued, only gave the regime legitimacy to the Iranians. Many Iranians saw the regime as the only way to be protected, and it was an image the regime has relied up heavily since.

The target in my mind is thus not Iran or its people, but the credibility of its leaders.

There is no need to rattle the Iranian people with a low-level show of air power. As S-2 points out it's a needless risk of our people.

It's better to rattle the regime. Iran's policy has always been to play for time, and to its credit, it has succeeded admirably. They know there's a threat of attack from the West, but as long as the West remains engaged diplomatically, e.g., seeks stronger sanctions and such, they need not fear an attack.

We need to activate the regime's fear. Spooking the general population isn't likely to do that. How?

First, we should abandon all further efforts to get additional sanctions approved by the UN. Silence on that front would disconcert the Iranians. In a similar view, we should not call on other states such as Russia or China to use their good offices to find a solution. That is an invitation to open-ended dickering. In short, we should stop any diplomatic activity that effectively gives the Iranians more time.

Secondly we should set a date for an attack and keep it secret. At some point during the run-up to that date, we send a high level B-52 flight over Iran. Unless the Iranians are totally unrealistic, such a demonstration of force would shake them out of the their current policy of stalling for time and force them adopt one aimed at preventing an attack.

To save face rather than appearing to cave in to the west, the regime would likely call for negotiations. If it does, we should do nothing to cause it to lose face. In a tersely worded statement, we would agree to direct negotiations on condition that they be concluded within 6 months and that the end result will spell out a verifiable plan whereby Iran will no longer refine fissionable materials or attempt to acquire nuclear weapons.

If the regime refuses to negotiate, additional demonstration of force will continue until the attack goes forward. The attack should be postponed whenever the Iranians ask for negotiations.

This will not only end Iran's nuclear ambitions, but will be a cookie placed in the minds of all state leaders that similar ambitions will not be tolerated.


The method you propose would be effective in dissuading its leadership from aggressive action, which is a crucial goal, but it may or may not impact the average civilian. The bombers would be too high to see or hear, and Iranian propaganda could easily cover-up any reports of the bombers being there, limiting public exposure to and any anti-regime outcry the flyovers might cause.

The whole point is to shake the regime up not the people. The B-52s might not be visible to someone on the ground, but the regime will know about it from ground radar tracking.

Dreadnought
26 Mar 10,, 13:26
There is no need to rattle the Iranian people with a low-level show of air power. As S-2 points out it's a needless risk of our people.

It's better to rattle the regime. Iran's policy has always been to play for time, and to its credit, it has succeeded admirably. They know there's a threat of attack from the West, but as long as the West remains engaged diplomatically, e.g., seeks stronger sanctions and such, they need not fear an attack.

We need to activate the regime's fear. Spooking the general population isn't likely to do that. How?

First, we should abandon all further efforts to get additional sanctions approved by the UN. Silence on that front would disconcert the Iranians. In a similar view, we should not call on other states such as Russia or China to use their good offices to find a solution. That is an invitation to open-ended dickering. In short, we should stop any diplomatic activity that effectively gives the Iranians more time.

Secondly we should set a date for an attack and keep it secret. At some point during the run-up to that date, we send a high level B-52 flight over Iran. Unless the Iranians are totally unrealistic, such a demonstration of force would shake them out of the their current policy of stalling for time and force them adopt one aimed at preventing an attack.

To save face rather than appearing to cave in to the west, the regime would likely call for negotiations. If it does, we should do nothing to cause it to lose face. In a tersely worded statement, we would agree to direct negotiations on condition that they be concluded within 6 months and that the end result will spell out a verifiable plan whereby Iran will no longer refine fissionable materials or attempt to acquire nuclear weapons.

If the regime refuses to negotiate, additional demonstration of force will continue until the attack goes forward. The attack should be postponed whenever the Iranians ask for negotiations.

This will not only end Iran's nuclear ambitions, but will be a cookie placed in the minds of all state leaders that similar ambitions will not be tolerated.



The whole point is to shake the regime up not the people. The B-52s might not be visible to someone on the ground, but the regime will know about it from ground radar tracking.

*I like it JAD, No more pussyfooting around, leave the responsibility and worrying to the regime. Silence speaks louder then words ever will.;)

JAD_333
26 Mar 10,, 15:39
*I like it JAD, No more pussyfooting around, leave the responsibility and worrying to the regime. Silence speaks louder then words ever will.;)

It would be interesting to see what other here believe WILL happen rather than what they believe ought to happen. By that I mean, what the US and its allies will do in the final analysis and how Iran will respond.

Chogy
26 Mar 10,, 15:48
I'm a bit concerned over these calls for a painless "show of force" that puts aircrews at risk. Without proper fighter support, jamming, all the other standard methodology to suppress enemy air defenses, even a student pilot in an F-5, let alone an F-14, is going to find those BUFFs easy meat.

Would we recommend an armored thrust with no ammo 20 to 50 miles inside Iran? I don't think so.

Don't expose ANY crew in what is essentially political posturing. If we want to apply heat, replicate Operation Praying Mantis. Let the Navy knock their precious new corvette on the head; occupy a few islands. Spank some missile sites near the Straights.

Iran is definitely NOT helpless in the air defense category. While their equipment is long in the tooth, it is still quite capable of inflicting damage to an overly confident expedition. And a few aircrew as hostages replicates the nightmare of 1979 quite nicely. Do we really want to see a dozen men paraded about blindfolded for another year or two? Do we want to see the mullahs gloating over the massive wreckage of a B-52? No thanks.

Aryajet
26 Mar 10,, 17:32
New evidence showing Iranian arms and mines confiscated from the Taliban. Its been known for sometime that they have been sending weapons,cell phones, phone cards, land mines, hand grenades etc. The serial numbers dont lie and nobody else writes in Persian for serial numbers. They have also confiscated new age Russian made rockets that Iran has purchased and passed along to the Tailban in order to attack US troops and NATO forces.
Iran does this and yet want to be friendly with Afghans government. Irans trying to do what she does in her other proxies such as Syria, Lebannon, Gaza etc.

*Now you know why some of us wont feel bad at all if Iran and its regime crumbles under the blast of US/NATO/Israeli bombing campaigns.

CNN.com - Breaking News, U.S., World, Weather, Entertainment & Video News (http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2010/03/23/ctw.elbagir.iran.taliban.weapons.cnn?hpt=Sbin)

Dread,
I've no doubt in my mind that barbaric republic through its quds force and other rouge militant elements have been and is trying to undermine all US/Coalition efforts in Iraq and Astan (even if they have to arm Taliban an arch foe) even though they keep friendly pasture toward both Gov.s and maintain a veneer of political and economical cooperation.
But I must take the evidence published by CNN with a grain of salt.

For me the marking on that road side bomb (mine?) looks suspicious.
The markings which the journalist and other Afghani claim it is an Iranian serial #, contains alphabetical and numerical figures.

Those alphabets looks Iranian but that alphabet is also used by Afghans, Pakistanis, over 25 Arab nations as well as many parts of India and Central Asian countries.

The #s (written by red paint) look more like Iranian calendar which I presume it is the manufacture date. But it says month 1 of the year 1360 (march/April of 1981) that is when Iran was engaged in full blown war with iraq, being an ex-Iranian military myself who was active during the war I don’t believe we were manufacturing road side bombs back then, even if we did any 30 years old explosive should be considered dud and not trust worthy.
Just my humble opinion.

Dreadnought
26 Mar 10,, 17:42
Dread,
I've no doubt in my mind that barbaric republic through its quds force and other rouge militant elements have been and is trying to undermine all US/Coalition efforts in Iraq and Astan (even if they have to arm Taliban an arch foe) even though they keep friendly pasture toward both Gov.s and maintain a veneer of political and economical cooperation.
But I must take the evidence published by CNN with a grain of salt.

For me the marking on that road side bomb (mine?) looks suspicious.
The markings which the journalist and other Afghani claim it is an Iranian serial #, contains alphabetical and numerical figures.

Those alphabets looks Iranian but that alphabet is also used by Afghans, Pakistanis, over 25 Arab nations as well as many parts of India and Central Asian countries.

The #s (written by red paint) look more like Iranian calendar which I presume it is the manufacture date. But it says month 1 of the year 1360 (march/April of 1981) that is when Iran was engaged in full blown war with iraq, being an ex-Iranian military myself who was active during the war I don’t believe we were manufacturing road side bombs back then, even if we did any 30 years old explosive should be considered dud and not trust worthy.
Just my humble opinion.

*Well, on that note I think I would be more comfortable hearing from someone who was there such as yourself. The media is the media and we all know they dont get it rite every time. Thank you for that insight.

Question, the report claims the labeling on the IED's are in Persian, myself I am not familiar with the Persian language, does it appear to be in Persian, and if so how many other ME countries are labeled in Persian?

S2
26 Mar 10,, 17:45
I'm already on record here opposed to putting any American pilot over Iranian airspace without a load of ordnance and a target set.

"Might be asking a lot of our pilots and air-planners to pull that off without knocking back their IADS.

I'd sure hate to see some pilots paraded in front of their cameras while having committed an act of war that carried no intention of dumping some ordnance on them...

I'm certain that Iran already takes very seriously the idea that we may attack them. I'm equally certain that they can imagine the ways and means of such.

Aryajet
26 Mar 10,, 18:16
*Well, on that note I think I would be more comfortable hearing from someone who was there such as yourself. The media is the media and we all know they dont get it rite every time. Thank you for that insight.

Question, the report claims the labeling on the IED's are in Persian, myself I am not familiar with the Persian language, does it appear to be in Persian, and if so how many other ME countries are labeled in Persian?
Dread,
They are just alphabets, 3 on either side (I'm sure they represent something) and yes they could be Persian + more than 30 other nations using them in and around ME.
The date (in red paint) is definitely Persian but as I mentioned it says equivalent of March/April -1981.

Chogy
26 Mar 10,, 19:42
I'm already on record here opposed to putting any American pilot over Iranian airspace without a load of ordnance and a target set.

"Might be asking a lot of our pilots and air-planners to pull that off without knocking back their IADS.

I'd sure hate to see some pilots paraded in front of their cameras while having committed an act of war that carried no intention of dumping some ordnance on them...



It seems that we are in the minority, then. ;) The Navy can intimidate and power project in this political manner far better than the Air Force can. Such naval acts as bringing merchant vessels to a halt for inspection, blockade, right up to shore bombardment and perhaps Marine occupation of Iranian island territory would send an infinitely louder message to Iran, with a much lower risk vs reward, IMO.

S2
26 Mar 10,, 20:39
"...Such naval acts as bringing merchant vessels to a halt for inspection, blockade, right up to shore bombardment and perhaps Marine occupation of Iranian island territory would send an infinitely louder message to Iran, with a much lower risk vs reward, IMO"

Well since nobody really wants to HURT the enemy, how about TLAMs loaded with roses?:))

Dreadnought
26 Mar 10,, 21:10
"...Such naval acts as bringing merchant vessels to a halt for inspection, blockade, right up to shore bombardment and perhaps Marine occupation of Iranian island territory would send an infinitely louder message to Iran, with a much lower risk vs reward, IMO"

Well since nobody really wants to HURT the enemy, how about TLAMs loaded with roses?:))

:biggrin:LMAO!

JAD_333
26 Mar 10,, 22:16
I'm already on record here opposed to putting any American pilot over Iranian airspace without a load of ordnance and a target set.

"Might be asking a lot of our pilots and air-planners to pull that off without knocking back their IADS.

I'd sure hate to see some pilots paraded in front of their cameras while having committed an act of war that carried no intention of dumping some ordnance on them...

I'm certain that Iran already takes very seriously the idea that we may attack them. I'm equally certain that they can imagine the ways and means of such.

S-2:

I made it clear that the high-altitude B-52 run I proposed would be protected and any attempt to attack it would be met with retaliatory force. I would retract the proposal if credible military experts said the flight could not be protected. I have no desire to see our pilots paraded in the the streets.

The object is to cause the Iranian regime to analyze the significance of the flight and to conclude that it is now time for negotiations, which I believe is the card they have always planned to play when it appears an attack is drawing close.

JAD_333
26 Mar 10,, 22:37
It seems that we are in the minority, then. ;) The Navy can intimidate and power project in this political manner far better than the Air Force can. Such naval acts as bringing merchant vessels to a halt for inspection, blockade, right up to shore bombardment and perhaps Marine occupation of Iranian island territory would send an infinitely louder message to Iran, with a much lower risk vs reward, IMO.

We agree then that some message needs to be sent. Subtle or kinetic? It seems to me what you propose is not a message, but an attack. My perception may be wrong, but I believe we have a better chance of succeeding in a bloodless resolution if we allow the regime's leaders an opportunity to save face. Grabbing an island and searching their ships would force them to react in kind to avoid appearing weak in the eyes of the public. Contrails in the sky will have more meaning for the regime than the people.

Chogy
26 Mar 10,, 23:33
I don't disagree at all. My sole point was that I believe Iranian naval assets are more difficult to hide and easier for us to assess than their air defense. So if the point is a show of force with no exchange of fire, I'd do it in an area Iran seems particularly proud of; one that they have trumpeted over and over.. their self-perceived ability to control or close the Straits of Hormuz. If (by some chance) shots are exchanged, the odds of them capturing Naval assets are far less likely than a show in the air that extends deep into Iran.

If it came to it, we could tweak their territorial water boundary a bit, wait for a response, act accordingly. But my knowledge of the naval balance of power isn't strong. Maybe someone who is more knowledgeable in this area might chime in.

If that is inadequate, I agree that a show in the air might be useful. I'd limit it (initially) to some low-level sonic booming using fighter aircraft of some port cities, with U.S. naval assets close by to enable a rescue if needed.

Some potent sonic booms might crack a few windows, and at a minimum it would be very noticeable. Regardless, there must be a perception that Iran would be helpless if it came to shots being fired, and above all, we need to avoid U.S. assets falling into Iranian hands.

Leaflets perhaps? A bit old-fashioned, but there'd be no doubt "The U.S. was here, and this could have been a bomb instead of a piece of paper."

S2
26 Mar 10,, 23:55
"I made it clear that the high-altitude B-52 run I proposed would be protected and any attempt to attack it would be met with retaliatory force."

O.K. How does occupying airspace over their country, 45,000ft. up and unseen by their citizens, differ markedly from occupying some desert Island in Hormuz? My guess is you'd reply that such occupation wouldn't be sufficiently impressive.

"I would retract the proposal if credible military experts said the flight could not be protected. I have no desire to see our pilots paraded in the the streets."

That said, I'm no expert on planning strike packages but I understand that before we can whack away at whatever it is we might have to whack, we'll first need to tear down their IADS and air force. Since BUFFs move massive amounts of dirt around, it seems we'd be leading with our chin to make this demonstration given the strike prerequisites/caveats which I've indicated.

Escorting B-52s over Iran isn't my balliwack but since you AREN'T planning on taking down their air defense network but ARE planning on violating their airspace in a big, big way (and more than just B-52s to accomplish such), there will be a fight. That's what air defense guys get paid to do.

Minimally, some Iranian pilot is going to sortie to the massive blob of a BANDIT that pops up on radar fifty or one hundred miles offshore or, alternatively, they're ALL going to sortie when their radars get jammed to hell and back. Somebody puts eyeballs on B-52s (with or without escorts) and they'll likely die trying (or try dying) for their country.

Game on for no useful purpose IMHO. Meanwhile they've gotten a great look at one of the ways we might configure a package.

I prefer a nice, effete diplomat wearing cufflinks and Spanish leather shoes to deliver a note which says-

"Please stop what you're doing and allow IAEA inspectors unfettered access to any and all known and suspected nuclear facilities forthwith. This is your last warning."

Just my amateurish, ground-pounder musings...;)

S2
26 Mar 10,, 23:59
"Leaflets perhaps? A bit old-fashioned, but there'd be no doubt 'The U.S. was here, and this could have been a bomb instead of a piece of paper.'"

Thus TLAMs loaded with roses.

JAD_333
27 Mar 10,, 00:55
[B]O.K. How does occupying airspace over their country, 45,000ft. up and unseen by their citizens, differ markedly from occupying some desert Island in Hormuz? My guess is you'd reply that such occupation wouldn't be sufficiently impressive.

If there is no difference between the two in your mind, why would you choose the one most likely to provoke a military response and reject the one most likely to yield a diplomatic response?




That said, I'm no expert on planning strike packages but I understand that before we can whack away at whatever it is we might have to whack, we'll first need to tear down their IADS and air force. Since BUFFs move massive amounts of dirt around, it seems we'd be leading with our chin to make this demonstration given the strike prerequisites/caveats which I've indicated.

The attack comes later, if it comes at all. The IADs come out if the Iranians are still playing footsie days before the attack is scheduled to start. In my scenario we have an attack date, but we do some gentle pushing in the meantime. I don't want to attack; I don't want to spend all that money and all those lives...but I will because the objective is critical. But what the hell is wrong with an interval during which we impress on the Iranians "time is about run out".



Escorting B-52s over Iran isn't my balliwack but since you AREN'T planning on taking down their air defense network but ARE planning on violating their airspace in a big, big way (and more than just B-52s to accomplish such), there will be a fight. That's what air defense guys get paid to do.

I'll bet you a dime to a dollar they won't attack, at least not beyond a token shot. They are not going to stick their head in the mouth of the lion, unless they've gone Jihad mad, which I doubt is the case.


Minimally, some Iranian pilot is going to sortie to the massive blob of a BANDIT that pops up on radar fifty or one hundred miles offshore or, alternatively, they're ALL going to sortie when their radars get jammed to hell and back. Somebody puts eyeballs on B-52s (with or without escorts) and they'll likely die trying (or try dying) for their country.

That's a possibility, not a certainty. We'd have to be prepared for it in any case.


Game on for no useful purpose IMHO. Meanwhile they've gotten a great look at one of the ways we might configure a package.

I don't think so. At least we'll find out if negotiations are in their play book. When the beast is at the door, your game plan changes. The change I'd be looking for is a call for negotiations. Good rug merchants know when the dickering is over.


I prefer a nice, effete diplomat wearing cufflinks and Spanish leather shoes to deliver a note which says-

"Please stop what you're doing and allow IAEA inspectors unfettered access to any and all known and suspected nuclear facilities forthwith. This is your last warning."

Just my amateurish, ground-pounder musings...;)

Hey, that might work. Let's move that up to step one and wait for the inevitable "we have the right...blah blah. Then we do contrails in the sky.:))

JAD_333
27 Mar 10,, 01:00
S-2

You know what? I don't care if the Iranians get all the credit for calling for negotiations even if a "time's up" message from us got them motivated. Let them be called the peace mongers. Let A-jad be Time man of the year. I just want one thing: no nuclear armed Iran. Having that in the bag is worth more than a Nobel, don't you think?

JAD_333
27 Mar 10,, 01:07
I don't disagree at all. My sole point was that I believe Iranian naval assets are more difficult to hide and easier for us to assess than their air defense. So if the point is a show of force with no exchange of fire, I'd do it in an area Iran seems particularly proud of; one that they have trumpeted over and over.. their self-perceived ability to control or close the Straits of Hormuz. If (by some chance) shots are exchanged, the odds of them capturing Naval assets are far less likely than a show in the air that extends deep into Iran.

If it came to it, we could tweak their territorial water boundary a bit, wait for a response, act accordingly. But my knowledge of the naval balance of power isn't strong. Maybe someone who is more knowledgeable in this area might chime in.

If that is inadequate, I agree that a show in the air might be useful. I'd limit it (initially) to some low-level sonic booming using fighter aircraft of some port cities, with U.S. naval assets close by to enable a rescue if needed.

Some potent sonic booms might crack a few windows, and at a minimum it would be very noticeable. Regardless, there must be a perception that Iran would be helpless if it came to shots being fired, and above all, we need to avoid U.S. assets falling into Iranian hands.

Leaflets perhaps? A bit old-fashioned, but there'd be no doubt "The U.S. was here, and this could have been a bomb instead of a piece of paper."

I am going to wrap my head in tinfoil and think on what you said. :) Nothing is worse than falling in love with one's own ideas. I am prepared to concede there may be better ideas (as soon as one comes along).:))

S2
27 Mar 10,, 07:42
"I just want one thing: no nuclear armed Iran. Having that in the bag is worth more than a Nobel, don't you think?"

I don't think there's much disputing about end-goals. We're agreed. It's the getting there that becomes thorny. It's increasingly looking like only a war of sorts will be available soon and that provides no certainty.

I confess to not knowing enough about Iran's IADS and air force to comment with authority on your BUFF BLUFF package. Nonetheless I offered a few amateurish musings there. I guess on short notice I believe air defense guys are going to do what they're paid to do-defend their nat'l airspace as best they can. Whether correct or not, I don't know. That's a decision likely at echelons above my thinking. Whether capable or not, again, I don't know.

Options In Dealing With Iran's Nuclear Program-CSIS Abdullah Toukan & Anthony Cordesman March 2010 (http://csis.org/files/publication/100323_Options_todealwith_Iran.pdf)

"The study concludes that, if all peaceful options have been exhausted and Iran has left no other means to convince it to stop or change its course in pursuing Nuclear Weapons, the U.S. is the only country that can launch a successful Military Strike."

The report offers two Israeli strike scenarios-conventional and a low yield earth-penetrating nuclear weapons in concert with both ballistic and SLBM delivery systems.

I believe, without yet reading the report, that the CSIS conclusion is accurate. For a variety of political and technological reasons (and despite the success Israel incurred against Syria), Israel doesn't possess a viable means to eliminate or diminish the threat to any great degree and with any reasonable certainty.

If the Iranian Dept. of Redundancy is at work and IAW OoE's maxim that anything radiating a heat-source (vents in mountain shafts, etc.) is a potential target, we should expect nothing less than a sustained air-sea campaign to address all possible targets. My suspicion is that target-set numbers in the hundreds when including ancillary military air defense locations that must be degraded to facilitate a long-term campaign of some months along with the civil peripherals (electrical power stations, comms facilities, etc.) that may be eventually required.

I'll be reading the report now. U.S. strike options begin on page 150.

S2
27 Mar 10,, 08:48
Cordesman doesn't see "sustained" in the same light as I. He writes in terms of days instead of weeks or months with the focus narrowing to those sites known and part of the nuclear processing chain. While identifying 23 nuclear facilities scattered around Iran, his focus (whether Israeli or American) is on five locations.

I'm unsure that I agree to such a narrow perspective and, instead, subscribe to the notion of "in for a penny, in for a pound". It's hardly a detailed assessment and seems to be an open-source gathering of available data.

Comprehensive in scope if cursory in depth.

Aryajet
27 Mar 10,, 16:28
The ol' gang was chanting "Death To Obama" and "Death To America" yesterday. That's been the mantra since 1978. Most of those opposed to the present regime are, however, quite likely in favor Iran's "inalienable nuclear rights" in any case.

Personally, I could give a sh!t if we turn their lights off because they weren't quicker to the draw on dumping their mullocracy and coming to their senses
The highlighted is not accurate.
The correct term is "inalienable nuclear energy rights".
Mullas have manage to rally majority of population to support nuclear S&D only by openly promising them that there is not and will not be any nuclear weapon program, supreme nacho has declared 3 times in public that possession of WMD is against islam.
The point is not to prove how sincere SL and cronies are, the point is majority of population are against any WMD. May be a few fanatics and some hormone level elevated youth are dreaming about Nukes but majority is against it.

Zinja
27 Mar 10,, 19:25
For Afghanistan it makes sense. Parts of Southern Afghanistan used to be part of Iran, there are ethnic links and both are friendly with India and China who both want an A-stan pipeline to them from Iran loaded with gas and oil.
Interesting. Would you then say those ethnic links are Arabic or Persian? But still surely the pipeline is not A-stan and A-stan is not the pipeline. The US and its allies are by far contributing a lot financially to A-stan to be risking all that. If it is financially, there is a lot to gain from the West in one year than A-stan could possibly gain from Iran in a half a decade. I think whaterver the reason is is more than that Z.

Zinja
27 Mar 10,, 19:40
It would be interesting to see what other here believe WILL happen rather than what they believe ought to happen. By that I mean, what the US and its allies will do in the final analysis and how Iran will respond. Personally JAD i think deadlines are the way forward. Whether they are deplomatic or otherwise i think the deadlines should be introduced in the scheme now, and with a clear escalation frame work.

Zinja
27 Mar 10,, 19:46
Dread,
For me the marking on that road side bomb (mine?) looks suspicious.
The markings which the journalist and other Afghani claim it is an Iranian serial #, contains alphabetical and numerical figures.

Those alphabets looks Iranian but that alphabet is also used by Afghans, Pakistanis, over 25 Arab nations as well as many parts of India and Central Asian countries.
Aryajet, why then would you suggest that junior officer who was showing the weapons to the journalist was repremanded by his superior for directly attributing those weapons to Iran?

Zinja
27 Mar 10,, 19:53
S-2:

I made it clear that the high-altitude B-52 run I proposed would be protected and any attempt to attack it would be met with retaliatory force.
And then the US will be called the aggressor the world over.

Zinja
27 Mar 10,, 20:01
We agree then that some message needs to be sent. Subtle or kinetic? I think the message shouldn't be subtle but plain instead for them to make a choice. 'All option are on the table' and all that is what is emboldening the regime as it gives them the notion that things are still far away, if ever.


Grabbing an island and searching their ships would force them to react in kind to avoid appearing weak in the eyes of the public. Island grabbing would bring international outrage as it will be interpreted as American bullying. Maybe above all, it would rally the Iranian masses against the US as the mullahs can spin it as occupation of their land (land grab by foreigners).

Aryajet
27 Mar 10,, 20:06
Aryajet, why then would you suggest that junior officer who was showing the weapons to the journalist was repremanded by his superior for directly attributing those weapons to Iran?
I don't know Zinja,
May be the Afghan authorities felt the same way I did. Questionable evidence presented.
Don't get me wrong, I have no doubt that Quds force a branch of autonomous IRGC (they don't take orders from any 1 not even SL, they report to any 1 either) has been involved in training, arming and conducting anti US/NATO insurgency in Iraq and A-stan ever since 2003, I just presented my reasoning for why I feel the evidence provided in CNN report is questionable.

Zinja
27 Mar 10,, 21:34
The highlighted is not accurate.
Mullas have manage to rally majority of population to support nuclear S&D only by openly promising them that there is not and will not be any nuclear weapon program, supreme nacho has declared 3 times in public that possession of WMD is against islam.

But Aryajet, would they admit it to the masses even if they had intentions for nuclear weapons? These are the same people who denied sponsoring Iraq insurgents even when their own military personnel were in detention in Iraq.

Zinja
27 Mar 10,, 21:37
I don't know Zinja,
May be the Afghan authorities felt the same way I did. Questionable evidence presented.
Don't get me wrong, I have no doubt that Quds force a branch of autonomous IRGC (they don't take orders from any 1 not even SL, they report to any 1 either) has been involved in training, arming and conducting anti US/NATO insurgency in Iraq and A-stan ever since 2003, I just presented my reasoning for why I feel the evidence provided in CNN report is questionable. I understand. However, i still think they are grovelling to Iran (both A-stan and Iraq).

Aryajet
28 Mar 10,, 10:55
But Aryajet, would they admit it to the masses even if they had intentions for nuclear weapons? These are the same people who denied sponsoring Iraq insurgents even when their own military personnel were in detention in Iraq.
Nuclear S&D affair started in 2003 when reformist and quite popular Khatami was the president who managed to rally the majority of Iranians around it, after 2005 and specifically June 2009 rigged elections what ever legitimacy this Gov. had is vanished. No one believes any thing spewed out of their mouth.

In 2009 Dinnerjacket and IRGC orchestrated a Coupe' and have transformed the whole nation to a totalitarian military dictatorship in which people and their words don't count, even the supreme nacho is nullified.

So to answer your question I would say no they will not admit and even if they did it will not be of any consequences when population and their say don't count.

JAD_333
28 Mar 10,, 18:00
[B] It's increasingly looking like only a war of sorts will be available soon and that provides no certainty.

To that point, the CSIS study quotes Gen Petraeus saying it would be "irresponsible" for the US not to plan for that option. Obama gave Iran until the end of 2009 to get serious about negotiations, leaving everyone to speculate on what he would do if it didn't. We know now, it wasn't an attack, but rather a call for another round of harsh sanctions. As Adm Mullins said, we should exhaust all diplomatic efforts. The report expresses high confidence that the Iranians have not yet amassed the amounts of fissionable material needed to produce a nuke and probably won't have the capability until 2014-15. If that finding is accurate we still have time for diplomacy. Bur it wouldn't be wise to milk that cow right to the end because then it's too late. But if Cordesman and Toukan are right we have maybe a year, year and half for diplomacy. The problem is--and they express it--the Iranians may have secret facilities we don't know about that could with the facilities we know about could produce enough weapons grade uranium to make a crude bomb now.





Options In Dealing With Iran's Nuclear Program-CSIS Abdullah Toukan & Anthony Cordesman March 2010 (http://csis.org/files/publication/100323_Options_todealwith_Iran.pdf)

"The study concludes that, if all peaceful options have been exhausted and Iran has left no other means to convince it to stop or change its course in pursuing Nuclear Weapons, the U.S. is the only country that can launch a successful Military Strike."

As for the study, thanks for sharing. I slogged through its 207 pages last night. I didn't read each and every page. There was a lot of redundancy and many detailed charts and maps that made a fast skim possible. Cordesman & Toukan did a good job of condensing their conclusions, as all good think tank experts do. I assume the study was produced on contract for the USG, which is CSIS's main customer.

The report's premises probably represent current thinking among all experts on the topic, but as you suggested, may represent only one approach to a military solution, that of a limited 1-2 day strike on Iran's nuke facilities.

I was particularly struck that the report listed one of Iran's possible responses to such an attack would be to openly declare it would seek to build nuclear weapons. Correct me if I am wrong, but wouldn't that be more bluster than reality given that their nuke facilities would be in ruin and possibly a new regime takes over?



The report offers two Israeli strike scenarios-conventional and a low yield earth-penetrating nuclear weapons in concert with both ballistic and SLBM delivery systems.

Yes, and the report is adamant that Israel not do either and not participate in a US/Allied/GCC attack.



I believe, without yet reading the report, that the CSIS conclusion is accurate. For a variety of political and technological reasons (and despite the success Israel incurred against Syria), Israel doesn't possess a viable means to eliminate or diminish the threat to any great degree and with any reasonable certainty.

The difficulty of Israel mounting an air strike was well covered--all 3 routes. The missile option is more doable and potent, but sure to create a poisonous reaction in the ME against not only Israel, but all its allies.



If the Iranian Dept. of Redundancy is at work and IAW OoE's maxim that anything radiating a heat-source (vents in mountain shafts, etc.) is a potential target, we should expect nothing less than a sustained air-sea campaign to address all possible targets. My suspicion is that target-set numbers in the hundreds when including ancillary military air defense locations that must be degraded to facilitate a long-term campaign of some months along with the civil peripherals (electrical power stations, comms facilities, etc.) that may be eventually required.

Can't disagree on that.


I'll be reading the report now. U.S. strike options begin on page 150.

It's an eye-opener. You'll perhaps notice that the report omitted any discussion of the possible effect of setting a deadline for diplomatic efforts or what the Iranians would do vis a vis negotiations if they learned an attack was imminent.

Look forward to your observations.

JAD_333
28 Mar 10,, 18:08
And then the US will be called the aggressor the world over.

I'd rather be called an aggressor than to coexist with a nuclear-armed Iran.

Sticks and stones may break your bones, but names can never hurt you.:)

JAD_333
28 Mar 10,, 18:21
I think the message shouldn't be subtle but plain instead for them to make a choice. 'All option are on the table' and all that is what is emboldening the regime as it gives them the notion that things are still far away, if ever.

An attack may be necessary, but it is not desired. If a subtle move has the effect of remixing the Iranian regime's thinking and it concludes negotiations are in its best interests, that's good, no? In short, as the Godfather would say, "I am going to make you an offer you can't afford to refuse"--your country, vibrant and economically growing versus your country in ruins; what does a rational leader choose. But if you simply attack before laying such a choice on the table...well, you both may lose needlessly.




Island grabbing would bring international outrage as it will be interpreted as American bullying. Maybe above all, it would rally the Iranian masses against the US as the mullahs can spin it as occupation of their land (land grab by foreigners).

Yes. That was my point. It's not subtle. It leads to an immediate military response rather than the desired political response. The latter may ultimately never come, but we can and should invite it--nothing ventured, nothing gained.

HKDan
29 Mar 10,, 11:05
Saw this in the NYTimes today, thought it might interest some of you. Any thoughts?

Imagining an Israeli Strike on Iran - NYTimes.com (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/weekinreview/28sangerintro.html)

In 1981, Israel destroyed Iraq’s nuclear reactor at Osirak, declaring it could not live with the chance the country would get a nuclear weapons capability. In 2007, it wiped out a North Korean-built reactor in Syria. And the next year, the Israelis secretly asked the Bush administration for the equipment and overflight rights they might need some day to strike Iran’s much better-hidden, better-defended nuclear sites.

Related
Agencies Suspect Iran Is Planning New Atomic Sites (March 28, 2010) They were turned down, but the request added urgency to the question: Would Israel take the risk of a strike? And if so, what would follow?

Now that parlor game question has turned into more formal war games simulations. The government’s own simulations are classified, but the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution created its own in December. The results were provocative enough that a summary of them has circulated among top American government and military officials and in many foreign capitals.

For the sake of verisimilitude, former top American policymakers and intelligence officials — some well known — were added to the mix. They played the president and his top advisers; the Israeli prime minister and cabinet; and Iranian leaders. They were granted anonymity to be able to play their roles freely, without fear of blowback. (This reporter was invited as an observer.) A report by Kenneth M. Pollack, who directed the daylong simulation, can be found at the Saban Center’s Web site.

A caution: Simulations compress time and often oversimplify events. Often they underestimate the risk of error — for example, that by using faulty intelligence leaders can misinterpret a random act as part of a pattern of aggression. In this case, the actions of the American and Israeli teams seemed fairly plausible; the players knew the bureaucracy and politics of both countries well. Predicting Iran’s moves was another matter, since little is known about its decision-making process. —DAVID E. SANGER




1. ISRAEL ATTACKS

Without telling the U.S. in advance, Israel strikes at six of Iran's most critical nuclear facilities, using a refueling base hastily set up in the Saudi Arabian desert without Saudi knowledge. (It is unclear to the Iranians if the Saudis were active participants or not.)



Already-tense relations between the White House and Israel worsen rapidly, but the lack of advance notice allows Washington to say truthfully that it had not condoned the attack.

2. U.S. STEPS IN

In a series of angry exchanges, the U.S. demands that Israel cease its attacks, though some in Washington view the moment as an opportunity to further weaken the Iranian government, particularly the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

Telling Israel it has made a mess, Washington essentially instructs the country to sit in a corner while the United States tries to clean things up.

3. U.S. SENDS WEAPONS

Even while calling for restraint on all sides, the U.S. deploys more Patriot antimissile batteries and Aegis cruisers around the region, as a warning to Iran not to retaliate. Even so, some White House advisers warn against being sucked into the conflict, believing that Israel's real strategy is to lure America into finishing the job with additional attacks on the damaged Iranian facilities.




4. IRAN STRIKES BACK

Despite warnings, Iran fires missiles at Israel, including its nuclear weapons complex at Dimona, but damage and casualties are minimal. Meanwhile, two of Iran's proxies, Hezbollah and Hamas, launch attacks in Israel and fire rockets into the country.



Believing it already has achieved its main goal of setting back the nuclear program by years, Israel barely responds.

5. IRAN SEES OPPORTUNITIES

Iran, while wounded, sees long-term opportunities to unify its people - and to roll over its opposition parties - on nationalistic grounds. Its strategy is to mount low-level attacks on Israel while portraying the United States as a paper tiger - unable to control its ally and unwilling to respond to Iran.

Convinced that the Saudis had colluded with the Israelis, and emboldened by the measured initial American position, Iran fires missiles at the Saudi oil export processing center at Abqaiq, and tries to incite Shiite Muslims in eastern Saudi Arabia to attack the Saudi regime.

Iran also conducts terror attacks against European targets, in hopes that governments there will turn on Israel and the United States.

6. IRAN AVOIDS U.S. TARGETS

After a meeting of its divided leadership, Iran decides against directly attacking any American targets - to avoid an all-out American response.




7. STRIFE IN ISRAEL



Though Iran's retaliation against Israel causes only modest damage, critics in the Israeli media say the country's leaders, by failing to respond to every attack, have weakened the credibility of the nation's deterrence. Hezbollah fires up to 100 rockets a day into northern Israel, with some aimed at Haifa and Tel Aviv.

The Israeli economy comes to a virtual halt, and Israeli officials, urging American intervention, complain that one-third of the country's population is living in shelters. Hundreds of thousands flee Haifa and Tel Aviv.




8. ISRAEL FIRES BACK

Israel finally wins American acquiescence to retaliate against Hezbollah. It orders a 48-hour campaign by air and special forces against Lebanon and begins to prepare a much larger air and ground operation.



9. IRAN PLAYS THE OIL CARD

Knowing that its ultimate weapon is its ability to send oil prices sky high, Iran decides to attack Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, an oil industry center, with conventional missiles and begins mining the Strait of Hormuz.

A Panamanian-registered, Americanowned tanker and an American minesweeper are severely damaged. The price of oil spikes, though temporarily.

10. U.S. BOOSTS FORCES

Unable to sit on the sidelines while oil supplies and American forces are threatened, Washington begins a massive military reinforcement of the Gulf region.

11. REVERBERATIONS

The game ends eight days after the initial Israeli strike. But it is clear the United States was leaning toward destroying all Iranian air, ground and sea targets in and around the Strait of Hormuz, and that Iran's forces were about to suffer a significant defeat. Debate breaks out over how much of Iran's nuclear program was truly crippled, and whether the country had secret backup facilities that could be running in just a year or two.




A REPORTER'S OBSERVATIONS

1. By attacking without Washington's advance knowledge, Israel had the benefits of surprise and momentum - not only over the Iranians, but over its American allies - and for the first day or two, ran circles around White House crisis managers.

2. The battle quickly sucked in the whole region - and Washington. Arab leaders who might have quietly applauded an attack against Iran had to worry about the reaction in their streets. The war shifted to defending Saudi oil facilities, and Iran's use of proxies meant that other regional players quickly became involved.

3. You can bomb facilities, but you can't bomb knowledge. Iran had not only scattered its facilities, but had also scattered its scientific and engineering leadership, in hopes of rebuilding after an attack.

4. No one won, and the United States and Israel measured success differently. In Washington, officials believed setting the Iranian program back only a few years was not worth the huge cost. In Israel, even a few years delay seemed worth the cost, and the Israelis argued that it could further undercut a fragile regime and perhaps speed its demise. Most of the Americans thought that was a pipe dream. —D.E.S.

S2
29 Mar 10,, 22:36
"The report expresses high confidence that the Iranians have not yet amassed the amounts of fissionable material needed to produce a nuke and probably won't have the capability until 2014-15. If that finding is accurate we still have time for diplomacy..."

JAD_333, I didn't read the report the same way I guess-

"• Given the information available on nuclear weapons, and the enrichment process it is generally assumed that a simple implosion type nuclear weapon doesn’t need testing. The design is straightforward and has been tried by a number of countries to the extent that scientists and engineers can be confident that the weapon will work without undergoing multiple testing.

• The question is how many nuclear bombs would Iran require to establish itself as a nuclear state. It is generally assumed that three bombs would be required. The first would be for testing purposes, the second in case Iran enters into a nuclear war, would be for 'First Strike', and the third would be for a 'Second-Strike' or 'Deterrent'.

• Because the activity to produce the required HEU material and the weaponization process can occur in parallel rather than in a sequence, then for 3 nuclear bombs it would take around three to four years for Iran to be considered a full Nuclear State, assuming further that it does not encounter any technical problems.

• If by the end of 2009 there existed another covert facility with 3,000 centrifuges (re-configured to produce HEU) each operating at 1.3 – 1.5 SWU/year, we estimate the time that Iran could have 3 fully operational nuclear weapons, that can even be carried on Ballistic Missiles, would be by 2014. The first could be sometime in 2010 or early 2011.

• With the public information and any Intelligence available it is very difficult to estimate the date when the political decision by the Iranian leadership was made, if one was made at all, to start a Nuclear Weapons program. We show that it will take 3 to 4 years for Iran to be a Nuclear State. However, one nuclear weapon could also be considered as enough to be considered a 'Nuclear Threshold State'."

"Bur it wouldn't be wise to milk that cow right to the end because then it's too late. But if Cordesman and Toukan are right we have maybe a year, year and half for diplomacy. The problem is--and they express it--the Iranians may have secret facilities we don't know about that could with the facilities we know about could produce enough weapons grade uranium to make a crude bomb now."

Worse, it's not really about three weapons and the means to deliver...or even a single weapon. At what point do the Iranians possess all the tools and means to put the puzzle together? I believe they're on the cusp RIGHT NOW.

Given their avowed desire to be a non-nuclear armed state but our determination that such is a facade/posture placating their domestic and global friends, possessing the means to rapidly assemble a weapon in response to a manufactured or real threat is tantamount to having an arsenal in hand.

"Correct me if I am wrong, but wouldn't that be more bluster than reality given that their nuke facilities would be in ruin and possibly a new regime takes over?"

I don't know about a new regime but facilities are tools, albeit expensive ones but the core knowledge base is what seems essential. Read HKDan's post with the NYT article by David Sanger-

"You can bomb facilities, but you can't bomb knowledge. Iran had not only scattered its facilities, but had also scattered its scientific and engineering leadership, in hopes of rebuilding after an attack."

There's been plenty of time for all sorts of redundancies.

Officer of Engineers
30 Mar 10,, 05:22
"• Given the information available on nuclear weapons, and the enrichment process it is generally assumed that a simple implosion type nuclear weapon doesn’t need testing. The design is straightforward and has been tried by a number of countries to the extent that scientists and engineers can be confident that the weapon will work without undergoing multiple testing.

• The question is how many nuclear bombs would Iran require to establish itself as a nuclear state. It is generally assumed that three bombs would be required. The first would be for testing purposes, the second in case Iran enters into a nuclear war, would be for 'First Strike', and the third would be for a 'Second-Strike' or 'Deterrent'.

• Because the activity to produce the required HEU material and the weaponization process can occur in parallel rather than in a sequence, then for 3 nuclear bombs it would take around three to four years for Iran to be considered a full Nuclear State, assuming further that it does not encounter any technical problems.

• If by the end of 2009 there existed another covert facility with 3,000 centrifuges (re-configured to produce HEU) each operating at 1.3 – 1.5 SWU/year, we estimate the time that Iran could have 3 fully operational nuclear weapons, that can even be carried on Ballistic Missiles, would be by 2014. The first could be sometime in 2010 or early 2011.

• With the public information and any Intelligence available it is very difficult to estimate the date when the political decision by the Iranian leadership was made, if one was made at all, to start a Nuclear Weapons program. We show that it will take 3 to 4 years for Iran to be a Nuclear State. However, one nuclear weapon could also be considered as enough to be considered a 'Nuclear Threshold State'."

"Bur it wouldn't be wise to milk that cow right to the end because then it's too late. But if Cordesman and Toukan are right we have maybe a year, year and half for diplomacy. The problem is--and they express it--the Iranians may have secret facilities we don't know about that could with the facilities we know about could produce enough weapons grade uranium to make a crude bomb now."

S-2,

This report is whacked and does a dis-service to those of us who watches Iran like a hawk. The charts are out of whack and taken out of context. The charts quoted 15kgs for a simple implosion device. There is NOTHING simply about a thick taper device which is the minimum of the 15kg required as quoted.

A simplier designe with more success odds requires 64kgs of uranium and even this design requires testing.

There is one and only one design that does not require testing that is guarrantee to work and this the gun design and that requires 60kgs of uranium BUT at a far lesser ignitiation value (65% of the HEU will not initiate versus 80% of HEU will in a sphere implosion method).

On top of this, even though it is now assumed that Iran got the more advance Pakistani designs than the CICH-4, the Pakistani designs still performed below par and without further testing, it cannot be assumed that the devices can stand up to specs, especially when we're watching Pakistan to make sure that they have not passed on their test data to Iran.

This report quoted the wrong physics and it gives an inaccurate picture.

Officer of Engineers
30 Mar 10,, 06:00
Also,

The Iranians are further behind than the North Koreans as far as warhead development is concerned though Iran has surpassed their NK masters in rocket science. The NKs had at least one test to design their fuses, assuming the Chinese are right about their second test being faked. Iran has none.

JAD_333
30 Mar 10,, 07:29
Saw this in the NYTimes today, thought it might interest some of you. Any thoughts?

Imagining an Israeli Strike on Iran - NYTimes.com (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/weekinreview/28sangerintro.html)

A few.

The US would not sit by if Saudi Arabia was attacked.

Israel isn't likely to use a route that overflies Jordan or to depends on pre-positioned fuel.

Israel wouldn't need US permission to counterattack Iran surrogates. Hamas wouldn't last a day. Hezbollah would be cut to pieces.

Terrorist attacks on European countries would draw them into joining an attack on Iran.

You can't bomb knowledge, but knowledge isn't enough to rebuild.

Why would Iran want to move against its internal political dissenters? Creating splits at home while under threat of attack would weaken resolve whereas calls for patriotism would help solidify unity.

But nonetheless, an interesting scenario.

S2
30 Mar 10,, 08:38
Colonel,

"This report is whacked and does a dis-service to those of us who watches Iran like a hawk."

Here were my thoughts. They don't bear your mark of authority but I nonetheless sensed that it was an accumulation of unrelated data and an incomplete cursory representation.

"...It's hardly a detailed assessment and seems to be an open-source gathering of available data.

Comprehensive in scope if cursory in depth."

I don't possess your background in the technical evaluation of nuclear weapons development. I follow what you're writing though-the Iranians haven't yet accumulated an adequate supply of HEU to develop a device that wouldn't require testing yet assure a high degree of confidence detonating correctly to full effect. Such would need to exceed, minimally, 65kgs HEU.

"This report quoted the wrong physics and it gives an inaccurate picture."

What is an accurate time-line, in your view sir, to possessing the means to assemble a single device capable of operating as intended and being mated to a suitable delivery vehicle-aircraft, IRBM or sub-sonic cruise missile? Those would seem the three available means of delivery.

I don't know which is the easiest to achieve.

S2
30 Mar 10,, 08:51
"Terrorist attacks on European countries would draw them into joining an attack on Iran."

Maybe. Maybe not. There's some suggestion-Madrid-terror attacks might have the intended intimidating effect.

"You can't bomb knowledge, but knowledge isn't enough to rebuild."

Knowledge seems the essential prerequisite to rebuild. There must be a point of departure, in the event. It seems reasonable that such starts with knowledge. It therefore makes sense that such would be the primary protected asset of the state. That protection seems to suggest these assets simply shouldn't be spending their free-time near potential targets and that their identities and home addresses be closely-held by the state.

They'd be vulnerable, of course, if on-site during an attack. How vulnerable is another matter. If they can reach an adequate air raid shelter in time, they might emerge unscathed.

As to the rest, it was done before so it would be done again. The non-proliferation regime was inadequate to keep Israel, India, Pakistan, and N. Korea from such so I've little reason to believe Iran wouldn't find somebody to assist their acquisition of the required equipment to begin anew. Time and money are the only inhibitors. Considerable right now but not prohibitive IMV.

HKDan
31 Mar 10,, 02:32
JAD 333,

Thanks for the response. This certainly has been an interesting thread to read. I hope I don't make a fool of myself too quickly by jumping in.


The US would not sit by if Saudi Arabia was attacked.

Agreed, I imagine that the Iranians probably understand that as well. I think a US response to an attack against Saudi Arabia has a greater guarantee than a European response to an attack on Europe.


Israel wouldn't need US permission to counterattack Iran surrogates. Hamas wouldn't last a day. Hezbollah would be cut to pieces.

Certainly Israel wouldn't need permission, but they might want to gauge support for what would be seriously widening the conflict. An attack on Iran would probably provoke as strong a response from Hamas and Hezbollah as they could muster. The scenario mentioned refugees fleeing Israel as a result, that I can believe. I don't accept that handling the Hamas and Hezbollah side of the equation would be nearly as easy for Israel as you think.


Terrorist attacks on European countries would draw them into joining an attack on Iran.

Unfortunately, I am with S-2 on this one. I don't think that a European response is a given. The Spanish response to the Madrid bombings and the political aspect of European Afghanistan operations may have sent the wrong signal. I don't think its impossible that this would be something Iran would be willing to chance. I would mention serious lack of a unified political backbone, unwillingness to appear on the "same side" as Israel, and limited options to respond.


You can't bomb knowledge, but knowledge isn't enough to rebuild.

Fair enough, but the idea that what the Iranians have already learned can't be unlearned is pretty legit to me. Sure, knock them back a few years, but you very possibly might have to do it again later. The underlying problem will still be there as long as there is the intent to develop nuclear weapons.

Officer of Engineers
31 Mar 10,, 03:21
Colonel,

"This report is whacked and does a dis-service to those of us who watches Iran like a hawk."

Here were my thoughts. They don't bear your mark of authority but I nonetheless sensed that it was an accumulation of unrelated data and an incomplete cursory representation.

"...It's hardly a detailed assessment and seems to be an open-source gathering of available data.

Comprehensive in scope if cursory in depth."

I don't possess your background in the technical evaluation of nuclear weapons development. I follow what you're writing though-the Iranians haven't yet accumulated an adequate supply of HEU to develop a device that wouldn't require testing yet assure a high degree of confidence detonating correctly to full effect. Such would need to exceed, minimally, 65kgs HEU.

"This report quoted the wrong physics and it gives an inaccurate picture."

What is an accurate time-line, in your view sir, to possessing the means to assemble a single device capable of operating as intended and being mated to a suitable delivery vehicle-aircraft, IRBM or sub-sonic cruise missile? Those would seem the three available means of delivery.

I don't know which is the easiest to achieve.Steve,

1st let me establish what I know.

Through Pak General Beg and AQ Khan, we know the Iranians got pre-1998 Pakistani nuclear warheads designs.

We've got copies of such designs in Geneva and they were deemed by the experts to to be workable designs.

These were taper designs using 15kgs of HEU (I know, please bear with me).

The Pakistani 1998 tests FAILED.

So, based on this and the fact that the experts deemed the designs to be workable, there is only one explaination for the Pak failures - the HEU was not pure enough. There were contaiminations.

Iran is still using the pre-1998 same enrichment methodology.

Iran has NOT made enough HEU for a bomb BUT they have made enough LEU that can be made into HEU for a gun type bomb that requires no testing. The LITTLE MAN - Nagasaki bomb did not need testing.

So, on the one hand, the Iranians are already there, just deciding to take the next step or not but they are not anywhere close to having a capable nuclear missile force.

So, any device that they can manufacture must be aircraft deliver ... or terrorist deliver. Put it on a freighter and ship it near an Israeli harbour. Don't even have to enter the harbour.

Stitch
31 Mar 10,, 03:42
Iran has NOT made enough HEU for a bomb BUT they have made enough LEU that can be made into HEU for a gun type bomb that requires no testing. The LITTLE MAN - Nagasaki bomb did not need testing.

Actually, Little Boy was used on Hiroshima; Fat Man was used on Nagasaki.

The mechanics of the bombs are significantly different; part of the reason they were able to drop the Little Boy first was due to the fact that it was a less critical design. The Little Boy design is what's called a "gun" type atomic bomb; the Fat Man was a more efficient "imploding" type of bomb. The trick is to get a supercritical mass in the same place at the same time fast enough to produce an uncontrolled chain reaction. If the plutonium is introduced at too slow of a rate, it will simply boil off and not produce an explosion. The "gun" type of bomb is much simpler to construct and doesn't require as close tolerances as a Fat Man type bomb; therefore, it would be easier and faster for a third-world country to produce a Little Boy-type bomb.

Officer of Engineers
31 Mar 10,, 03:49
I so stand corrected as to the targets. However, we're talking uranium weapons here. Iran is nowhere close to a Pu bomb.

HKDan
31 Mar 10,, 04:24
OOE,

Very informative post as usual. Thanks. This scenario below is what I fear the most. It wouldn't necessarily have to be an Israeli port either. Could be a port anywhere, or USN CSG somewhere. USS Cole times a thousand. A very real and scary threat.


or terrorist deliver. Put it on a freighter and ship it near an Israeli harbour. Don't even have to enter the harbour.
[/QUOTE]

Officer of Engineers
31 Mar 10,, 04:33
And the result will be nuclear retallation on a scale that they could not imagine. Tehran would be visited by no less than 9 nukes. The Iranians would be idiots to think that we could not identify the source of that weapon.

Stitch
31 Mar 10,, 05:35
I so stand corrected as to the targets. However, we're talking uranium weapons here. Iran is nowhere close to a Pu bomb.

Touché!

My turn to stand corrected; yes, we ARE talking uranium bombs here, not Pu bombs. My mistake . . .


And the result will be nuclear retallation on a scale that they could not imagine. Tehran would be visited by no less than 9 nukes. The Iranians would be idiots to think that we could not identify the source of that weapon.

Back on topic: Where would the nine nukes come from? SSBN's? B-2's? My guess is we have a least two boomers cruising the mid-Atlantic at any given time out of Kings Bay, Tehran would be well within the range of a D-5.

Bluesman
31 Mar 10,, 06:35
I think everybody's calculus is off in this scenario, because we have two leaders in Iran ad the US that may not behave conventionally as we all think Great Powers would in any given situation.

I think Obama is feckless and weak, and certainly does not have a worldview that conforms to a normal national-interest outlook. And iran is led by a millenarian religious fanatic that is living for the day that Iran has deliverable nukes, and I'm not at all certain he's thinking one day beyond that.

All bets are off, here. Nothing can be taken for granted, and the way all of us would play the US and Iranian positions count for nothing.

We and they are led by unpredictable chauvanists, and neither is likely to do the expected, balance-of-power moves that tend to lead to a more-or-less sane outome. This isn't Fischer/Spassky; this is your five-year-old neice playing dotty old Grampa. Do NOT expect the usual or the logical.

Zinja
31 Mar 10,, 10:29
If a subtle move has the effect of remixing the Iranian regime's thinking and it concludes negotiations are in its best interests, that's good, no?
The problem is to this regime subtlety to them means you are hesitant, you are weak. To them it translates to 'later'.


Yes. That was my point. It's not subtle. It leads to an immediate military response rather than the desired political response. The latter may ultimately never come, but we can and should invite it--nothing ventured, nothing gained.
But the problem is in such a scenario all just voices against Iranian nuclear weapons drive would be drowned by a seemingly more righteous outcry of 'foreign landgrab/occupation'. The US becomes synonymous with Israel on the Palestines. It becomes unwinable.

Adam UKFPI
05 Apr 10,, 14:46
"My question, which I hope is not too naive is this: Could we not take a run at all their nuke facilities without at the same time destroying their air force, etc, and simply take out any forces they send at us as they come?"

Please look at the map on: Our Shame over Diego Garcia (http://ukfpi.org/OurShameOverDiegoGarcia.htm) and NOW tell me who should be scared of who?

Let's remember please, that if the CIA & MI5 had not DESTROYED Iran's GENUINE democracy in 1953 & installed their brutal Fascist Dictator Puppet, we would NEVER have had the resultant REVOLUTION & EXTREMISM.

Sadly WE NEVER LEARN not to MEDDLE in other countries affairs - at least not when "OUR" supply of THEIR natural resources (energy or precious metals etc) is involved.

troung
05 Apr 10,, 15:32
Let's remember please, that if the CIA & MI5 had not DESTROYED Iran's GENUINE democracy in 1953 & installed their brutal Fascist Dictator Puppet, we would NEVER have had the resultant REVOLUTION & EXTREMISM.

The Iranian Army (junior officers) actually did it on their own, the CIA had failed... :biggrin:


Sadly WE NEVER LEARN not to MEDDLE in other countries affairs - at least not when "OUR" supply of THEIR natural resources (energy or precious metals etc) is involved.

Want cheese with that whine....

Dreadnought
05 Apr 10,, 15:42
Your singling out the British and American forces for something that has been done by countless nations, countless times over through out decades of warfare?

Heres just a tip of the iceberg....Consider how many islands were taken during WWII (By British and US forces) in the Pacific and returned to thier respective inhabitants when swept clean of Japanese forces. They could have easily have kept them instead of returning them to their inhabitants.

Azores, Marianna's, Bikinni, Phillipines, Gilberts, Solomons, New Guinea, East Indies etc.

Why not blame the French and Spanish for the catastrophy that Haiti has become since their use even though the US has pumped billions into it without even touching it?

Who to blame?

In the 1960s, the Chagos archipelago was secretly leased to the United Kingdom and detached from Mauritius with the intention of expelling its entire population and establishing a military base. In 1971 the United Kingdom and United States entered an agreement under which the latter would set up a military base in Diego Garcia.

Since then, the United Kingdom enforced the highly controversial depopulation of Diego Garcia, forcing the deportation of all 2,000 inhabitants of the island, who were descendants of African slaves and Hindu labourers brought to the islands by the French in the 18th century, to the surrounding islands, including Mauritius, located 1,200 miles away. In their place, a joint British-American military base was established.

So why blame the US and British when the territory was lost to the British after the Napoleanic Wars. War is war and it has its consequences, its not the inhabitants fault but it was the owners fault for not winning the conflict and being able to keep the islands.

The islands were uninhabited until the 18th century, when the French established coconut plantations using slave labour. Diego Garcia became a colony of the United Kingdom after the Napoleonic wars, and from 1814–1965 it was a dependency of Mauritius.

Maybe they sould have deported them (2,000 inhabitants) to France instead. Afterall, France did loose the Naploeonic Wars and with that, the islands as well. Your blaming the wrong people IMO.

Adam UKFPI
05 Apr 10,, 16:01
What humanity - WOW!

troung
05 Apr 10,, 16:03
Save us the trouble and leave on your own....

Dreadnought
05 Apr 10,, 16:08
Look at the entire 19th century, during warfare humanity played a very small role except in the rebuilding process after the wars were over and what they (the victors) could give humanity wise when they could give it. Diego Garcia is no different then any other lands or islands lost through warfare throughout centuries of conflict and IMO a very small example. It just so happens that Diego Garcia serves as a military instalation instead of being populated. I'm not stating that all is fair, but it is a reality none the less.

*Another example...Guam

The island was controlled by Spain until 1898, when it was surrendered to the United States as part of the Treaty of Paris following the Spanish-American War.

*Another war loss, captured by the Japanese following the Pearl Harbor attack WWII. Recaptured by American forces. It serves both as a Military instalation and has a civilian populist to this day. Diego Garcia is far too small to share a populist with a military outpost. But there are several island examples where both do coexist. However, they are much larger then Diego Garcia as far as land mass goes.

troung
05 Apr 10,, 16:16
He is a troll, save your effort.

Mihais
05 Apr 10,, 16:33
Good one,Troung.
THIS IS WAAAB.:biggrin::biggrin:

Chunder
15 Apr 10,, 12:42
I still believe that any speak of Obama lacking spine in regards to Iran is purely speculative until at least 2011. IMO it'll just equate to many stewing by themselves for a good year until push comes to shove.

At present all it will get is an "I told you so, he dilly-dallied" Heads I win tails you loose scenario.

In some overlooked news the Bush Administration in late 2008 Denied a FMS request of Israel for 767 tankers, based on the speculation they could be used to strike Iran. I'd speculate that the goal is basically a race against one's own deadline for action.

The Irony of Obama accepting a new Nuclear player, after his own START efforts, let alone advice from his own military on nuclear capability around the 2012 Mark seems strange, let alone allowing the Republicans set the agenda standing on a security platform for the 2012 presidential election based on his own perceived (at this point) failure to set a hard line.

Pretty sure politically that would be unacceptable for him - but come late 2011 am happy enough to be wrong!

S2
15 Apr 10,, 13:28
I remain convinced that it's a pointless exercise to debate what will happen once Iran becomes a nuclear power. If Gates is convinced that the earliest Iran might be able to do so is one year from this spring then, IMV, the clock is ticking on military operations.

It isn't a fact but I'll submit the net effect of PROPOSED sanctions that won't be considered before this June will be nil. We can expect a watering down of "soft sanctions". No harsh regime and no universally-accepted enforcement. Think dutch boy and a myriad of leaks in the dike. All too many eager to take advantage of such.

This waltz has been pointless and done nothing to even build the firm consensus for diplomatic/sanction actions much less military operations. America will act alone on this looming inevitability or nobody will. Not Israel and definitely nobody other than them.

Chunder
15 Apr 10,, 13:56
I am inclined to believe that Iran won't obtain nuclear weapons through the will of external influences, probably via force, whether that is based on pre-emption or speculative deadlines lurking behind the scenes for strike or a mix or both - to maintain a politically palatable action up to if & when required. Whatever that mix is, it certainly is not based on faith on Irans word. It's Violated NPT req's. It's word means nothing. This is the approach that should be born in mind in all negotiations made.

I think there has been tangible evidence in recent history where the waltz is political necessity to the inevitable, not so much the Gulf War but certainly OIF stands as such an example. Whether or not the current posturing looks convincing from the Obama administration is for certain engagement or not is another thing.

Certainly inclined esp with your background & interest in the region sir for what it's worth,to agree that realistically it is pointless, and has achieved nothing. Military operations will never be agreed upon.

Remain unconvinced that failure to publicise a course of action resulting in an inevitable attack, is an appropriate thing to do to Joe public however. It would simply prepare the Regime for D Day. I think this is a 'watch this space' scenario.

S2
15 Apr 10,, 14:04
"Remain unconvinced that failure to publicise a course of action resulting in an inevitable attack, is an appropriate thing to do..."

Don't recall where I suggested such and, if so, I refute it now. I'm all for leaving our intent utterly ambiguous. I detest deadlines and find them unnecessary. Diplomats, as a final value, can convey our desires, expectations, and possible consequences-hopefully without ambiguity.:biggrin:

Beyond that? Let those that transgress beware of what's been firmly conveyed and prepare to act accordingly at the time of OUR choosing.

JAD_333
15 Apr 10,, 15:28
I still believe that any speak of Obama lacking spine in regards to Iran is purely speculative until at least 2011.

I don't believe Obama lacks spine. But he has every reason to hesitate. Attacking Iran would damage the image he has projected of himself as Bush's opposite in world affairs.

He has to face up to the probability that the current Iranian regime will not be deterred by sanctions. As S-2 suggests, if the new sanctions go into place in 6 months and another 6 months go by to let them work, we've lost a year...or rather the Iranians have gained a year. But Obama's dilemma will never go away. He should send back the Nobel prize.