PDA

View Full Version : Possible attack on Iran



Pages : [1] 2 3

alfa2bravo
06 Nov 11,, 09:10
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-11-04/uk/30358805_1_nuclear-enrichment-programme-missile-strikes-tehran

LONDON: Britain's armed forces are stepping up contingency planning for potential military action against Iran, amid mounting concern about Tehran's nuclear enrichment programme, a media report said on Thursday.

The ministry of defence believed the US may decide to fast-forward plans for targeted missile strikes at some key Iranian facilities. The Guardian daily quoting British officials said that if Washington presses ahead it will seek, and receive, UK military help for any mission, despite some deep reservations within the coalition government.

The British military planners of a potential attack are examining where best to deploy Royal Navy ships and submarines equipped with Tomahawk cruise missiles over the coming months as part of what would be an air and sea campaign, the report said. The US would ask permission to launch attacks from Diego Garcia, the British Indian Ocean territory, which the Americans have used previously for conflicts in the Middle East.

US officials are likely to seize on next week's report from the IAEA, which is expected to provide fresh evidence of a possible nuclear weapons programme in Iran.

Quoting Whitehall officials , the paper said Iran has proved "surprisingly resilient" in the face of sanctions, and sophisticated attempts by the west to cripple its nuclear enrichment programme had been less successful than first thought.

---------------------
Longer article here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/02/uk-military-iran-attack-nuclear

snapper
06 Nov 11,, 09:30
About 90% certain in the next year I'd say.

Bigfella
06 Nov 11,, 09:33
If so then I suspect we will all be paying a price.

Parihaka
06 Nov 11,, 09:40
It's been 90% certain in the next 6 months since 2006. what are the realistic chances of obama starting a war with a regional power.

Dago
06 Nov 11,, 10:32
WTH?

Is this guy serious?

Bigfella
06 Nov 11,, 11:22
It's been 90% certain in the next 6 months since 2006. what are the realistic chances of obama starting a war with a regional power.

Him starting it? low. Netanyahu? hard to say. The logical man in me says Israel won't go without full US support. On the other hand, they might just do it & present the US with a fait accompli - 'now we've done it you have to back us'.

bigross86
06 Nov 11,, 11:29
They did that with Osirak in 1981, and while behind the scenes the US was glad they did it, the US still condemned the attack in public. This case is slightly different because Iran at the moment is quite stronger, both in reality and via proxies than Iraq was back then

Doktor
06 Nov 11,, 11:48
Not to mention a corridor via KSA will be harder to find.

Or IAF will go through Jordan, Iraq, 2/3 of Iran to hit the targets in lets say Parchin?

paintgun
06 Nov 11,, 12:15
the news outlet has been busy these few days, with all sort of talking heads and their statements

the US has 2 carriers in the Arabian Sea atm

Dago
06 Nov 11,, 12:32
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/images/swa-map1.gif

http://www.crethiplethi.com/wp-content/uploads/iran-nuclear-facilities.jpg

The F-15I's have a range of 4,450 that equates to a combat range of 2,200+ km. What makes you think though, if need be and something happen, that they might possibly land those planes in Iraq or refuel without anyone knowing about it? Also the F-16I's have a combat radius of over 2,100km also. The Jericho III has a range of up to 4,800 - 11,000km...

Anyone know, that the possibility is being brought up now, with the US exit strategy in Iraq? Even if the US leaves, how about the air space? Will it still be monitored? Essentially, does Iraq have any detection centers?

http://temi.repubblica.it/UserFiles/limes-heartland/Image/Maps/409_israel_strike_iran_500.jpg

Double Edge
06 Nov 11,, 12:50
Will wait for JAD's comment on this one, he's the one that said back in 2007 it would not happen. Has anything changed much since ? doubtful.

I did see something similar in a blog recently but there were two alternate possibilities. That the troops drawdown in Iraq is the bigger factor for the reconfiguration of US assets in the persian gulf OR they were preparing to strike Iran.

US bracing for a fight in Persian Gulf | Oct 30 2011 | Badrakumar's blog (http://blogs.rediff.com/mkbhadrakumar/2011/10/30/us-bracing-for-a-fight-in-persian-gulf/)


The New York Times reports (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/30/world/middleeast/united-states-plans-post-iraq-troop-increase-in-persian-gulf.html?_r=1&ref=world&pagewanted=print) Sunday that US is embarking on a big military build-up in the Persian Gulf region.

In the absence of a coherent policy toward Iran, with the loss of military presence in Iraq, with Saudi Arabia inexorably descending into crisis, with the ‘pro-West’ Arab oligarchies getting afraid of the dark, with the Aran Spring poised to arrive in the Persian Gulf, with Egypt preoccupied with its own regeneration and the israelis in existential despair, US is doing what comes most natural to it, namely, arrest the march of history with gunboats and missiles.

The NYT report says that in addition to ‘repositioning’ US combat troops in Kuwait, the naval presence in the Persian Gulf will be beefed up. Conceivably, the frightened Arab oligarchies will be asked to foot the bills for this big deployment. Most interestingly, US is also proposing a new regional security architecture to be choreographed around its military presence which would “integrate air and naval patrols and missile defence.”

Patrick cockburn from the Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/patrick-cockburn-iran-had-better-watch-its-step-now-obamas-chasing-votes-2371379.html) is pushing this 'attack iran' line with re-elections angle.


The most likely motive for the Obama administration's vigorously expressed belief in the plot is that it is preparing the ground for the 2012 presidential election. Mr Obama's economic and social policies are failing and his only undiluted successes have been the killing of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan and Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen. By dramatising how he frustrated the fiendish plots of the Iranians, Mr Obama can present himself as the president who kept America safe, or at least protect his national security political flank from criticism by the Republicans.

What explains US’s anti-Iran tirade | Oct 29 2011 | Badrakumar's blog (http://blogs.rediff.com/mkbhadrakumar/2011/10/29/what-explains-uss-anti-iran-tirade/)


There could be another powerful motive, though. To my mind, Obama is assuaging the fears of the US’s two most important allies in region - Israel and Saudi Arabia - that it is far from the case that the sun is setting for American military might in the Middle East.

The anti-Iran rhetoric coincides with:
a) Iraq snub to the US pleas to allow a long-term troop presence;
b) Syrian regime showing no real sign of cracks yet despite the outside intervention;
c) rise of islamist fervor in the region. All these accentuate Israel’s acute sense of insecurity. Jerusalem Post is bitter about Obama’s announcement of US troop withdrawal from Iraq.

But Saudi Arabia is a case by itself. I am surprised that Al Jazeera (http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/10/2011102673844479817.html) featured such a brutally frank assessment of the instability in Saudi Arabia. A decadent regime is tottering and a “critical period of domestic and foreign uncertainty” lies ahead not only for the Kingdom but for the entire region. “[King] Abdullah’s octogenarian line of successors recalls the final years of the Soviet Union, when one infirm leader after another succeeded to power for a brief period of inert rule.” US needs to figure out how to hold the crumbling citadel together and, most important, ensure Iran doesn’t give it a final push.

paintgun
06 Nov 11,, 12:54
yes, something has changed, it's election time :biggrin: 2012 baby

Mihais
06 Nov 11,, 12:57
The only way this happens is if a WMD goes boom in Baltimore.

paintgun
06 Nov 11,, 12:59
don't give them scary ideas

Mihais
06 Nov 11,, 13:10
To whom? :whome:

S2
06 Nov 11,, 16:55
"It's been 90% certain in the next 6 months since 2006. what are the realistic chances of obama starting a war with a regional power."

Agreed. Ain't happenin'. Even if they successfully test a nuke we won't attack.

Doktor
06 Nov 11,, 17:00
S2,

If they test a nuke it might be a little too late.

Otherwise, may I ask why not?

zraver
06 Nov 11,, 18:50
Militarily, in 2007, the risk to US forces in Iraq and the Persian Gulf was way too high for a military operation in Iran. Effectively the US would have had to pull several hundred Fort Apaches of company sized or smaller and simply hold on in Iraq until the war with Iran and the resulting ballistic missile barrage was over. At sea the crippling of the USN's anti-mine warfare capability from 1992 effectively ceded control of the Persian Gulf to Iran via denial until the NATO navies could get their still sizable mine warfare vessels to the Persian Gulf for a sustained anti-mine campaign. Its not 2007 anymore, the THAAD is deployed in bigger numbers as is the SM-3 providing the US with a much more credible ballistic missile deterrent. There are far fewer US troops in Iraq, all 4 Ohio's slated to be converted into SSGN's are in service, the USN has at least partially restored its mine warfare capability and the US has had three additional years to really look into Iran's mil-industrial complex to examine the claims vs the reality, to map Iran's radar and information nets and rebuild humint assets.

So militarily the situation is quite a bit different. The weak link is still Afghanistan which is a bleeding sore that has significant US and allied assets tied down in range of an Iranian counter-punch. Iran isn't exactly friendly with Pakistan, but is with China. Its not unreasonable to assume that Pakistan would sell ISI controlled Hagganni operations against NATO to Iran if the price was right.

Both Iran and the US are dealing with extremist political climates at the moment. This could both increase and decrease the chances of war depending on which way certain actors jump.

The horrible US economy and never ending bad news for the Obama administration, his being seen as weak and ineffective, Obama's documented history of retaliation for being slighted, plus Obama's recent example of not following the war powers clause in order to try and score some quick points in Lybia via a very Clintonesque wag the dog war means he might just pull the trigger. Unlike the past 4 presidents who have had to deal with Iran Obama does not seem to grasp the truth of Iran. The Mullah's refusal to kiss and make up following his 2008 American Apology tour was likely taken as a slight... Something Obama's domestic critics either dread or welcome depending...

The Mullahs didn't kiss and make up becuase America isn't high on Iran's list, neither is Israel. Until A-jad the Mullah's were playing a long game against the Gulf Arabs for regional Hegemony. While most of the Gulf Arabs are Sunni, they all have sizable Shia minorities. Iran's drive to economic, political and military independence is a powerful draw for this often oppressed group of Gulf Arabs. The need for regional hegemony is simple- Iran has to have oil prices high or she risks collapse. Her oil is harder to extract and her infrastructure is aging both add up to higher costs per barrel. Iran's early attempts to counter this were cutting the social supports... the end result was riots which very nearly ended the rule of the clerics.

Adding to the problem is when oil prices spiked, Iran thought they would stay high and bet wrong. A-jad overspent on things like weapons, many of which were never delivered, missile R&D and the nuclear program which is expensive. This has cut Iran's foreign currency reserves to $75 billion or less than 1 years spending. To this must be added the growing fight among the Revolutionary Guards and between the Guards and the Clerics, the Clerics and other Clerics, the Clerics and the Bazzaaris and the Bazzaaris and the Guards and everyone vs the Students. Its not exactly a political civil war but there has been some blood letting...

I predicted in 2006 or 2007 that A-jad would eventually force a confrontation between the Guards and the Clerics. I didn't realize then that the confrontation would involve Guards and Clerics on both sides in a three way split between moderates, conservatives and the power hungry. Yet that is where we stand today. A-jad is in a very weak position and his faction may try and provoke a war to wag the Iranian dog. So far Iran has played a very skilled game of brinkmanship but with domestic political tensions so high they may slip up.

Double Edge
06 Nov 11,, 20:02
Interesting post Z, the way you tell it both US & Iran are itching for a scrap or rather their leaders are for sake of their own salvation. Whether the recently uncovered plot was an invitation from Iran or the other way around remains to be seen.


plus Obama's recent example of not following the war powers clause in order to try and score some quick points in Lybia via a very Clintonesque wag the dog war means he might just pull the trigger.
So why did the US pull out of offensive actions after a month or so after entering into Libya.

He did not need Congress approval to go in, but did to stay in after a certain point. I doubt he'd have got it so he pulled out of offense and stuck to support. So where is the question of not following the war powers clause.

Incidentally this was pretty much the same point the oppoistion in the UK brought up to counter their involvement in Libya. It wasn't a valid counter in their case either.

JAD_333
06 Nov 11,, 21:23
A lot depends on the IAEA report expected next week.

Hawks in the US are likely to seize on next week's report from the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is expected to provide fresh evidence of a possible nuclear weapons programme in Iran.

The Guardian has been told that the IAEA's bulletin could be "a game changer" which will provide unprecedented details of the research and experiments being undertaken by the regime

UK military steps up plans for Iran attack amid fresh nuclear fears | World news | The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/02/uk-military-iran-attack-nuclear)

Doktor
06 Nov 11,, 21:34
Advice for your friends: right time to buy Raytheon stocks :biggrin:

zraver
06 Nov 11,, 21:42
Interesting post Z, the way you tell it both US & Iran are itching for a scrap or rather their leaders are for sake of their own salvation. Whether the recently uncovered plot was an invitation from Iran or the other way around remains to be seen.

I would not say itching, but the temptation will be there, politicians have a long history of spending other peoples blood to prop up their failing careers.



So why did the US pull out of offensive actions after a month or so after entering into Libya.

He did not need Congress approval to go in, but did to stay in after a certain point. I doubt he'd have got it so he pulled out of offense and stuck to support. So where is the question of not following the war powers clause.

Incidentally this was pretty much the same point the oppoistion in the UK brought up to counter their involvement in Libya. It wasn't a valid counter in their case either.

We didn't, we simply switched from manned to unmanned when public approval didn't follow. The question is democratic presidents have a history of going to war without Congress being in the know.

Mihais
06 Nov 11,, 21:45
Wake me up when the action starts.The introduction is so boring I'm faling asleep.Really,20 years of talking about Iranian nukes and 6- years of ''imminent'' war is a bit long.

I bet 50 bucks or the equivalent in alcohol,sent by mail,that Obama will not start a war.
Even if I lose the bet,I won't be unemployed,so I'll make my loss back in a hurry,or won't care about it.

Double Edge
06 Nov 11,, 22:14
politicians have a long history of spending other peoples blood to prop up their failing careers.
Yeah, i'd imagine there's a lot of people that do not like that :frown:


The question is democratic presidents have a history of going to war without Congress being in the know.
Then you have an issue with the war powers act. The argument for is in a dynamic world where the situation can be very fluid that there isn't time to get congressional approval. The counters are good but when its national interest at stake acting vs not acting can make a big difference. if you persist then you are labeled anti-national interest. If you have a forces record then that charge won't fly but a civvie would be on the backfoot.

So the compromise is POTUS can go to war if required but to keep at it beyond a point will require approval from the people. If not forthcoming then there is a potential loss of face and national prestige so i suppose that acts as a deterrent of sorts.

IINM its been that way for a long time now.

zraver
06 Nov 11,, 23:27
Yeah, i'd imagine there's a lot of people that do not like that :frown:


Then you have an issue with the war powers act. The argument for is in a dynamic world where the situation can be very fluid that there isn't time to get congressional approval. The counters are good but when its national interest at stake acting vs not acting can make a big difference. if you persist then you are labeled anti-national interest. If you have a forces record then that charge won't fly but a civvie would be on the backfoot.

So the compromise is POTUS can go to war if required but to keep at it beyond a point will require approval from the people. If not forthcoming then there is a potential loss of face and national prestige so i suppose that acts as a deterrent of sorts.

IINM its been that way for a long time now.

However, that is not how the US Constitution is set up. Only Congress has the authority to wage offensive war, the President as Commander in Cheif can always act defensively. However actions like Lybia which have zero defensive value to the US are extra-consitutional and part of the legacy of imperial presidents.

Parihaka
07 Nov 11,, 00:02
I would not say itching, but the temptation will be there, politicians have a long history of spending other peoples blood to prop up their failing careers.
.

They do indeed, I just can't see how it would pay off politically for Obama to either implement or support a strike against Iran. In such a case the hawks might support him electorially though unlikely, his own base would certainly desert him.

Double Edge
07 Nov 11,, 01:01
However, that is not how the US Constitution is set up. Only Congress has the authority to wage offensive war, the President as Commander in Cheif can always act defensively. However actions like Lybia which have zero defensive value to the US are extra-consitutional and part of the legacy of imperial presidents.
Then why has your Supreme court not struck down as unconstitutional the relevant clauses in the warpowers act that enabled him to do so ?

POTUS is working within the laws that allow him to act.

offensive/defensive is a red herring here i think. If he can declare war for a limited period it necessarily will be an offensive one.

zraver
07 Nov 11,, 01:36
They do indeed, I just can't see how it would pay off politically for Obama to either implement or support a strike against Iran. In such a case the hawks might support him electorially though unlikely, his own base would certainly desert him.

No war time president has ever been defeated in an election.... Thats pretty powerful draw if he wants to stay in office.

zraver
07 Nov 11,, 01:37
Then why has your Supreme court not struck down as unconstitutional the relevant clauses in the warpowers act that enabled him to do so ?

POTUS is working within the laws that allow him to act.

offensive/defensive is a red herring here i think. If he can declare war for a limited period it necessarily will be an offensive one.

Because they've never seen it brought to them. Neither the Executive nor the Legislative want the Judicial to decide the issue... But per the Constitution only Congress has the power to declare war, grant letter of margue and other offensive activities.

JAD_333
07 Nov 11,, 02:04
No war time president has ever been defeated in an election.... Thats pretty powerful draw if he wants to stay in office.

This would be a first. There is zero mood in this country for another war. A surgical strike perhaps, but not a protracted war.

Officer of Engineers
07 Nov 11,, 02:49
I've just gone over to ARMSCONTROLWONK.COM and see if any new evidence emerged. Thus far, everything remains the same. The Iranians need nuclear materials to advance their weapons research beyond the gun type nuke. Presently, they are still incapble of producing the materials in the amounts required. Qom can advance them further but only if they are not under watch.

S2
07 Nov 11,, 03:01
"...Otherwise, may I ask why not?"

JAD_333 has it right. There is zero mood in this nation for another war. He suggests, possibly, a surgical strike.

I suggest that's not adequate to assure removal of Iran's nuclear weapon production capability. To do so WOULD require war-minimally in the form of a sustained air-sea campaign that both prevents Iranian tanker retaliation in the gulf, protects local allies and neuters a dispersed, redundant, hardened and defended network of research and production facilities. It's a large list that would also require an extensive preliminary campaign to suppress/destroy Iran's IADS, air force and maritime forces.

In my estimation it'd take no less than eight weeks using non-nuclear weapons to accomplish such. Addressing the target list, however, is no guarantee of success. Further, the permutations of that action might create a series of unanticipated consequences throughout the region that may not be in our interest.

Too many "unknowns" accompany such a venture in the absence of any broad nat'l consensus supporting the evidence amassed against Iran. This requires compelling and easily-understood evidence. The evidence must convey a clear and present danger to the American public sufficient to arouse their attention and anger adequate to demand action by their elected representatives and, finally, the determination of the executive branch that all those "unknowns" and attendant risks are outweighed by a nat'l consensus.

There will be no guarantee of success short of a ground occupation sufficiently extensive to permit a close unfettered inspection of attacked facilities and complete acquiescence by an Iranian government prepared to surrender scientists and managers of interest. I'd expect none of that because I'd expect no war plans to include a ground occupation. Without such, verification of complete success would seem impossible. Who survives? What survives with them? Did we get it all? Did we get enough?

Better to let Iranian weapons development continue and, with it, the threat of danger. Better to buy time and allow another, more distant administration face this issue. Now doesn't strike me as a situation, regardless of the pending IAEA release, where a political president with a anti-war base constituency has much to gain while having more to lose.

JAD_333
07 Nov 11,, 03:21
He suggests, possibly, a surgical strike.

I wasn't suggesting one, just speculating that the public's mood probably wouldn't support much more than that.

But while we are on the subject of strikes, what would the IAEA report have to say that would make one imperative? Although I doubt it would come right out and say that Iran is within months of having a bomb ready to test, could it contain clear indications that the situation is nearing the point of no return.

In any event, mobilizing public opinion as Bush did with WMD to attack Iraq will take far better intel than Bush had. Obama would also face a more skeptical public. The people are tired of war and fearful of the economic situation.


I suggest that's not adequate to assure removal of Iran's nuclear weapon production capability. To do so WOULD require war-minimally in the form of a sustained air-sea campaign that both prevents Iranian tanker retaliation in the gulf, protects local allies and neuters a dispersed, redundant, hardened and defended network of research and production facilities.

Exactly.

Iran has probably calculated all this, including the mood of the US public, which leads to the question: how far can they go before we decide they've gone far enough.

Officer of Engineers
07 Nov 11,, 03:28
Iran has probably calculated all this, including the mood of the US public, which leads to the question: how far can they go before we decide they've gone far enough.How far can they go out without testing?

zraver
07 Nov 11,, 03:37
I wasn't suggesting one, just speculating that the public's mood probably wouldn't support much more than that.

But while we are on the subject of strikes, what would the IAEA report have to say that would make one imperative? Although I doubt it would come right out and say that Iran is within months of having a bomb ready to test, could it contain clear indications that the situation is nearing the point of no return.

In any event, mobilizing public opinion as Bush did with WMD to attack Iraq will take far better intel than Bush had. Obama would also face a more skeptical public. The people are tired of war and fearful of the economic situation.

Iran is in an interesting position... They may get the bomb and ICBM's at the same time. Iran's missile technology is rather impressive. They started in the 1980's with Chinese and North Korea copies of Soviet Scuds and have since then managed to get a small payload into orbit. They have both solid and liquid fuel technology and have been working on IRBM's for some time now. They have developed conventional and cluster munitions and claim to have missiles with at least minimal cross range maneuvering.

Most nations that have gone nuclear on their own had to start with big devices and then work to get them smaller. But no nation has ever started with the technical base and HEADSTART Iran has, not even the US in WWII. Iran likely has the blue prints and test data for the Pakistani warheads via Lybia and AQ Khan, what ever they bought off of Russian scientists who piled into Iran in the 90's and Iranian-American expats who returned to Iran and what ever useful data North Korea could provide.

Iran also has the suppprtign industries as well... metallurgy, programing, electronics.... Its all there if not yet mature enough its close... Iran is the only nation east of Israel and West of India with an internationally ranked university and globally ranked super computer. Not highly ranked in either case, but existent. Iranians are almost Korean in the way they prize education- always have. One of the fathers of lasers is Iranian American for example.




Exactly.

Iran has probably calculated all this, including the mood of the US public, which leads to the question: how far can they go before we decide they've gone far enough.

All the way, the build of naval mines, anti-ship missiles, spreading and hardening the nuclear and scientific sites, the quest for the S-300 all point towards a regime that is not going to stop.

Dago
07 Nov 11,, 03:37
As the article suggests, this has nothing to do with the IDF and speculates on UK capability being prepared based off of possible US action that may occur. I am not sure on the credibility, nor the source, yet it's interesting to speculate. One would think it would have to do with something changing in there nuclear ability?

Officer of Engineers
07 Nov 11,, 03:44
Most nations that have gone nuclear on their own had to start with big devices and then work to get them smaller. But no nation has ever started with the technical base and HEADSTART Iran has, not even the US in WWII. Iran likely has the blue prints and test data for the Pakistani warheads via Lybia and AQ Khan, what ever they bought off of Russian scientists who piled into Iran in the 90's and Iranian-American expats who returned to Iran and what ever useful data North Korea could provide.You're going way beyond the intelligence. AQ Khan was never involved in the Pakistani tests and his network ceased functioning before the tests.

North Korea tests were busts. There is absolutely no worthwhile data from them. They started their designs wrong. Their quality assurance is the pits. There is absolutely no way you can get a workable warhead from their designs and tests. On top of that, Pakistani devices were uranium based. Absolutely no correlation could be matched against North Korean plutonium devices.

As for an Iranian ICBM. Oh come on, they couldn't get an IRBM right without mid course correction and good luck getting mid course correction in the middle of enemy territory.

Jason, you are reading far too much into capabilities that isn't there.

zraver
07 Nov 11,, 03:47
As the article suggests, this has nothing to do with the IDF and speculates on UK capability being prepared based off of possible US action that may occur. I am not sure on the credibility, nor the source, yet it's interesting to speculate. One would think it would have to do with something changing in there nuclear ability?

Israel lacks the capability to finish an operation designed to take down the Iranian nuclear program. There is zero proof the Jericho III is in service, or that its range is anythign close to what is speculated. Even if it was, it would require that Israel had miniuturized its warheads, developed the supporting technology and tested it without beign discovered. Becuase nukes are the only way Israel could get even part of the job done. Even nuclear armed popeye-turbo cruise missiles fired from Israeli subs in the Persian Gulf lack the ability to hit all the critical nuclear sites since the 3 subs can only fire a combined total of 12 missiles.

Officer of Engineers
07 Nov 11,, 03:50
Israel lacks the capability to finish an operation designed to take down the Iranian nuclear program. There is zero proof the Jericho III is in service, or that its range is anythign close to what is speculated. Even if it was, it would require that Israel had miniuturized its warheads, developed the supporting technology and tested it without beign discovered. Becuase nukes are the only way Israel could get even part of the job done. Even nuclear armed popeye-turbo cruise missiles fired from Israeli subs in the Persian Gulf lack the ability to hit all the critical nuclear sites since the 3 subs can only fire a combined total of 12 missiles.Question, Jason, why are you questioning Israeli capabilities to go beyond gun type nukes (which I agree with you) while suggesting that Iran can goto to implosion type nukes both uranium and plutonium (which I don't agree).

JAD_333
07 Nov 11,, 03:56
How far can they go out without testing?

Are you saying that we should act only after they test?

If they tested using the Israeli model, how would we know whether they had a workable bomb?

Could they not amass a deterrent arsenal without our knowing?

Officer of Engineers
07 Nov 11,, 04:04
Are you saying that we should act only after they test?No, but the moves to a test are very obvious.


If they tested using the Israeli model, how would we know whether they had a workable bomb?Well, here's the thing. Aside from the confirmed 12 gun type nukes we knew the Israelis deployed, there is absolutely no evidence that the Israelis have moved to implosion type weapons. Yes, I know about Vanunu but even if we take the Vela Incident as real, you need more than one test to confirm the design. Every nuclear power found flaws in their first tests and subsquent tests were needed to confirm the fix.

If truly put to the eval, I say the Israeli implosion devices were and are still best guesses and their bet on assurred retalliation are still gun type nukes.


Could they not amass a deterrent arsenal without our knowing?Not a chance in hell. We and the Soviets found each other's nukes well enough and we have enough nukes to blanket all potential Chinese, Pakistani, Indian, Israeli and even Iranian potential nuclear spots all combined.

Dago
07 Nov 11,, 04:06
Israel lacks the capability to finish an operation designed to take down the Iranian nuclear program. There is zero proof the Jericho III is in service, or that its range is anythign close to what is speculated. Even if it was, it would require that Israel had miniuturized its warheads, developed the supporting technology and tested it without beign discovered. Becuase nukes are the only way Israel could get even part of the job done. Even nuclear armed popeye-turbo cruise missiles fired from Israeli subs in the Persian Gulf lack the ability to hit all the critical nuclear sites since the 3 subs can only fire a combined total of 12 missiles.

I would agree that any capability would have to be substantial, and if Israel has that said capability, I am unsure of. But they do have the odd's stacked against them, immensely. By the scope of the targets, and the distance to them, and also the number of installations. Furthermore they have limited amount of fixed wing aircraft. However, if they can put together a package of SIGNIT/ELINT and neutralize Iranian A/D. Iran claims they have the SA-300 but Russia denies delivering them. It looks like though Libya and Iran have the same SAM systems. They would need effective jamming, and SIGNIT/ELINT awareness. And then on top of that, they would need to deal with Iranian migs, at the slightest possible detection would be scrambled. So then you got your supporting aircraft being targeted, by enemy scrambled fighters, and you have to split your package up, all while dog fighting over 2,000km away where distance dictates how effective and how long you can stay up there. Sounds like one hell of a complicated scenario.

Now for the Jericho III - Its quite possible, that it can have that stated range, but it's possible it also has conventional warhead. Whether if that is effective at destroying sites, I don't know.

zraver
07 Nov 11,, 04:12
You're going way beyond the intelligence. AQ Khan was never involved in the Pakistani tests and his network ceased functioning before the tests.

Sir, Khan was not removed from his post until 2001... Thats several years after the tests.


North Korea tests were busts. There is absolutely no worthwhile data from them. They started their designs wrong. Their quality assurance is the pits. There is absolutely no way you can get a workable warhead from their designs and tests.

Sir, you can always learn from someone elses mistakes.


On top of that, Pakistani devices were uranium based. Absolutely no correlation could be matched against North Korean plutonium devices.

No but data is data...


As for an Iranian ICBM. Oh come on, they couldn't get an IRBM right without mid course correction and good luck getting mid course correction in the middle of enemy territory.

They have now put two satelites into orbit... small ones but they are officially members of the space club. All they have left to do launch vehicle wise is scale up.


Jason, you are reading far too much into capabilities that isn't there.

Sir, I used ot watch Iran the way you watched China. I've seen their capability scale up over the years.

Dago
07 Nov 11,, 04:33
Are you saying that we should act only after they test?

If they tested using the Israeli model, how would we know whether they had a workable bomb?

Could they not amass a deterrent arsenal without our knowing?

I thought they tested it off South Africa?

JAD_333
07 Nov 11,, 04:35
Will next report on Iran nuclear program 'prove' quest for nuclear weapon? - CSMonitor.com (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Foreign-Policy/2011/1104/Will-next-report-on-Iran-nuclear-program-prove-quest-for-nuclear-weapon)


“The IAEA seems to have more information to come forward with on Iran, and the tone [of the agency’s assessment] is harsher and harsher,” says one senior Western diplomat who spoke on condition of anonymity in order to discuss an as-yet-unpublished report. If the evidence is solid of efforts to develop a deliverable nuclear weapon, the diplomat adds, “We will have to be very firm against Iran.”

Officer of Engineers
07 Nov 11,, 04:39
Sir, Khan was not removed from his post until 2001... Thats several years after the tests.Several things.

AQ Khan's lab lost the Pakistani warhead production contract. It was not his warhead that failed. And while he may have access to both design and data, it was certainly not his fix that was implemented ... and 2001 was way too short of a time frame for the fix to come about.


Sir, you can always learn from someone elses mistakes.You are assuming that Iran got hold of North Korean data. Something I strongly doubt since both China and Russia are watching them like hawks.

Aside from that, even the North Koreans don't know where they went wrong. They went from one bust to another. A sub-kiloton blast to a 1.3 kiloton blast when both tests were supposed to be in the 10-20 kt range. The data is worthless when even the designers don't know where they went wrong ... and most certainly, the Novemeber Kilos did not share their desigsn with either AQ Khan nor the Iranians.


No but data is data...On this, I do not think AQ Khan passed on the real data. Both the Pakistani and the North Korean tests were busts. Passing on data on failures was akin to telling the Iranians that they bought duds. AQ Khan's ego would not allow that.


They have now put two satelites into orbit... small ones but they are officially members of the space club. All they have left to do launch vehicle wise is scale up.Launching straight up and hitting your targets are two different things. Hitting the Pacific Ocean when aiming for Los Angeles is not going to do you a world of good.


Sir, I used ot watch Iran the way you watched China. I've seen their capability scale up over the years.And you are falling into the same trap I fell into. Over-reading their capbilities ... which is exactly what they want you to do.

Officer of Engineers
07 Nov 11,, 04:40
I thought they tested it off South Africa?Even if the Vela Incident is true, one test does not a nuclear arsenal make.

Dago
07 Nov 11,, 05:00
You're going way beyond the intelligence. AQ Khan was never involved in the Pakistani tests and his network ceased functioning before the tests.

North Korea tests were busts. There is absolutely no worthwhile data from them. They started their designs wrong. Their quality assurance is the pits. There is absolutely no way you can get a workable warhead from their designs and tests. On top of that, Pakistani devices were uranium based. Absolutely no correlation could be matched against North Korean plutonium devices.

As for an Iranian ICBM. Oh come on, they couldn't get an IRBM right without mid course correction and good luck getting mid course correction in the middle of enemy territory.

Jason, you are reading far too much into capabilities that isn't there.

Does Pakistan have miniaturized nuclear warhead designs, are they implosion or gun type? And secondly, are Israeli devices uranium based? (I think they are, right?) And if so, why did they go that route and not plutonium? Also with the current reactor they have, didn't that produce plutonium and they just don't have the means to separate it?

Dago
07 Nov 11,, 05:01
Even if the Vela Incident is true, one test does not a nuclear arsenal make.

If Israel doesn't have a miniaturized design, implosion, then why develop the Jericho III or the Jericho all together?

Officer of Engineers
07 Nov 11,, 05:24
Does Pakistan have miniaturized nuclear warhead designs, are they implosion or gun type? And secondly, are Israeli devices uranium based? (I think they are, right?) And if so, why did they go that route and not plutonium? Also with the current reactor they have, didn't that produce plutonium and they just don't have the means to separate it?The blueprints found in Geneva were half the size of the CICH-4 warheads and we know that the Pakistanis had guidance and the CICH-4 blueprints given to them by the Chinese.

Vanunu suggestted that Israel has implosion uranium and plutonium devices as well as thermonukes and neutron designs. At least he believes so. There's one photograph of a uranium warhead that lead to one US warhead maker to conclude that the Israelis must have tested.

There are suggestions that the Israelis got their designs directly from the Americans in much the same way the Pakistanis did from the Chinese. At least two former Assistant Secretaries of Energy made that accusation but thus far, no real proof has surfaced, not from the Russians nor the Chinese whom both are well depth in this sort of thing.

You have to make your own decisions on this. I am not comfortable stating anything more than Israel got gun type nukes.


If Israel doesn't have a miniaturized design, implosion, then why develop the Jericho III or the Jericho all together?Israel neither confirms nor denies she has nukes. That ambuguity serves her strategic interests extremely well ... except one thing. When the Soviets threatened nuclear war, Israel stayed silent.

alfa2bravo
07 Nov 11,, 06:10
Israel does not want to sign.Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. So do not confirm you have it.

zraver
07 Nov 11,, 06:23
There are suggestions that the Israelis got their designs directly from the Americans in much the same way the Pakistanis did from the Chinese. At least two former Assistant Secretaries of Energy made that accusation but thus far, no real proof has surfaced, not from the Russians nor the Chinese whom both are well depth in this sort of thing.

The timing is wrong unless your talking about post- NWS minituarized designs. The CIA felt Israel may have had 2 bombs in 67 which would imply French and British assistence if any.

[quote[Israel neither confirms nor denies she has nukes. That ambuguity serves her strategic interests extremely well ... except one thing. When the Soviets threatened nuclear war, Israel stayed silent.[/quote]

Well 2 things there- 10-20 warheads in 73 vs 10,000+ and the US was already sounding charge on the bugle and charging in and the Soviets got cold feet real quick. The Soviets hinted at direct intervention twice and both times the US saddled up and the Soviet's backed down completely perplexed that the US would burn the world for such a small piece of land. The Soviet failure in 67 and 73 in both providing winning armament and in providing effective political cover is seen as a major reason Egypt gave up on the endless wars and turned back to the West with Camp David.

1979
07 Nov 11,, 06:55
Will next report on Iran nuclear program 'prove' quest for nuclear weapon? - CSMonitor.com (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Foreign-Policy/2011/1104/Will-next-report-on-Iran-nuclear-program-prove-quest-for-nuclear-weapon)

I would not hold my breath waiting for iAEA to reveal something we did not know allready.

Dago
07 Nov 11,, 07:15
I agree with OOE - I don't think it's likely that North Korea would share any data, even with Iran. They would want to keep everything secret, including data in which it could detail North Korea nuclear capability or possibly point out flaws of there nuclear design. I would think they would keep everything in house, especially with the IAEA. I just don't see them releasing anything about there capability.

vsdoc
07 Nov 11,, 07:28
Attack Iran for what? For trying to go nuclear? This is the same old tired scratched record being played all over again. When has any country been able to attack another for going nuclear? Sure there have been threats, but a singular lack of action on the ground.

This global policeman thing is getting really too much now. A lot of the financial mess the West finds itself in today is because going to war costs money. And no third party is going to foot that bill. So you need to make damn sure that the ends can pay for the means. And you need to make sure that you win. In this case the former is a definite yes. The latter not so.

The west need to take a break from its gun slinging for a decade or two. Its making the rest of the world uneasy. Irritated. And nations poorer all around.

1979
07 Nov 11,, 08:06
the answer to your second question is, as bigross pointed out ,1981, and iraq was not even really trying.

Dago
07 Nov 11,, 08:14
..and also Syria.


Attack Iran for what? For trying to go nuclear? This is the same old tired scratched record being played all over again. When has any country been able to attack another for going nuclear? Sure there have been threats, but a singular lack of action on the ground.


the answer to your second question is, as bigross pointed out ,1981, and iraq was not even really trying

vsdoc
07 Nov 11,, 08:34
There are probably a very select few people on Earth who believe that Iraq or Syria were attacked because thy were about to go nuclear.

There are similarly a very few select people on Earth who believe that Iran as a combatant would fall in the same league of Iraq and Syria were this "attack" to actually go down.

And for every Iraq and Syria, for what the "nuclear" bogey analogy is really worth, there is China and Israel and India and Pakistan and North Korea.

1) It looks really stupid to first impose sanctions on a country, and then court the same country as an ally and potential paying customer for your most advanced fighter jets.

2) It looks even more ridiculous to be all gung ho and attack one country, yet be on the brink of financial disaster and go to another looking for a bail-out. As China displayed recently, and rightly so, that's not going to happen.

1979
07 Nov 11,, 08:50
nuclear or not nuclear if the soviets were willing to attack china , they would have done it.
they made 40.000 soldiers sterile by ordering them to stage a attack in the aftermath of a nuclear test , look it up before bringin up our gung ho retoric.

as for your nation, if pakistan and north korea is the benchmark you want to be masured against , more power to you.

Bigfella
07 Nov 11,, 08:55
They did that with Osirak in 1981, and while behind the scenes the US was glad they did it, the US still condemned the attack in public. This case is slightly different because Iran at the moment is quite stronger, both in reality and via proxies than Iraq was back then

I would also question the attitude of this administration compared to Reagan. I doubt that Israel launched the Osirak raid without at least some idea that Reagan would privately be pleased. While Netanyahu has publically slapped down Obama, it is entirely another thing to launch something like this if you know that the Administration will privately & publically tear strips off you. Even Netanyahu might not be crazy enough to that. For all the jumping up & down on the right about Obama 'abandoning Israel' the administration has opposed Palestinean moves in the UN, including its UNESCO stunt. Perhaps there will be a private understanding that this is fine, though I wouldn't bet on it.

How would all this play into electoral politics in Israel? How id Netanyahu going in the polls, especially after the protests earlier this year & the prisoner swap? When is the next election? What might something like this do? Would a 'rally 'round the flag' response play into elections? Given that some high profile former military types have questioned this course of action, is there a risk that a botched op or effective Iranian retaliation might actually backfire on the govt? Curious for insight.

On the issue of Obama & electoral politics raised by others, I agree wiht the 'no way he will do this hoping for a poll bump'. Anything more than a limited strike will cost him supporters without winning any others. For those who already dislike Obama the story is already written - if he doesn't strike it is proof that he is a bad President who hates israel, if he does strike it is risking US lives for electoral gain. There is no political upside here.

vsdoc
07 Nov 11,, 09:00
1979, I've had this argument with OoE before. Willingness to attack and actually doin so are two very different kettle of fish. And even in the same kettle, not all the fish are alike. The Americans and the Soviets without the other to factor in could and would probably have attacked. Even today, in spite of its reduced power and capabilities, if Russia were to be not happy with the USA attacking a country unilaterally, the USA would perforce have to sit up and take notice and work issues out accordingly. North Korea and Pakistan are rogue nations with nukes. Yet they continue to go unpunished, un-attacked. Israel, China, or India, rogue or not, cannot be attacked. Simple. If that goes against the gung ho Western/NATO mindset, more power to you sir.

1979
07 Nov 11,, 09:40
1979, I've had this argument with OoE before. Willingness to attack and actually doin so are two very different kettle of fish. And even in the same kettle, not all the fish are alike. The Americans and the Soviets without the other to factor in could and would probably have attacked. Even today, in spite of its reduced power and capabilities, if Russia were to be not happy with the USA attacking a country unilaterally, the USA would perforce have to sit up and take notice and work issues out accordingly. North Korea and Pakistan are rogue nations with nukes. Yet they continue to go unpunished, un-attacked. Israel, China, or India, rogue or not, cannot be attacked. Simple. If that goes against the gung ho Western/NATO mindset, more power to you sir.

Before we continue I need to understand why do you think Israel, China or India cannot be attacked.

Dago
07 Nov 11,, 09:43
Lets keep this on Iran guys! And the parties involved.

vsdoc
07 Nov 11,, 09:51
Before we continue I need to understand why do you think Israel, China or India cannot be attacked.

Too big. Too strong. Besides not threatening either apex nuclear power enough. Leave alone a consensus threat to both apex powers together at the same time. In fact, quite the opposite actually. Iran is the perfect candidate to join this elite club. Sooner rather than later. An "oil for protection" for a mutually agreeable period of time clause with Russia only hastens this inevitable entry. The US/Israel and NATO huffing and puffing notwithstanding.

1979
07 Nov 11,, 09:59
Lets keep this on Iran guys! And the parties involved.

the second request overules the first.

1979
07 Nov 11,, 10:01
Too big. Too strong. Besides not threatening either apex nuclear power enough. Leave alone a consensus threat to both apex powers together at the same time. In fact, quite the opposite actually. Iran is the perfect candidate to join this elite club. Sooner rather than later. An "oil for protection" for a mutually agreeable period of time clause with Russia only hastens this inevitable entry. The US/Israel and NATO huffing and puffing notwithstanding.

the resons you mentioned hold true even without nuclear weapons.
however they do not apply to Iran.

vsdoc
07 Nov 11,, 10:06
the resons you mentioned hold true even without nuclear weapons.
however they do not apply to Iran.

Russia will not let the US attack Iran. Push come to shove time. That was one of the reasons the previous three were not attacked as well. At a time they were truly vulnerable and could have been.

Dante
07 Nov 11,, 10:17
Russia will not let the US attack Iran. Push come to shove time. That was one of the reasons the previous three were not attacked as well. At a time they were truly vulnerable and could have been.

I'm very curios about this..why wouldn't the russians "allow" this atack? Sure, Iran is proftiable for them, but it's just about $ and some poilitical prospects...do you think the russians want a strong, nuclear Iran?

Second, the russians (and by extension the americans) can not simply "allow" eachother to do things..they can make it harder, more dangerous, but not completly stop eachother without threatning (nuclear) war.

In the meantime, the Iranians are safe, America dosen't have the will for another war and I don't think Israel has the means to stop Iran from going nuclear.

Doktor
07 Nov 11,, 10:24
"...Otherwise, may I ask why not?"

JAD_333 has it right. There is zero mood in this nation for another war. He suggests, possibly, a surgical strike.

I suggest that's not adequate to assure removal of Iran's nuclear weapon production capability. To do so WOULD require war-minimally in the form of a sustained air-sea campaign that both prevents Iranian tanker retaliation in the gulf, protects local allies and neuters a dispersed, redundant, hardened and defended network of research and production facilities. It's a large list that would also require an extensive preliminary campaign to suppress/destroy Iran's IADS, air force and maritime forces.

In my estimation it'd take no less than eight weeks using non-nuclear weapons to accomplish such. Addressing the target list, however, is no guarantee of success. Further, the permutations of that action might create a series of unanticipated consequences throughout the region that may not be in our interest.

Too many "unknowns" accompany such a venture in the absence of any broad nat'l consensus supporting the evidence amassed against Iran. This requires compelling and easily-understood evidence. The evidence must convey a clear and present danger to the American public sufficient to arouse their attention and anger adequate to demand action by their elected representatives and, finally, the determination of the executive branch that all those "unknowns" and attendant risks are outweighed by a nat'l consensus.

There will be no guarantee of success short of a ground occupation sufficiently extensive to permit a close unfettered inspection of attacked facilities and complete acquiescence by an Iranian government prepared to surrender scientists and managers of interest. I'd expect none of that because I'd expect no war plans to include a ground occupation. Without such, verification of complete success would seem impossible. Who survives? What survives with them? Did we get it all? Did we get enough?

Better to let Iranian weapons development continue and, with it, the threat of danger. Better to buy time and allow another, more distant administration face this issue. Now doesn't strike me as a situation, regardless of the pending IAEA release, where a political president with a anti-war base constituency has much to gain while having more to lose.

Thank you for the kind response.

I was aware of the mood not to go to yet another war and was thinking of more surgical missile attacks without constant boots on the ground, but only SOF to capture scientists and material and to verify everything went as planned.

I am a civilian so pardon my reasoning if that sounds stupid.

As for the political implications in the region, I guess the neighbors don't want nuclear Iran, too, especially Iraq and KSA.

Another thought bugs me. It is against Dems to start this and to loose the base, but what if Israel starts it? For US politicians it might be calculations, but for Israel it is a matter of survival. Not sure if they have the needed inventory to finish it, but wouldn't be surprised if they start the attacks. What would be the US response? Especially with so many targets for Iran to start retaliating.

vsdoc
07 Nov 11,, 10:44
I'm very curios about this..why wouldn't the russians "allow" this atack? Sure, Iran is proftiable for them, but it's just about $ and some poilitical prospects...do you think the russians want a strong, nuclear Iran?

Iran is and has always bee a strong geopolitical ally, partner and market of Russia, economically and militarily. If Russia cannot protect its investor nations, then Russia cannot hold and sustain investor nations. And that today is a bigger threat to an economically ailing Russia than the US nuclear threat of the Cold War era. Ergo Russia will back Iran to the hilt, push come to shove time.

And short of the US, neither a strong nuclear Iran or a strong nuclear anybody can hope to ruffle Russian feathers militarily, so that really is not going to be bothering the Russian leadership enough to even warrant a single extra shot of vodka needlessly.


Second, the russians (and by extension the americans) can not simply "allow" eachother to do things..they can make it harder, more dangerous, but not completly stop eachother without threatning (nuclear) war.

True, and it is that implied escalatory threat that has always worked in the past.


In the meantime, the Iranians are safe, America dosen't have the will for another war and I don't think Israel has the means to stop Iran from going nuclear.

I agree. Iran will go nuclear. And a lot of regional power equations and balances will be the better for it.

1979
07 Nov 11,, 11:00
Iran is and has always bee a strong geopolitical ally, partner and market of Russia, economically and militarily. If Russia cannot protect its investor nations, then Russia cannot hold and sustain investor nations. And that today is a bigger threat to an economically ailing Russia than the US nuclear threat of the Cold War era. Ergo Russia will back Iran to the hilt, push come to shove time. .

military no, they solded them some AT misiles and manpads in the last ten years but no fancy stuff.

Doktor
07 Nov 11,, 11:07
I agree. Iran will go nuclear. And a lot of regional power equations and balances will be the better for it.

How can a state that threads to obliterate another state going nuclear is good?

vsdoc
07 Nov 11,, 11:18
military no, they solded them some AT misiles and manpads in the last ten years but no fancy stuff.

Russia is a key supplier of arms to Iran, including a $700 million air-defence system (a sale, agreed upon in late 2005, of Tor-1 short-range air defense systems) , MiG29 combat aircraft and T72 tanks. In fact outside of India and China, Iran is Russia's biggest customer of military hardware.

The start of substantive military sales to Iran predates Russian independence. From 1989 to 1991, the Soviet Union signed a series of deals supplying Iran with MIG-29 and SU-24 fighter aircraft, aircraft missiles, S-200 air defense complexes, three diesel submarines, and hundreds of tanks and armored vehicles, as well as various munitions. The arrangement included licensed manufacturing of tanks and armored vehicles and a 10-year period for parts supplies. The contracts were thus to stay in effect until 1999-2001. With the exception of tank and armored vehicle exports that fell short of expected quotas, the bulk of the weapons were shipped to Iran in 1992-1996.

In the spring of 1995, the Russian government, seeking U.S. support in the upcoming elections, agreed to enter into a non-public agreement that committed Moscow to phase out its military cooperation with Tehran by signing no new contracts and completing the remaining exports by the end of 1999. In return, the United States offered to temporarily exempt Russian companies from legislation penalizing businesses for dealing with Iran. In Russia, the agreement was seen as a net loss, including revenues lost on uncompleted exports, the loss of new orders from Tehran, and diminished credibility as a partner. In November 2000, after Vladimir Putin was elected president, Moscow annulled the agreement.

Military contacts between Russia and Iran were revived in 2001, a year marked by exchanges of delegations and a state visit to Russia by then Iranian president Mohammad Khatami. A bilateral agreement on military and technical cooperation was signed, leading to widespread anticipation of future multi-billion dollar contracts.During a spate of intensive contacts in 2001, Iranian delegations visited a shipbuilding company in St. Petersburg, precision weapons producers in Tula and Kolomna, and an air defense systems manufacturer in Izhevsk. Iran is seeking to obtain S-300 advanced air defense systems for the purpose of protecting Bushehr and other nuclear installations. The S-300 systems would complement the shorter-range Tors, manufactured under a 2005 contract by a Russian defense company whose management is directly appointed by the Kremlin.

Source: http://www.gwu.edu/~ieresgwu/assets/docs/ponars/pm_0427.pdf

vsdoc
07 Nov 11,, 11:19
How can a state that threads to obliterate another state going nuclear is good?

Where you come from, do your guys automatically believe everything your politicians utter ..... especially from an oratory pulpit?

1979
07 Nov 11,, 11:31
Iran: MiG-29 status (http://russiadefence.englishboard.net/t1148-iran-mig-29-status)

Dante
07 Nov 11,, 11:33
Iran is and has always bee a strong geopolitical ally, partner and market of Russia, economically and militarily. If Russia cannot protect its investor nations, then Russia cannot hold and sustain investor nations. And that today is a bigger threat to an economically ailing Russia than the US nuclear threat of the Cold War era. Ergo Russia will back Iran to the hilt, push come to shove time.

And short of the US, neither a strong nuclear Iran or a strong nuclear anybody can hope to ruffle Russian feathers militarily, so that really is not going to be bothering the Russian leadership enough to even warrant a single extra shot of vodka needlessly.



True, and it is that implied escalatory threat that has always worked in the past.





I'm sorry, but I just can't see Russia threatning nuclear war over Iran, no matter what
Truth be told, I don;t even see Russia giving them military aid if such a conflict arrises.


How can a state that threads to obliterate another state going nuclear is good?
Doktor, those treats are more for the internal front (ie propaganda), do you think Iran is more iresponsable (read suicidial) then, let's say, Pakistan?

vsdoc
07 Nov 11,, 11:41
Iran, Russia and China prepare for War against America

President Putin formalised an alliance with Iran against any military action by the West and pledged to complete the controversial Iranian nuclear power plant at Bushehr.

Mr. Putin does not want Russian secret military technology falling into NATO hands, if the U.S. Obama administration strikes Iran, and then pursues an Iraqi-style occupation. China also has developed a military interest in Iran. The result of a U.S led attack against Iran would likely trigger World War III, and an accompanying nuclear war.

Didn't CBC Newsworld or CNN tell you that Iranian military hardware is supplied by the Russian and Chinese led Central Asian Security Alliance that includes Iran?

Russia and Iran have reportedly been holding joint military exercises for years, in preparation for a possible U.S led NATO attack.

Russia-Iran military exercises in the Caspian Sea back in 2009 had involved some 30 vessels. That maneuver, had been dubbed "Regional Collaboration for a Secure and Clean Caspian", combines security and maritime objectives in the Caspian Sea.

Edward Spannaus, editor of the weekly US-based news magazine Executive Intelligence Review (EIR), had told Iranian television from Washington that “his [US President Barack Obama's] puppet masters, the people who pull his strings, do want war.”

“Iran of course is at the top of the list right now,” he noted and said, “It may start with an attack on Iran, but it would end up in a general world war.”

"This is how dangerous the situation is right now. And Obama -- as we know -- has done everything that Bush [former US president] and Cheney [US vice president under Bush] did, and he is likely to… get us involved in World War III," he said.

On a potential military action by the Western military alliance of NATO against Syria, he said such a measure would function to precede similar ones against other countries. “Syria is very high on the list.”

His remarks come in the wake of the latest anti-Iran publicity campaign by Washington and Tel Aviv in which the duo have once again threatened Tehran with the "option" of a military strike, based on their rhetorical allegation that Iran's nuclear work may consist of a covert military diversion.

Iran, however, has persistently argued that it has the right to develop and acquire nuclear technology for peaceful purposes as a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and a long-time member of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Source: The Canadian National Newspaper: Iran, Russia and China prepare for War against America (http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/news/intrnational/2011/11/07/1577.html)

Doktor
07 Nov 11,, 11:43
Where you come from, do your guys automatically believe everything your politicians utter ..... especially from an oratory pulpit?


Doktor, those treats are more for the internal front (ie propaganda), do you think Iran is more iresponsable (read suicidial) then, let's say, Pakistan?

I asked how is it good, not if they gonna really do it.

vsdoc
07 Nov 11,, 11:48
Doktor, I can understand their national psyche right now, as a citizen of a country that went through decades of the same BS sanctions. Its not that one cannot (and will not) go on without trade and contact with other countries. Its the sheer unreasonableness and unfairness of it that hits the national ego and hardens one's stance - for now and the future. The US and India are friends now - but no one from my generation has forgotten the years of sanction or the arrogance. But not all races are as forgiving as the Indians.

Dante
07 Nov 11,, 11:50
Iran, Russia and China prepare for War against America

President Putin formalised an alliance with Iran against any military action by the West and pledged to complete the controversial Iranian nuclear power plant at Bushehr.

Mr. Putin does not want Russian secret military technology falling into NATO hands, if the U.S. Obama administration strikes Iran, and then pursues an Iraqi-style occupation. China also has developed a military interest in Iran. The result of a U.S led attack against Iran would likely trigger World War III, and an accompanying nuclear war.

Didn't CBC Newsworld or CNN tell you that Iranian military hardware is supplied by the Russian and Chinese led Central Asian Security Alliance that includes Iran?

Russia and Iran have reportedly been holding joint military exercises for years, in preparation for a possible U.S led NATO attack.

Russia-Iran military exercises in the Caspian Sea back in 2009 had involved some 30 vessels. That maneuver, had been dubbed "Regional Collaboration for a Secure and Clean Caspian", combines security and maritime objectives in the Caspian Sea.

Edward Spannaus, editor of the weekly US-based news magazine Executive Intelligence Review (EIR), had told Iranian television from Washington that “his [US President Barack Obama's] puppet masters, the people who pull his strings, do want war.”

“Iran of course is at the top of the list right now,” he noted and said, “It may start with an attack on Iran, but it would end up in a general world war.”

"This is how dangerous the situation is right now. And Obama -- as we know -- has done everything that Bush [former US president] and Cheney [US vice president under Bush] did, and he is likely to… get us involved in World War III," he said.

On a potential military action by the Western military alliance of NATO against Syria, he said such a measure would function to precede similar ones against other countries. “Syria is very high on the list.”

His remarks come in the wake of the latest anti-Iran publicity campaign by Washington and Tel Aviv in which the duo have once again threatened Tehran with the "option" of a military strike, based on their rhetorical allegation that Iran's nuclear work may consist of a covert military diversion.

Iran, however, has persistently argued that it has the right to develop and acquire nuclear technology for peaceful purposes as a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and a long-time member of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Source: The Canadian National Newspaper: Iran, Russia and China prepare for War against America (http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/news/intrnational/2011/11/07/1577.html)

Is that article out of a Tom Clancy novel? :D

Seriously, Russia and China??? start world war 3 over Iran trying to get ilegal nukes? seriously??

vsdoc
07 Nov 11,, 11:52
Is that article out of a Tom Clancy novel? :D

Seriously, Russia and China??? start world war 3 over Iran trying to get ilegal nukes? seriously??

Just something to break the heavy mood :) But I do recall Nostradamus predicted that the end of the world war comes on the back of natural disasters and a turbaned and bearded man from the middle east as the main protagonist. Well, do the math ..... OBL is dead, and the world is still going on. For now .....

1979
07 Nov 11,, 12:18
ok back in the real world , the russians withweld military support since the iranians violated the NPT, that's way their migs got grounded for years due to lack of spares.

Dante
07 Nov 11,, 12:38
ok back in the real world , the russians withweld military support since the iranians violated the NPT, that's way their migs got grounded for years due to lack of spares.

Any thougts on what would take for the iranians to get all that brand new, shiny, russian kit? I thought the missile shield in europe would get them closer to that, but it appears not..maybe if Georgia gets a new army ? :)

vsdoc
07 Nov 11,, 12:51
You guys may well chuckle, but sanctions and all, Iran is still the 12th most powerful military in the world today - Israel being 10th. here is a comparison (source: globalfirepower.com). What the Israelis have in air firepower, the Iranians make up in sea power. The Iranians also swamp the Israelis in active manpower and purchasing power.

World Military Strength Comparison (http://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-comparison-detail.asp)

paintgun
07 Nov 11,, 12:57
gasp! globalfirepower! :eek:

Double Edge
07 Nov 11,, 13:00
Israel Faces Questions About News Reports of Eyeing Iran Strike | NY Times | November 3, 2011 (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/04/world/middleeast/israel-is-scrambling-over-news-reports-of-seeking-iran-strike.html?_r=1&ref=israel&pagewanted=all)


The speculation about possible military action began last Friday with a column by one of Israel’s most prominent journalists, Nahum Barnea, that dominated the front page of the newspaper Yediot Aharonot. Mr. Barnea posed the question of whether Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Barak had privately decided on a military strike, a question that Mr. Barnea said was preoccupying many in the Israeli government and the security establishment, as well as many in foreign governments.


Several Israeli ministers have publicly placed blame for the leaks on Meir Dagan, the former chief of Israel’s Mossad intelligence service, who after leaving office this year said that Mr. Netanyahu was intent on launching such an attack, and had to be restrained by opposition from top intelligence and military officials, almost all of whom have since left office.

Speaking to an audience in Tel Aviv on Wednesday night, Mr. Dagan challenged the government to indict him. “Have I violated information security?” he asked. “Then let them prosecute me. Let them say, ‘Dagan has broken the law.’ I’ll get a good lawyer.”

The Israeli prime minister’s office refused to comment on a report in the newspaper Kuwaiti Al-Jarida on Thursday that said Mr. Netanyahu had ordered his security services to investigate Mr. Dagan and the former chief of the internal Shin Bet security agency, Yuval Diskin, in connection with the leaks.


But the most recent debate has been prompted by the confluence of three events that has made the issue seem especially urgent in Israel, according to American officials who have been worried about whether Israel might conduct a surprise attack.

- The first is Iran’s continued production of low- and medium-enriched uranium: it now has enough fuel for roughly four bombs, though producing them would require more time, more enrichment, and more risk of exposure.

- The second is Iran’s declaration that it is moving much of its production to a well-protected underground site near the holy city of Qum. “The Israelis fear that once it’s moved underground they won’t have the ability to see it, or reach it,” one American official said recently.

- But perhaps the most important event is a forthcoming report from the International Atomic Energy Agency, expected next week. For the first time, the agency is expected to describe, in detail, the evidence it has collected suggesting that Iranian scientists have experimented with warhead designs, nuclear detonation systems and specialized triggering devices that can be explained only as work on a nuclear weapon.

Iran has said the data is fabricated, and vowed to publish its own evidence of Western terrorist plots against Iran.


In Britain, officials and academics cautioned against mistaking the drumbeat for actual preparations for a strike in the near or medium term. The common view is that the United States, Britain and Israel have all been engaging in a concerted effort to step up the pressure on Iran.

Dana Allin, a scholar and author who is a senior fellow at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, said it seemed clear that Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Barak “really are convinced that now might be a good time” for a strike, in view of the convulsions of the Arab Spring and the fact that American troops will be out of Iraq by Dec. 31, removing them as hostages to a possible spike in attacks by Iranian-supported militias. But as for an increased tempo in planning for an actual attack, he said, “That strikes me as implausible.”

bigross86
07 Nov 11,, 13:06
You guys may well chuckle, but sanctions and all, Iran is still the 12th most powerful military in the world today - Israel being 10th. here is a comparison (source: globalfirepower.com). What the Israelis have in air firepower, the Iranians make up in sea power. The Iranians also swamp the Israelis in active manpower and purchasing power.

World Military Strength Comparison (http://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-comparison-detail.asp)

Dude, that website is so full of shite if you light a match near it there's a decent chance it will explode. Just check out this other thread (http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/world-affairs-board-pub/61345-canada-comes-25th.html) for more info

1979
07 Nov 11,, 13:12
Any thougts on what would take for the iranians to get all that brand new, shiny, russian kit? I thought the missile shield in europe would get them closer to that, but it appears not..maybe if Georgia gets a new army ? :)

nothing short of nikita kruschev second comming...:tongue:

vsdoc
07 Nov 11,, 13:13
Dude, that website is so full of shite if you light a match near it there's a decent chance it will explode. Just check out this other thread (http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/world-affairs-board-pub/61345-canada-comes-25th.html) for more info

Bigross the thread you pointed me to has no more info for non-military types like me ..... just further dissing of the website. If you have something more factual for me to read, I would be happy to. Its obvious that pure numbers is not the be all and end all, and pretty complex algorithms would need to be designed to actually come to some sort of ranking system. Which again be worth nothing when two combatants actually square up. But its at least a pointer to the fact that Iran is not going to be going down easy as some would like to believe. If and when the time comes.

vsdoc
07 Nov 11,, 13:28
Israel and a Nuclear Iran: Implications for Arms Control, Deterrence, and Defense

http://www.inss.org.il/upload/(FILE)1216203568.pdf

bigross86
07 Nov 11,, 13:32
This website has arbitrarily chosen countries and placed them on a list. There is no distinction wrt mission type, experience, political situation at home, willingness to use troops, etc...

Brazil has 1,667,710 soldiers including reserves and is listed as 11th. Cuba has 1,234,500 in it's military, including reserves and is not even listed, so it can't be just numbers. But what is it based on? Why should Israel be placed 10th or Turkey 6th? Why is the UK below India? What makes Poland higher than Australia and why is Canada all the way in 25th place?

Without the reasoning behind these, the list is arbitrary and has no standing. As a matter of truth, just like with unique weapon systems it's hard to decide who's "better" since armies train for different missions. The IDF trains more for urban warfare because that is their main focus at the moment. The PLA doesn't train as heavily for urban warfare as Israel does because they have less need for it, but the PLA probably spends a lot more time planning and training for crossing the Straits into Taiwan (regardless of whether they can pull it off yet or not) than Israel does planning and training how to cross the Suez Canal because again, the IDF has less need for it. When it comes to MOUT Israel could very well be better off than the PLA, but in sheer numbers the PLA can swamp the IDF. Do you understand now why it's near impossible to rank different armies?

vsdoc
07 Nov 11,, 13:40
Of course I realize that no such ranking system is perfect. But it is there and I have referred to it. Do you know of something else/better? Please feel free to share it with us. My wife and I are from rival medical schools. Mine is consistently ranked 2/3 in the country. Her's sometimes makes it into the top 10. That does not stop her from claiming her's is better. Plus she is a better clinician that I ever will be. Hope you get my point.

paintgun
07 Nov 11,, 14:06
it is not what you think it is sir, in fact it's very close to being rubbish, or maybe just entertaining to some

for starters doc, its far from accurate to base a military capability assessment on numbers alone, there are many other things to factor in
It is far too trivial for that site to compose such numbers and present it as a ranking between countries, or comparison between it's armed forces

if you want something to read, maybe this :

http://csis.org/files/publication/111102_Iran_Gulf_Military_Balance.pdf

S2
07 Nov 11,, 15:10
David Sanger offers this op-ed for the Sunday NYT. As White House correspondent, he's well-placed to survey the scene and the various considerations behind our policy options-

America's Deadly Dynamics With Iran-NYT Sanger Nov. 6, 2011 (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/06/sunday-review/the-secret-war-with-iran.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=opinion)

zraver
07 Nov 11,, 17:34
nuclear or not nuclear if the soviets were willing to attack china , they would have done it.
they made 40.000 soldiers sterile by ordering them to stage a attack in the aftermath of a nuclear test , look it up before bringin up our gung ho retoric.

as for your nation, if pakistan and north korea is the benchmark you want to be masured against , more power to you.

They [USSR] were willing, and it was going to go nuclear but America wouldn't sign off on it- Brezhnev said, "the Americans have betrayed us."

zraver
07 Nov 11,, 17:58
Bigross the thread you pointed me to has no more info for non-military types like me ..... just further dissing of the website. If you have something more factual for me to read, I would be happy to. Its obvious that pure numbers is not the be all and end all, and pretty complex algorithms would need to be designed to actually come to some sort of ranking system. Which again be worth nothing when two combatants actually square up. But its at least a pointer to the fact that Iran is not going to be going down easy as some would like to believe. If and when the time comes.

Iran's ranking might be right v is a vis Israel depending on how you set up a possible conflcit but.... As for global military rankings... Take a look at how it says Iran has 19 submarines... Israel has 3. Seems edge to Iran right? Wrong, of those subs, only 3 are real submarines the rest are mini or even small midget subs. Those three full size subs are 877EKM Kilo class vessels made with Soviet technology. Israel on the other hand is using Dolphins and 4 rather than 3 with numbers 4 and 5 coming soon. The reason #4 is not officially in service yet is Israel's Dolphisn are a modified type 209 that get overhauled and rebuilt as soon as they arrive from Germany. One of the reasons people think Israel has modified or created a nuclear capable cruise missile is the fact that unlike normal 209 class vessels the Dolphins have 4x 650mm tubes which are then sleeved down to 533mm. Speculation is these larger tubes are unsleeved in Israel and missiles like the Pop-Eye Turbo are added.

1979
07 Nov 11,, 18:25
They [USSR] were willing, and it was going to go nuclear but America wouldn't sign off on it- Brezhnev said, "the Americans have betrayed us."

Are we using the same definition of willing ?
the whole 9 yards ... regime change as in czechoslovakia ?

zraver
07 Nov 11,, 20:03
Are we using the same definition of willing ?
the whole 9 yards ... regime change as in czechoslovakia ?

25 divisions, 1200 front line aircraft, 120 nuclear tipped missiles, log trains in place, orders to attack issued.... War was going to happen, but the Soviet's called the US to let them know so the sudden spike in radioactivity didn't start WWIII. The American response effectively put the PRC under the American nuclear umbrella. Its just one of several misreadings of American responce policy to Soviet actions WRT nukes. Every time the Soviets hinted at it, the US went full throttle and forced the issue and the Soviet's always backed down. The Soviet's kept trying to play chess and America played poker.

1979
07 Nov 11,, 20:13
25 divisions, 1200 front line aircraft, 120 nuclear tipped missiles, log trains in place, orders to attack issued.... War was going to happen, but the Soviet's called the US to let them know so the sudden spike in radioactivity didn't start WWIII. The American response effectively put the PRC under the American nuclear umbrella. Its just one of several misreadings of American responce policy to Soviet actions WRT nukes. Every time the Soviets hinted at it, the US went full throttle and forced the issue and the Soviet's always backed down. The Soviet's kept trying to play chess and America played poker.

25 divisions is called a bluff even in poker.

Officer of Engineers
07 Nov 11,, 20:25
25 divisions, 1200 front line aircraft, 120 nuclear tipped missiles, log trains in place, orders to attack issued.... War was going to happen, but the Soviet's called the US to let them know so the sudden spike in radioactivity didn't start WWIII. The American response effectively put the PRC under the American nuclear umbrella. Its just one of several misreadings of American responce policy to Soviet actions WRT nukes. Every time the Soviets hinted at it, the US went full throttle and forced the issue and the Soviet's always backed down. The Soviet's kept trying to play chess and America played poker.You're short 20 divisions.

Officer of Engineers
07 Nov 11,, 20:26
25 divisions is called a bluff even in poker.The plan was a strike across northern China to Lop Nor to destroy Chinese nuclear capabilities ... with a side trip to Beijing to cut off any re-enforcements to Lop Nor.

1979
07 Nov 11,, 20:32
and than what sir?
pull back and allow the chinese to rebuild them ?

Officer of Engineers
07 Nov 11,, 21:14
and than what sir?
pull back and allow the chinese to rebuild them ?Keep it. Lop Nor is the middle of the dessert and sparsely populated, hence why it was the Chinese nuclear weapons centre. It would not be hard to hold it.

zraver
07 Nov 11,, 23:01
You're short 20 divisions.

Oops, forgot the other wing... I was just looking at the forces detailed to drive on Beijing.

Double Edge
08 Nov 11,, 00:01
However, that is not how the US Constitution is set up. Only Congress has the authority to wage offensive war, the President as Commander in Cheif can always act defensively. However actions like Lybia which have zero defensive value to the US are extra-consitutional and part of the legacy of imperial presidents.
Want to revisit this again if i may, Z.

RL32267 -- The War Powers Resolution: After Thirty Years (http://www.fas.org/man/crs/RL32267.html)

This resolution was passed in 1973, because..


...of Congressional concern about Presidential use of armed forces without congressional authorization intensified after the Korean conflict. That Presidents had assumed more authority to send forces into hostilities than the framers of the Constitution had intended for the Commander-in-Chief. By the early 1970s, the congressional majority view was that the constitutional balance of war powers had swung too far toward the President and needed to be corrected.

So naturally every President since has complained that this resolution was unconstituional as it checked their powers as C-in-C. Nixon in particular said..


In his veto message, President Nixon said the Resolution would impose restrictions upon the authority of the President which would be dangerous to the safety of the Nation and "attempt to take away, by a mere legislative act, authorities which the President has properly exercised under the Constitution for almost 200 years."

So conceivably, the present situation is better than what it used to be prior to 1973 or is it.

Now what i want to know from you is which option below you subscribe to..am guessing its option 3.

1) The War Powers Resolution is basically sound and does not need amendment. Those who hold this opinion believe it has brought about better communication between the two branches in times of crisis, and has given Congress a vehicle by which it can act when a majority of Members wish to do so. The Resolution served as a restraint on the use of armed forces by the President in some cases because of awareness that certain actions might invoke its provisions. For example, the threat of invoking the War Powers Resolution may have been helpful in getting U.S. forces out of Grenada, in keeping the number of military advisers in El Salvador limited to 55, and in prodding Congress to take a stand on authorizing the war against Iraq.

2) The War Powers Resolution is an inappropriate instrument that restricts the President's effectiveness in foreign policy and should be repealed. Those with this perspective believe that the basic premise of the War Powers Resolution is wrong because in it, Congress attempts excessive control of the deployment of U.S. military forces, encroaching on the responsibility of the President. Supporters of repeal contend that the President needs more flexibility in the conduct of foreign policy and that the time limitation in the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional and impractical. Some holding this view contend that Congress has always had the power, through appropriations and general lawmaking, to inquire into, support, limit, or prohibit specific uses of U.S. Armed Forces if there is majority support. The War Powers Resolution does not fundamentally change this equation, it is argued, but it complicates action, misleads military opponents, and diverts attention from key policy questions.

3) the War Powers Resolution has not been adequate to accomplish its objectives and needs to be strengthened or reshaped. Proponents of this view assert that Presidents have continued to introduce U.S. armed forces into hostilities without consulting Congress and without congressional authorization. Presidents have cited section 4(a)(1) on only one occasion -- Mayaguez -- and by the time the action was reported, it was virtually over.

Holders of this third view have proposed various types of amendments to the War Powers Resolution. These include returning to the version originally passed by the Senate, establishing a congressional consultation group, adding a cutoff of funds, and providing for judicial review.

zraver
08 Nov 11,, 03:17
Want to revisit this again if i may, Z.

I choose 4... The US Constitution expressly gives only Congress the power to declare and fund war and thus wage war. Congress as the voice of the people should be the ones to decide if and when American military might is used offensively. The President as Commander in Chief has obviously control if the US or a treaty ally is attacked. But Lybia was not a treaty ally. Neither were Somalia or Bosnia. Serbians had never attacked the US and in fact had been a US ally in WWI and II, and avoided being a US enemy during the Cold War thanks to Tito's skillful handling of the Soviets. yet all three were attacked offensively without the approval of Congress.

Dago
08 Nov 11,, 03:38
the second request overules the first.

We'll, I guess this thread became... other then originally Iran, the IAEA, and related nuclear development of Iran into... an argument against the NWO, bringing in China and Russia and why they weren't attacked and yeah!

Dago
08 Nov 11,, 03:47
Russia will not let the US attack Iran. Push come to shove time. That was one of the reasons the previous three were not attacked as well. At a time they were truly vulnerable and could have been.

We'll this thread is already off-topic, so I might as well respond, do you remember Yom Kippur War when the Egyptian Third Army was trapped, and they requested assistance from the Soviets? The United States made it clear, if the Soviets were to get involved, and become in conflict with Israel, then the United States would have no choice but to become engaged as well. The Soviets decided, it was not worth a nuclear war with the United States over Egypt, Syria and Israel. Or how about the embargo, of Cuba?

The Soviets were much more capable then Russians today, yet the Soviets were smart enough to not start a nuclear exchange as history shows.

Officer of Engineers
08 Nov 11,, 04:50
Russia will not let the US attack Iran. Push come to shove time. That was one of the reasons the previous three were not attacked as well. At a time they were truly vulnerable and could have been.You cannot be serious. Push comes to shove, Moscow will let Washington waste her nukes on Iran, ... or anybody else. A US nuiclear war on Iran ... or on anybody ... leaves Russia as the the primary nuclear power on earth!

And allow me to answer your unasked question. Why has not the US attacked yet. Straight anwser. There's nothing to attack. At best, the Iranians got enough materials for 3 gun type nukes.

They do not have enough materials for even one implosion type nuke ... at least, not without a test ... And currently, they are too far scare to do a test.

Officer of Engineers
08 Nov 11,, 05:27
I choose 4... The US Constitution expressly gives only Congress the power to declare and fund war and thus wage war. Congress as the voice of the people should be the ones to decide if and when American military might is used offensively. The President as Commander in Chief has obviously control if the US or a treaty ally is attacked. But Lybia was not a treaty ally. Neither were Somalia or Bosnia. Serbians had never attacked the US and in fact had been a US ally in WWI and II, and avoided being a US enemy during the Cold War thanks to Tito's skillful handling of the Soviets. yet all three were attacked offensively without the approval of Congress.My RSM did an devil's advocate. And seriously, at this point, I do not know the answer.

Why Iran cannot be a Canada under the NPT. Those of us with nuclear weapons expertise, not seeking nuclear weapons.

Well, the obvious fault is that Canada acquired her nuclear weapons expertise before she signed the NPT wheras Iran did not.

But being that be the case, nuclear weapons expertise is not a violation of the NPT. If that was the case, both NATO and the Warsaw Pact would have been clear violators.

Be that as it may, no countries within NATO nor the Warsaw Pact ever violated the NPT, expertise or not withstanding.

I know you know where I am going with this.

vsdoc
08 Nov 11,, 07:54
And allow me to answer your unasked question. Why has not the US attacked yet. Straight anwser. There's nothing to attack. At best, the Iranians got enough materials for 3 gun type nukes.

They do not have enough materials for even one implosion type nuke ... at least, not without a test ... And currently, they are too far scare to do a test.

I am sorry but I disagree that the reason the US is not attacking is because there is no reason to. Iran is not a basket case like Pakistan and North Korea - both nuclear weapon states. One of which the US ignores. The other till recently the US actively arms with top line weaponry.

Yes Iran's oil is still very tempting. Its just that the US, much like Alexander on reaching India, has spent its load. Sure it can damage Iran. But can it do it quickly enough to prevent Iran damaging Israel? I think not. And it is for that reason, if I were Iran and I had the bomb, I would go ahead and test tomorrow.

vsdoc
08 Nov 11,, 10:41
it is not what you think it is sir, in fact it's very close to being rubbish, or maybe just entertaining to some

for starters doc, its far from accurate to base a military capability assessment on numbers alone, there are many other things to factor in
It is far too trivial for that site to compose such numbers and present it as a ranking between countries, or comparison between it's armed forces

if you want something to read, maybe this :

http://csis.org/files/publication/111102_Iran_Gulf_Military_Balance.pdf

Thanks paintgun. Its really amazing to see so much information and data and in-depth analysis that is available and goes into the pursuit of war. Makes the so-called cerebral lot sit up and take notice away from the cliched perception of the soldier being a jock and not much else.

Just yesterday evening I went back home and was watching Hard Talk on BBC with some ex-mercenary from 3 African campaigns (Simon Mann I believe - a brit) and was amazed at how polished and suave he was and how matter of factly he was discussing the whole thing. Like a professor in college almost .... or a business management guru.

Mihais
08 Nov 11,, 11:03
One that separates soldiers from scholars will have cowards do the thinking and idiots do the fighting.

S2
08 Nov 11,, 12:04
"...Its just that the US, much like Alexander on reaching India, has spent its load...

I hope you don't practice medicine with the same acumen with which you pontificate on internat'l security issues. There are a lot of reasons the U.S. has not attacked Iran. That America's military capacity has "...spent its load..." is not one of them.

This isn't a jingoistic retort. It's a statement of irrefutable fact. The U.S. Navy and Air Force are untouched by recent conflicts and remain unmatched in their capacity to generate overwhelming combat power anywhere on the globe.

"...Sure it [America] can damage Iran. But can it do it quickly enough to prevent Iran damaging Israel? I think not."

Straw man bearing no relevance to America's military capacity.

You want to discuss our political will to see such through? Separate issue and never, ever a permanent condition that describes the American psyche. Changes direction with the wind and just as fast. So whatever political sands you might ascribe can easily shift tomorrow.

S2
08 Nov 11,, 12:09
Thanks for the CSIS contribution. Relevant.

vsdoc
08 Nov 11,, 12:37
I hope you don't practice medicine with the same acumen with which you pontificate on internat'l security issues.

My practice of medicine is as relevant to the discussion as is how good you are at pointing and shooting big guns at intended targets. Wholly irrelevant and a tad juvenile for you man.


There are a lot of reasons the U.S. has not attacked Iran. That America's military capacity has "...spent its load..." is not one of them.

I disagree. A lot of non-Americans do actually. You have never taken on someone like Iran and won and your leadership knows that well. You have been stretched by Iraq and Afghanistan for God's sake man. Even India has gone up against a tougher adversary multiple times and won. So please a little less of the martial bravado. And yes, this is not a jingoistic retort either. :)


This isn't a jingoistic retort. It's a statement of irrefutable fact. The U.S. Navy and Air Force are untouched by recent conflicts and remain unmatched in their capacity to generate overwhelming combat power anywhere on the globe.

The irrefutable fact is that your Navy and Air Force is there to serve your population. The same population which is finding it increasingly difficult to foot its soaring bills. My bike has the "capacity" to go a hundred miles an hour. Its going nowhere if I cant afford to fill its tank with gas.


Straw man bearing no relevance to America's military capacity.

You want to discuss our political will to see such through? Separate issue and never, ever a permanent condition that describes the American psyche. Changes direction with the wind and just as fast. So whatever political sands you might ascribe can easily shift tomorrow.

There is no wind on Earth which will ALLOW the US to leave Israel to sole mortal combat with Iran. The American psyche will always come out second best on that point and I believe you suspect so as well.

Doktor
08 Nov 11,, 12:55
I disagree. A lot of non-Americans do actually. You have never taken on someone like Iran and won and your leadership knows that well. You have been stretched by Iraq and Afghanistan for God's sake man. Even India has gone up against a tougher adversary multiple times and won. So please a little less of the martial bravado. And yes, this is not a jingoistic retort either. :)
Taking out Iran's nuclear capabilities is one thing. Setting foot and staying there for 10 years is another.

Speaking of India winning the wars, when was the last time you won and stayed there for 10 years? Just asking.


The irrefutable fact is that your Navy and Air Force is there to serve your population. The same population which is finding it increasingly difficult to foot its soaring bills. My bike has the "capacity" to go a hundred miles an hour. Its going nowhere if I cant afford to fill its tank with gas.
But your motorcycle is filled with gas, will you leave it in the garage?


There is no wind on Earth which will ALLOW the US to leave Israel to sole mortal combat with Iran. The American psyche will always come out second best on that point and I believe you suspect so as well.
This is exactly what I was asking. Will USA leave Israel alone if the Jews unilaterally decide to go after Iran?

vsdoc
08 Nov 11,, 13:05
This is exactly what I was asking. Will USA leave Israel alone if the Jews unilaterally decide to go after Iran?

That is what you are asking. And its a good question.

What I am asking is will the US risk the Iranians going after the Jews in retaliation if they (the US) unilaterally decide to go after Iran?

Double Edge
08 Nov 11,, 13:06
I am sorry but I disagree that the reason the US is not attacking is because there is no reason to. Iran is not a basket case like Pakistan and North Korea - both nuclear weapon states. One of which the US ignores. The other till recently the US actively arms with top line weaponry.

Yes Iran's oil is still very tempting. Its just that the US, much like Alexander on reaching India, has spent its load. Sure it can damage Iran. But can it do it quickly enough to prevent Iran damaging Israel? I think not. And it is for that reason, if I were Iran and I had the bomb, I would go ahead and test tomorrow.
This topic was dicussed in depth back in 2007 and the consensus view was an attack would not be as effective as hoped for. That objectives set may not be met. And if thats the case then why go ahead. The fundamental problem is once the genie (nuclear expertise) gets out of the bottle you cannot put it back. This is why i think nothing has changed since that discussion was had four years ago.

Am under the impression that Iran's game plan currently is to reach break-away capacity, then secure the fissile material in a multiple underground locations and then call it a day. What bugs me with this scenario is you do not have a credible deterrent unless you test. But if they test there is a good chance of retaliation because there is now irrefutable proof of intent. So the best thing would be not to force the issue but let it drag out over many years, decades even. Time might not be opportune right now but maybe in the future.

Its not clear to me how desperately or how urgently the regime in Iran needs to have a working nuke. Yes, they do desire it and nothing will change that but does it have to be within the next year, five years or beyond is the question.

vsdoc
08 Nov 11,, 13:11
Why cant they just get all the required raw material in place and then test? From the half life involved, I am sure there would be a significant residual shelf life to even the earliest batches once they firm up on the design.

Double Edge
08 Nov 11,, 13:27
Why cant they just get all the required raw material in place and then test?
Because their defense to date has peacful nuclear use. They have been consistent in this line since the beginning. To actually test would contradict their previous position and confirm to the world they were lying.

I'm not sure the world would just sit back and watch at that point.

Yes, the world might be ok with expertise but anything that goes toward proving that expertise will raise a red flag. Even at this point there is no need to overtly attack, they could just tighten sanctions even further. How long can Iran last without internal unrest after that.

The aim is to starve the animal before attacking, this way you are presented with a weaker opponent.

vsdoc
08 Nov 11,, 13:39
Because their defense to date has peacful nuclear use. They have been consistent in this line since the beginning. To actually test would contradict their previous position and confirm to the world they were lying.

I'm not sure the world would just sit back and watch at that point.

Who cares once you have a working bomb? I'm not sure the world would do much else besides the usual platitudes and huffing and puffing indignantly and THEN sit back back and watch at that point.

What did the world do when China went nuclear? What did the world do when Israel went nuclear? What did the world do when India went nuclear? What did the world do when Pakistan went nuclear? What did the world do when North Korea went nuclear?


Yes, the world might be ok with expertise but anything that goes toward proving that expertise will raise a red flag. Even at this point there is no need to overtly attack, they could just tighten sanctions even further. How long can Iran last without internal unrest after that.

The aim is to starve the animal before attacking, this way you are presented with a weaker opponent.

How well did sanctions work against us? Iran today is way way better off than what we were when we were sanctioned. For a nation of that size, with the kind of resources the world is thirsty for, sanctions are not worth a fig.

Officer of Engineers
08 Nov 11,, 13:47
What did the world do when China went nuclear?Prepared for war.


What did the world do when Israel went nuclear?Israel did not go nuclear.



What did the world do when India went nuclear? What did the world do when Pakistan went nuclear?Sanctions.


What did the world do when North Korea went nuclear?Laugh our assess off


How well did sanctions work against us? Iran today is way way better off than what we were when we were sanctioned. For a nation of that size, with the kind of resources the world is thirsty for, sanctions are not worth a fig.In case you have not noticed, there are now covert operations going on. No one is sitting back. They are actively going after the people and computers.

Double Edge
08 Nov 11,, 13:56
Who cares once you have a working bomb? I'm not sure the world would do much else besides the usual platitudes and huffing and puffing indignantly and THEN sit back back and watch at that point.
The question is what will Israel do ? Israel is the wildcard here.

Are the Israelis ready to deal with Hezbollah in perpetuity because now their sponsor cannot be attacked or the costs of doing so would be much higher making it even less likely. The Russians & the Americans can take them aside and explain how they both lived for 50 years under the threat of complete annhiliation but will the Israelis listen. They would likely retort that what applies to continental sized countries is not applicable to them.

Israel does not even have to be sure whether their strikes are effective, all they need to do is fire the opening shot and create a huge mess. The US would have to respond, the GCC countries would be ready to support any forthcoming action.

Meir Dagan can shoot his mouth off as much as he wants. He's no longer chief of Mossad and i find once officials demit office they become more talkative when they are no longer responsible for what is said.


What did the world do when China went nuclear? What did the world do when Israel went nuclear? What did the world do when India went nuclear? What did the world do when Pakistan went nuclear?
No NPT


What did the world do when North Korea went nuclear?
Chinese protection. The only reason NoK exists is because SoK & China want it to. Not because they are afraid. Therefore Iran - NoK is a false comparison.


How well did sanctions work against us?
They weren't designed to bite in our case. More like a slap on the wrist.


Iran today is way way better off than what we were when we were sanctioned. For a nation of that size, with the kind of resources the world is thirsty for, sanctions are not worth a fig.
Some people think the green revolution in 2009 was a result of economic difficulties. They've gotten around those for now. Instigating a regime upset by way of sanctions is easier than via an attack. The problem of course with sanctions is there is no guarantee the upcoming new regime will think any differently over possessing nukes than the previous one.

S2
08 Nov 11,, 15:19
"My practice of medicine is as relevant to the discussion as is how good you are at pointing and shooting big guns at intended targets. Wholly irrelevant and a tad juvenile for you man..."

Wrong on both counts. Your medical expertise IS irrelevant. My ability as an artillery officer exceeds simply "...pointing and shooting big guns...". In my day I was a more-than-adequate fire support coordinator. That entailed, among other things, target analysis and planning SEAD. Ingress and egress of fast-movers carrying big bombs is part and parcel to that skill. It will also be part and parcel to any attack on Iran...only on a scale you can't begin to imagine.

We can. We've done it twice in the last nineteen years. Hundreds of targets. Thousands of sorties

You're out of your element with any attempt to pass judgement on our military capability. A fan-boy's reach, to be exact.

"...I disagree. A lot of non-Americans do actually..."

Get real. Your inadequacies aren't racially nor nationally based. We've more than our fair share of know-nothings too. Vast numbers of them actually.

"...You have never taken on someone like Iran and won and your leadership knows that well..."

Excuse me? We dismantled in days a government that went toe-to-toe with Iran for years.

"...You have been stretched by Iraq and Afghanistan for God's sake man..."

More imbecilic fanboy observations. What part of Iraq or Afghanistan stretched our Navy and Air Force?

"...Even India has gone up against a tougher adversary multiple times and won..."

Spare me. That you defeated Pakistan multiple times speaks to their vaunted "toughness". That you attempt to rationalize now by drawing upon battles fought with W.W.II weapons in 1965 and 1971 speaks to your amateurism.

"...So please a little less of the martial bravado. And yes, this is not a jingoistic retort either..."

My thoughts don't stem from bravado. Unlike you, I've eleven years as a combat arms commissioned officer and fire support planner. You?

"...The irrefutable fact is that your Navy and Air Force is there to serve your population...same population which is finding it increasingly difficult to foot its soaring bills. My bike has the "capacity" to go a hundred miles an hour. Its going nowhere if I cant afford to fill its tank with gas..."

Right. Recall for me the last time you watched a U.S. Navy task force have its fuel card bounce at the gas station.

You're thoroughly out of your depth. Read the Cordesman CSIS assessment and begin your education.

YellowFever
08 Nov 11,, 17:03
Sure it can damage Iran. But can it do it quickly enough to prevent Iran damaging Israel? I think not. And it is for that reason, if I were Iran and I had the bomb, I would go ahead and test tomorrow.

Just a quick question:

If the U.S. was to attack Iran in the near future, Just how is Iran going to damage Israel?

I'm really curious. :confused:

Doktor
08 Nov 11,, 18:47
Just a quick question:

If the U.S. was to attack Iran in the near future, Just how is Iran going to damage Israel?

I'm really curious. :confused:

Few options come to my mind, like conventional attacks with missiles, missiles with chemical or biological weapons, dirty bombs sent to Hamas, etc, etc...

YellowFever
08 Nov 11,, 18:56
The same threats Saddam used?

The only realistic threat is conventional missiles and that's strategically an annoyance.

If it comes to that, Israel will hunker down the same way they did during GW 1and 2.

astralis
08 Nov 11,, 19:10
YF,

right now, hezbollah can increase attacks. it would suck (particularly if hezbollah started raining rockets in northern israel), but not an existential threat. if iran were to gain nuclear capability as well as the means of delivering them, obviously it would be a different story.

gunnut
08 Nov 11,, 19:50
The Obama won't attack Iran. After all, he pre-emptively won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009. How can someone who pre-emptively won The Nobel Peace Prize launch a pre-emptive attack on a sovereign nation?

J`ve
08 Nov 11,, 20:21
IAEA report released

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/09/world/un-details-case-that-iran-is-at-work-on-nuclear-device.html?ref=global-home

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/2011/IAEA-Nov-2011-Report-Iran.pdf


The data included:

¶ Documents suggesting that Iran “was working on a project to secure a source of uranium suitable for use in an undisclosed enrichment program” to make bomb fuel.

¶ Evidence that Iran “had been provided with nuclear explosive design information.” That may have come from the Khan network, which also provided such designs to Libya.

¶ Information that Iran has worked on experiments with conventional explosives to compress metal into an incredibly dense mass. In a bomb, that starts a chain reaction that ends in a nuclear explosion.

¶ Documentation of “at least 14 progressive design iterations” in making a missile warhead to deliver an atomic warhead to a distant target.

YellowFever
08 Nov 11,, 21:39
YF,

right now, hezbollah can increase attacks. it would suck (particularly if hezbollah started raining rockets in northern israel), but not an existential threat. if iran were to gain nuclear capability as well as the means of delivering them, obviously it would be a different story.

Sure.

But as of right now and the time frame we're talking about for a possible U.S. attack on Iran, that scenario is impossible.

zraver
08 Nov 11,, 22:58
I disagree. A lot of non-Americans do actually. You have never taken on someone like Iran and won and your leadership knows that well. You have been stretched by Iraq and Afghanistan for God's sake man. Even India has gone up against a tougher adversary multiple times and won. So please a little less of the martial bravado. And yes, this is not a jingoistic retort either. :)

India has fought two foes- China at it weakest and lost, and Pakistan and those were close run affairs. As to how tough Iran is, Iraq stalemated Iran, the US crushed Iraq... Not wholly relevant but pretty close since Iran by and large is still using the same systems in the roughly the same numbers to defend herself as she was in 1990 while the US has a full modernization cycle under her belt in the navy and air force. If you want to see how much the US has changed since 1990 count the cruise missiles fired in GW1, Serbia, GW2... The numbers of these systems keeps going up- enough to swamp any ADA system. Hell the US can now in theory fire 600 cruise missiles from just 4 platforms...

Iran's upgrades since 1990 have been concentrated in two main areas- mines and missiles (anti-ship and ballistic not SAM). Iran's mines are a serious threat if she is given a chance to deploy them... they could be a war winner if Iran is willing to open the dance. As far as missiles go, most of her anti-ship missiles are clones of Chinese models that are not all that impressive compared against modern defensive systems like the SeaRAM. Ballistic missiles is where Iran has spent the most treasure and talent, but perhaps not enough treasure and talent given the number of systems she is pursing. She has lots of SRBM's designed to fire across the Gulf at the GCC countries and the US bases, but the Patriot Pac-3 and USN can deal with these. Its a numbers game, who ever runs out of missiles/anti-missiles first loses and the US has more missiles. For medium range and longer systems Iran has limiting production and stressing technical development pushing the drive to create solid fueled missiles capable of reaching Israel and Europe. The US however recently deployed the THAAD and again- who has more missiles will determine the winner.

Double Edge
09 Nov 11,, 04:44
Israel spinning its last spin on Iran | Nov 07 2011 | Badrakumar's blog (http://blogs.rediff.com/mkbhadrakumar/2011/11/08/israel-spinning-its-last-spin-on-iran/)


So, why this Israeli spin, which is driving the world crazy? I see three factors at work.

First, Israeli regional policies are at a dead-end and the impending recognition of Palestine by the UN general assembly is too bitter a pill to swallow. The ring of regional isolation around Israel is complete.

Second, the social protest movement in Israel is gathering strength. Israel’s political economy badly needs reforms, but the government is caught in a bind as it doesn’t have money. The leadership needs a big diversion on both these counts. The spectre of war is the ultimate spin that desperate politicians get to use to rally the nation.

Third, this is the best time to “squeeze” Barack Obama. And, of course, Netanyahu knows how eminently Obama is “sqeezable” - from the manner in which Obama was forced to back out of his famous Cairo speech of 2009. As Obama begins his re-election bid, Netanyahu will estimate that he is vulnerable to blackmail - and Israel is good at that game. Experience shows that when pressure mounts in the Middle East, US instinctively loosens its purse strings for Israel. Obama is about to do that.

The funny part is, there is no evidence that Iran actually worked for its dramatic surge as regional power. It didn’t choreograph the Arab Spring or the US invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. Much happened by default - due to the follies in the US and Israeli policies.

Now, this would probably imply that the Israelis are not infallible. Maybe so, but I still don’t think the Israeli leaders are stupid. On balance, what they desperately need is some spectacular spin - like in 2007- which displays Israeli valour and might and highlight Iranian cowardice and bluster. For that spin to work, Israel must have a tacit understanding with Iran so that the latter takes the Israeli attack lying low and won’t retaliate. But Iran isn’t obliging. Can Israel be spinning its last spin?

Thing is, Israeli elections are in 2013, why ratchet things up now ?


Isn’t what we are seeing today a replay of the rare genius for spin - that israel is straining at the leash to attack Iran? I have 4 reasons for calling the Israeli spin by its name.

One, Israeli leaders would know as much as the former chief of Mossad Ephraim Halevy, who repeated last week that in reality, Iran’s nuclear programme does not pose an existential danger to Israel.

Two, Israeli leaders understand politics. They can grasp that in Europe and US, the leaders are caught in the whirlpool of economic crisis and are barely staying afloat. They know well enough that Israel lacks the capability to fight a war on its own without seamless US support, and US, in turn, won’t have allied backing for any war today - especially, a war in the Middle East that will drive up the price of oil. [Of course, the first thing Iran will do will be to choke the narrow sea lane of Strait of Hormuz through which one-third of the world's oil supply passes.]

Three, all 3 service chiefs of Israeli armed forces and the bosses of Mossad and Shin Bet have spoken against an attack on Iran. The Israeli leaders know why they are so dead against war with Iran. They know Hezbollah will rain tens of thousands of rockets on every little town and city and settlement in Israel wreaking colossal loss of civilian lives. Despite their swagger, politicians like Benjamin Netanyahu and Ehud Barak know what such a horrific tragedy could do to their successful careers in public life.

Finally, Israelis are brilliant minds and would surely ask the one fundamental question before starting a war with Iran: What is the objective? To destroy Iran’s nuclear programme? But, for that to be achieved, Israel should know in the first instance where exactly are Iran’s nuclear installations located. In short, Israeli leadership will be staking hundreds or thousands of innocent Israeli lives for a war with no clear-cut objective. Indeed, at the end of it all, the Iran that emerges out of an israeli attack will go for the atomic bomb, finally, and will pose existential threat to Israel for at least a few millennia.

Z, in addition to Obama & The Iranian regime, lets add Netanyahu for the trio of leaders uncertain about their future :)

vsdoc
09 Nov 11,, 06:03
Wrong on both counts. Your medical expertise IS irrelevant. My ability as an artillery officer exceeds simply "...pointing and shooting big guns...". In my day I was a more-than-adequate fire support coordinator. That entailed, among other things, target analysis and planning SEAD. Ingress and egress of fast-movers carrying big bombs is part and parcel to that skill. It will also be part and parcel to any attack on Iran...only on a scale you can't begin to imagine.

We can. We've done it twice in the last nineteen years. Hundreds of targets. Thousands of sorties

You're out of your element with any attempt to pass judgement on our military capability. A fan-boy's reach, to be exact.

Get real. Your inadequacies aren't racially nor nationally based. We've more than our fair share of know-nothings too. Vast numbers of them actually.

Excuse me? We dismantled in days a government that went toe-to-toe with Iran for years.

More imbecilic fanboy observations. What part of Iraq or Afghanistan stretched our Navy and Air Force?

Spare me. That you defeated Pakistan multiple times speaks to their vaunted "toughness". That you attempt to rationalize now by drawing upon battles fought with W.W.II weapons in 1965 and 1971 speaks to your amateurism.

My thoughts don't stem from bravado. Unlike you, I've eleven years as a combat arms commissioned officer and fire support planner. You?

Right. Recall for me the last time you watched a U.S. Navy task force have its fuel card bounce at the gas station.

You're thoroughly out of your depth. Read the Cordesman CSIS assessment and begin your education.

Your bluster is poor refuge for your insecurities that are peeking through. Sadly typical ....

From a fan-boy to a veteran military professional, I am willing to leave WAB the day the US attacks Iran.

Are you willing to do the same if Iran goes nuclear and your nation swallows that pill without military action?

Yes or no. Not your tiring point by point ad hominems please.

Show us how to take a challenge like a man. :)

YellowFever
09 Nov 11,, 06:19
Your bluster is poor refuge for your insecurities that are peeking through. Sadly typical ....

From a fan-boy to a veteran military professional, I am willing to leave WAB the day the US attacks Iran.

Are you willing to do the same if Iran goes nuclear and your nation swallows that pill without military action?

Yes or no. Not your tiring point by point ad hominems please.

Show us how to take a challenge like a man. :)


S2 is on record, way back in post number 16 on this very thread:




Agreed. Ain't happenin'. Even if they successfully test a nuke we won't attack.

What he objected to was your statement:



I disagree. A lot of non-Americans do actually. You have never taken on someone like Iran and won and your leadership knows that well. You have been stretched by Iraq and Afghanistan for God's sake man. Even India has gone up against a tougher adversary multiple times and won. So please a little less of the martial bravado. And yes, this is not a jingoistic retort either. :)

Which sounds so stupid to be troll-like.

And read his post number 32 if you want the real reason why the U.S. won't attack.

zraver
09 Nov 11,, 06:25
Israel spinning its last spin on Iran | Nov 07 2011 | Badrakumar's blog (http://blogs.rediff.com/mkbhadrakumar/2011/11/08/israel-spinning-its-last-spin-on-iran/)



Thing is, Israeli elections are in 2013, why ratchet things up now ?



Z, in addition to Obama & The Iranian regime, lets add Netanyahu for the trio of leaders uncertain about their future :)

bibi is not a threat, hi game is local.

vsdoc
09 Nov 11,, 06:27
YF, I guess you missed the smiley at the end. Why are Americans so touchy off late? Things not going well can't be the reason alone. If you dish it out you've got to expect some of it to come back at you.

A lot of what he say in post 32 is what I am saying too. America always has geography on its side. The day nukes threatened to come too close to the homeland, America threatened nuclear war. So no one is doubting that America can take it to Iran from afar.

But will America be willing to risk Iranian retaliatory backlash on Israel and can America deal with Iran's formidable asymmetric capabilities (yes it did browse through paintgun's paper)? History points to a NO on both counts. And that is where the Iraq and Afghanistan comparison also came in. Iran does not need to go missile to missile with the US. And both the US and Israel know that.

YellowFever
09 Nov 11,, 06:30
So what exactly did we "dish out" and what exactly did you "come back at us" with?

vsdoc
09 Nov 11,, 06:35
Attitude.

YellowFever
09 Nov 11,, 06:41
Ah, OK, so we dish out attitude.

(Guilty in some cases)

So you respond with child-like retorts as wanting Iran to test their nukes (if they have any) and boasting that India faced much tougher adversaries than the US and makingh bets on who leaves WAB and who doesn't with someone that agrees with you?

Reasonable.. :confused:

vsdoc
09 Nov 11,, 06:42
Yes sir. We are like this wonly.

Tel me something YF, as an American ..... why do you feel Iran does not deserve to have nukes and you do?

P.S. It was not a bet. It was a challenge thrown.

YellowFever
09 Nov 11,, 07:04
There you go assuming things again.

I couldn't give a rat's ass about Iranian nukes just as I don't give a rat's ass about Pakistani nukes or Indian nukes.

I just want someone to argue with while I'm on WAB.



....Yes, I am like this only, too.

zraver
09 Nov 11,, 09:15
can America deal with Iran's formidable asymmetric capabilities (yes it did browse through paintgun's paper)?

Can America deal is the wrong questin, can Iran. You need to study the application of air delivered high explosives to miltiary and duel use sites in Iraq and Serbia. The US cuts roads, radio, water, sewer power, telephone exchanges, server farms, rail, bridges, air ports, fuel reserves etc... Add in a blockade which prevents the export of oil or import of food and the result is social collapse. Iran has a large population of young adults who are wired almost as much as Europe thanks to 70% of the population living in and around Tehran. Few nations are as socially vulnerable to air attack as Iran


History points to a NO on both counts. And that is where the Iraq and Afghanistan comparison also came in. Iran does not need to go missile to missile with the US. And both the US and Israel know that.

History says yes not no. The US has since the end of WWII fought 2x 10 year plus wars, stayed in Europe and Korea for 40+ years. In fact in the 66 years since the end of WWII the US has been at war for 31 of them... This staying power is also reflected in American history- America is one of the few socieites to survive a century of conflict intact. From the first Indian War West of the Mississippi River to the last was over 110 years.

You know jack shit about American military history.

Sharapthai
09 Nov 11,, 09:27
The world is already scared of Pakistan having nukes. Imagine another rouge Islamic country which makes open threats to wipe off Israel, developing nukes. Israel has got the balls, it's now a matter of when. Apart from a YES, I do not think Israel needs anything more from Washington to bomb Iran. And bomb Israel should, ASAP. Attack on Iran serves two purposes. First is Obama's re-election chances(as mentioned by other posters), and secondly the world gets to sleep with less headache.

1979
09 Nov 11,, 09:32
The world is already scared of Pakistan having nukes. Imagine another rouge Islamic country which makes open threats to wipe off Israel, developing nukes. Israel has got the balls, it's now a matter of when. Apart from a YES, I do not think Israel needs anything more from Washington to bomb Iran. And bomb Israel should, ASAP. Attack on Iran serves two purposes. First is Obama's re-election chances(as mentioned by other posters), and secondly the world gets to sleep with less headache.

a wise man once said do not start what you cannot finish.
israel can start a conflict with iran but it takes america to finish it.

Sharapthai
09 Nov 11,, 09:40
/\/\/\ Yes. I meant it when I said that it boost's Obama's chances of a re-election as mentioned by Zraver, and correctly so.

paintgun
09 Nov 11,, 10:09
There you go assuming things again.

I couldn't give a rat's ass about Iranian nukes just as I don't give a rat's ass about Pakistani nukes or Indian nukes.

I just want someone to argue with while I'm on WAB.



....Yes, I am like this only, too.

Canadian nukes?

Dante
09 Nov 11,, 12:09
Can America deal is the wrong questin, can Iran. You need to study the application of air delivered high explosives to miltiary and duel use sites in Iraq and Serbia. The US cuts roads, radio, water, sewer power, telephone exchanges, server farms, rail, bridges, air ports, fuel reserves etc... Add in a blockade which prevents the export of oil or import of food and the result is social collapse. Iran has a large population of young adults who are wired almost as much as Europe thanks to 70% of the population living in and around Tehran. Few nations are as socially vulnerable to air attack as Iran



History says yes not no. The US has since the end of WWII fought 2x 10 year plus wars, stayed in Europe and Korea for 40+ years. In fact in the 66 years since the end of WWII the US has been at war for 31 of them... This staying power is also reflected in American history- America is one of the few socieites to survive a century of conflict intact. From the first Indian War West of the Mississippi River to the last was over 110 years.

You know jack shit about American military history.

OK, but what does that have to do with Iran?
Nobody here is questioning the capabilities of the USA army to win..the big question is what comes after that victory

"Blockade and social colapes"? depends how the youth you mentioned see the atack..social colapse or people making human shields around bridges? (like Serbia, now that you mentioned it)

Ground Invasion? sure, the usa army has the power to do that, but what after? 10+ years of daily suicide bombers, ambushes and atacks? ("nation building" won't work there) Does the american public have the stomach for Afganistan round two?

I hope nobody regards my post as anti-american or something, I just don't see where victory si with regards to Iran

vsdoc
09 Nov 11,, 12:14
Ground Invasion? sure, the usa army has the power to do that, but what after? 10+ years of daily suicide bombers, ambushes and atacks? ("nation building" won't work there) Does the american public have the stomach for Afganistan round two?

Iraq and Afghanistan would be a walk in the park by comparison if these boys have half the blood the pre-Islamic Persians did.

No, America does not have the stomach for this one - however the learned posters here would like to couch that defense as. This is not a banana dictatorship or a tribal badland we are talking about.

Occupation no. Destruction yes. But in the aftermath, the US would essentially be saying bye bye for the foreseeable future to the ME. And probably the state of Israel.

What a coup for the Muslim world - Shias finally joining the Sunnis en masse against the Djal. The Ummah finally united in a common cause, internal feuds laid aside for the next half century. Or two.

Not being remotely anti-American either, not that it should be a concern hopefully. Just stating my opinion.

S2
09 Nov 11,, 12:54
"...why do you feel Iran does not deserve to have nukes and you do?"

NPT. Our weapons came long before such existed. Iran voluntarily committed itself to those strictures to obtain global assistance in the peaceful applications of nuclear power.

By any reasoned count they've wandered far from those voluntary commitments.

Deserve? Iran doesn't deserve to have its cake and eat it too any more than any other country that's made those same voluntary commitments. Their intent since 1983 (perhaps earlier) has been simple-to squeeze as much value from being a NPT signatory while pursuing a path via that assistance (and more) in a direction diametrically opposed to its principles.

In short, that strikes me as muy slimey.

Should they renounce such (as would be appropriate)? At this point, who cares? The cows are out of the gate.

Your so-called challenge? Fcuk you.:) Vous ętes un provocateur, monsieur. Occasionally humourous. Often not.

vsdoc
09 Nov 11,, 13:01
Your so-called challenge? Fcuk you.:) Vous ętes un provocateur, monsieur. Occasionally humourous. Often not.

Thought so. Not surprised. :) Vous ętes un :pari:, monsieur.

citanon
09 Nov 11,, 13:10
OK, but what does that have to do with Iran?
Nobody here is questioning the capabilities of the USA army to win..the big question is what comes after that victory

"Blockade and social colapes"? depends how the youth you mentioned see the atack..social colapse or people making human shields around bridges? (like Serbia, now that you mentioned it)

Ground Invasion? sure, the usa army has the power to do that, but what after? 10+ years of daily suicide bombers, ambushes and atacks? ("nation building" won't work there) Does the american public have the stomach for Afganistan round two?

I hope nobody regards my post as anti-american or something, I just don't see where victory si with regards to Iran

Iran is not Iraq or Afghanistan. The challenges there are unique. There is a bigger population than Iraq and it is more urbanized than Afghanistan. On the other hand, there is not another regional power that could help sustain an insurgency.

My guess is nation building there probably _would_ work, but it would be too expensive economically for us to even try. Instead you're looking at whole sale destruction of Iranian infrastructure from the air, followed by dealing with whatever is left.

Sounds terrible. Is terrible. But compared to the alternative of a nuclearized ME?

citanon
09 Nov 11,, 13:15
But in the aftermath, the US would essentially be saying bye bye for the foreseeable future to the ME. And probably the state of Israel.

And how exactly does is this supposed to happen?


What a coup for the Muslim world - Shias finally joining the Sunnis en masse against the Djal. The Ummah finally united in a common cause, internal feuds laid aside for the next half century. Or two.

Local enemies joining together against a distant benefactor whose trying to prevent one side from getting an absolute advantage and who isn't threatening the other side at all?? When was the last time this has happened.... in history?

vsdoc
09 Nov 11,, 13:25
And how exactly does is this supposed to happen?

The same way it happened in Iraq and soon Afghanistan. Only this time way more violently - both for your troops and your regional allies.


Local enemies joining together against a distant benefactor whose trying to prevent one side from getting an absolute advantage and who isn't threatening the other side at all?? When was the last time this has happened.... in history?

This is the crux of the whole problem the world is crying itself hoarse about yet you won't listen isn't it?

YOU ARE NOT SEEN AS BENEFACTORS IN ANY OF THE NATIONS YOU MEDDLE IN SIR.

Never were. Never will be. And the tide is growing.

Zraver eulogizes the American military history.

You speak of "nation building" on the back of wholesale destruction and killing.

Is all this a legacy and throwback to how your own nation was built?

S2
09 Nov 11,, 13:26
America's purposes in the Persian Gulf are best assured by a meaningful Iranian denunciation of nuclear weapons. Coupled with the present military capabilities of the KSA and GCC along with the eventual re-emergence of a viable Iraqi military counterweight, there'd be little cause for concern about any Iranian hegemonic ambitions.

Under such a scenario, global oil flows. Good for end-users-that's really not America, btw (See EIA Gulf import estimates for America). Good for their economies. Good for our economy.

Under the present scenario America, our gulf allies and the the rest of the global oil-using community are best served by a regime of sanctions coupled with a vigorous U.S. military presence in the gulf. This, too, assures the continued flow of our global economic life-blood.

Further, the present scenario reinforces liberalization inclinations now afoot in otherwise monarchial/autocratic gulf regimes. This outcome is more problematic but represents the only viable long-term pathway available for those regimes continued survival. To that end, a continuing Iranian shia threat serves American interests by providing the necessary impetus towards such.

A nuclear weapon provides Iran, in the face of a strong U.S. military presence in the gulf, one viable use-coverage for assymmetric forces. Nothing else. The threat of an Iranian nuclear weapon behind conventional offensive operations is empty. It's limited utility can only be manifested by its use. Doing so assures the destruction of the Iranian state.

Iran can still achieve its objectives of gulf hegemony, but only through the pursuit of assymmetric operations aimed at shia destabilization of Iraq, KSA, and the GCC. The only viable counter-weight to such is nat'l development in each of these targeted nations coupled with assymmetric operations aimed at the destabilization of Iran. National development means, simply, the liberalization of each society so that member citizens attain full rights of citizenship and meaningful peaceful participation in the nat'l political discourse.

Such an outcome serves American interests and should serve the interests of other peace-minded global entities.

Dante
09 Nov 11,, 13:41
My guess is nation building there probably _would_ work, but it would be too expensive economically for us to even try. Instead you're looking at whole sale destruction of Iranian infrastructure from the air, followed by dealing with whatever is left.

Sounds terrible. Is terrible. But compared to the alternative of a nuclearized ME?

"Nation building" a country with 75 millions and 2 thousands years of history behind it? Good luck with that.(hint: they have quite a nation already)
Destruction of the infrastructure will only leave you with 70 + millions p!ssed of iranians,..and I know it sounds terible, but to deal with that you ned to apply something ala Genghis Han. Is it better or worst than a nuclearized ME? I don't know, and I don't think you guys know either. Either way, it's not going to happen, it just seems that you'e aministration can't make up their mind about it and take a clear route.

Officer of Engineers
09 Nov 11,, 13:41
Iraq and Afghanistan would be a walk in the park by comparison if these boys have half the blood the pre-Islamic Persians did.Pre-Islamic Persians were clobbered left, right, and centre by the Steppes and by those ancestors of yours. Rome and Greece bloodied them on more than a few occasion.


No, America does not have the stomach for this one - however the learned posters here would like to couch that defense as. This is not a banana dictatorship or a tribal badland we are talking about.After both Iraq and Afghanistan, I question your judgement. The stomach is there.


Occupation no. Destruction yes. But in the aftermath, the US would essentially be saying bye bye for the foreseeable future to the ME. And probably the state of Israel.For all your touting of asymmetric warfare, yet, you failed to see the overwhelming American advantage in this area.

The Americans have already attacked the Iranian nuclear programs twice and twice the nuclear program was set back years in fact.

Iranian nuclear scientists have been killed and their computers wiped clean by an American designed computer worm.

The war has been on for years now ... and the Americans only got victories to show so far.

Double Edge
09 Nov 11,, 13:52
bibi is not a threat, hi game is local.

'All politics is local' - former U.S. Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill

How much credit does Bibi deserve for this thread ?

It started off a week and a half ago in Israel and its got the world's attention, just like in 2007, Israel has got a good ie credible bluff going here.


I just don't see where victory si with regards to Iran
You are questioning the rationale OR how effective such an action would be. This is pretty much the conclusion reached by the board back in 2007.

That today, just like in 2007 there is no change in Iran's stance. Iran is just pursuing 'knowledge'.

The change happens when they test that knowledge, this assumes they want to do it, i cannot imagine why not as there is no credible deterrent unless the world knows you really have a nuke.

Now, this will be a change from Iran's previous stance. How the world reacts at that point is an open question. So Iran would want to do a test when the chances of any potential retaliation were at the lowest point. When the world's attention was diverted some where else or when they have the protection of one of the P5. Currently they have none, so the time for a test has not arrived yet.

The ideal time to test is when the world no longer has the will to enforce the NPT.

S2
09 Nov 11,, 13:57
"The same way it happened in Iraq and soon Afghanistan. Only this time way more violently - both for your troops and your regional allies. "

Gee whiz. One might think you see Iraq as a resounding defeat. Perhaps it serves your narrative to trumpet such in the face of facts but you need reminding that some view the elimination of Hussein and the baath party along with the liberation of the shia majority and Kurds as beneficial to Iraq's long term social growth. Too, many view the elimination of Iraqi WMD ambitions for the foreseeable future along with visions of Iraqi gulf hegemony as beneficial. Finally, last I checked the sole arab nation-state with any semblance of democratic emergence might just be...Iraq.

Gee whiz. One might think you see Afghanistan as a resounding defeat. Perhaps it serves your narrative to trumpet such in the face of facts but last I checked my nation hasn't again been attacked as we had BEFORE our meddlesome appearance there.

Not that you'd give a sh!t but such matters to many of us. Our meddlesome nature saved a Kuwaiti monarchy in 1991 while pissing off a rich-boy Saudi. Didn't take him much to decide we were NUMERO UNO on his hit list. Pardon us that, if after Nairobi, Dar-es-Salaam, U.S.S. Cole, and 9/11 we took umbrage. While that cost has been many hundreds of billions to our treasury and the lives of 6451 soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen, it is a cost we can and do bear with the equanimity which comes in recognition of not what we've lost, but what we've gained.

Those gains include feeding Indian Ocean sharks with the remains of that unholy fcuk. More than a few of us take some satisfaction in our contribution to their nutritional enrichment.

What you can't nor feel inclined to calculate is the cost of doing nothing in the face of those collectively accumulated threats I've mentioned here. Oh! It's a long list reaching back to 1991 so don't bother getting your calculator out and starting now. A team of the best accountants and crystal-ball gazers couldn't unravel those financial and security permutations arising from our presumed inaction.

What you prefer not to acknowledge is that we'd be viewed by your compatriots and yourself as meddlesome whether we'd acted or not. Certainly OBL did. If you weren't with us then you must have been against us. If you were with us but now backtrack it's only because you've invested NOTHING in our endeavors while piggybacking on our gains.

That'd be true of the Indian government in Afghanistan, who had sh!t of a presence before 9/11. Not so now and not because of India.

Just another back-seat driver from the other side of the globe.

We'll be gone soon enough. When we do, it'll just be you, Jammu-Kashmir and your friends to the west...with all that strategic depth you've failed to seize while you had the chance.

Were you only a tad more meddlesome yourself, sir.

1979
09 Nov 11,, 14:30
"Nation building" a country with 75 millions and 2 thousands years of history behind it? Good luck with that.(hint: they have quite a nation already)
Destruction of the infrastructure will only leave you with 70 + millions p!ssed of iranians,..and I know it sounds terible, but to deal with that you ned to apply something ala Genghis Han. Is it better or worst than a nuclearized ME? I don't know, and I don't think you guys know either. Either way, it's not going to happen, it just seems that you'e aministration can't make up their mind about it and take a clear route.

dante
I have no reasons to believe that the iranians have the stomach for a fight either.

Dante
09 Nov 11,, 15:11
dante
I have no reasons to believe that the iranians have the stomach for a fight either.

I was talking in the event of a full scale campain against them, like citanon mentioned. I have no reason to think they won't fight for real once theyre country is truly threatned( they showed the will,albeit not the skill, in the Irak-Iran war)

Please detail if you think otherwise

paintgun
09 Nov 11,, 15:38
vsdoc, there are many ways to skin the Persian cat, if they are ever to make the wrong move, the one under pressure now is Iran, not Israel, certainly not USA, the impression of Israel/US under pressure is a cheap illusion

US has been very clear on Iran about nuclear weapon, they can not and will not get it

even if they have to bomb Iran back to pre-Islamic Persia

1979
09 Nov 11,, 15:59
I was talking in the event of a full scale campain against them, like citanon mentioned. I have no reason to think they won't fight for real once theyre country is truly threatned( they showed the will,albeit not the skill, in the Irak-Iran war)

Please detail if you think otherwise

had the decadent Iraq showed any less will ?

snapper
09 Nov 11,, 16:05
Iran has abput a year at most left to come clean and abandon this project. I assure you vsdoc that the will IS there and the means are being put in place. The theory that the 'west has run out steam' is dangerously naive when it alows lunatic Ayatollahs to build nuclear weapons. They banned water fights in Iran because they 'western imperialism'. Make no mistake; we shall forbid them nuclear weapons. The Arab nations will support us in this - a united Ummah is not possible when the majority or Islamic nations fear a nuclear armed Iran that would then dictate to them.

The only question left is; does Obama have ANY spine? His 'reaching out' policy to Iran has clearly failed as proved by the IAEA. He missed a great opportunity to get rid of Dinnerjacket, and possibly the whole regime, in the wake of the last Iranian 'election'. We have about a year left and I expect action sooner rather than later in that period.

snapper
09 Nov 11,, 16:07
I was talking in the event of a full scale campain against them, like citanon mentioned. I have no reason to think they won't fight for real once theyre country is truly threatned( they showed the will,albeit not the skill, in the Irak-Iran war)

Please detail if you think otherwise

It's not about war with Iranian people but with the regime. Once that falls 'to the people' we can start talking again. As it is Iran is sething with competing forces: The President is against the Grand Ayatollah and the regular Army against the Republican Guards. The whole lot are against the underground opposition! The chances that they will fight as one are minimal if an air campaign is conducted.

Doktor
09 Nov 11,, 16:14
It's not about war with Iranian people but with the regime. Once that falls 'to the people' we can start talking again.

When civvies will start being collateral damage, tell their families "Oh we were hitting your regime, too bad yours got in the way".

YellowFever
09 Nov 11,, 16:19
Iran, Russia and China prepare for War against America


Debt of Honor
Bear and the Dragon


IWhat a coup for the Muslim world - Shias finally joining the Sunnis en masse against the Djal. The Ummah finally united in a common cause, internal feuds laid aside for the next half century. Or two.

Not being remotely anti-American either, not that it should be a concern hopefully. Just stating my opinion.

Sum of all Fears

...Dude, back away from the Clancy novels.

YellowFever
09 Nov 11,, 16:25
When civvies will start being collateral damage, tell their families "Oh we were hitting your regime, too bad yours got in the way".

So are these civilians or combatants?
http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=4Y8_MLy2sgk

zraver
09 Nov 11,, 16:37
I was talking in the event of a full scale campain against them, like citanon mentioned. I have no reason to think they won't fight for real once theyre country is truly threatned( they showed the will,albeit not the skill, in the Irak-Iran war)

Please detail if you think otherwise

Should the US and Iran go to war the winner will most likely be the one who starts the dance. It wont be a ground invasion, but an affair of sea and air power. Oh and winning is relative, if Iran blocks the Straits of Hormuz all she has really done is shot herself through the right temple to hit the target on the left. Iran needs oil exports too, plus food imports. Within just a few years Canada is going to overtake Iran in production, and Brazil is suddenly looking like the new underwater Arabia with a vast field found below a layer of salt.

More importantly the destruction of the social grid- power, sewer, water, rail, road, bridges, telephone exchanges, server farms etc does remarkably little damage to populations physically in the short term but it collapses governments. Governments are artificial, they have to keep the social contract or they get replaced. In the case of Iran the already not very popular Mullahs risk Iran breaking into autonomous areas as local leaders take over if the mullahs can't keep the contract.

In very short order firing missiles at Israel or Dubai or what ever is going to be a lot less important than cholera outbreaks, mass refugee movements as people leave Tehran or Qom and go looking for somewhere normal... 3 hots and cot are powerful incentives where your tired and hungry. Add in the ever present Western Media foot print and the good old fashioned grape vine and the bad news will still get out even without power, except the government ability to counter will be greatly diminished. Its one thing to pull the Great Satan's tail and act all tough becuase he didn't react. its quite another to act tough when he does react and puts a fiery pitchfork through your gut.

People want to talk about asymmetric, well look at the gifs that keep on giving in the wake of a sustained strategic air campaign. Did you know that in march 1945 Berlin was put on food rationing while 50 miles German villages were still well provisioned.... Allied air had wrecked the German transport grid and the result was the food could not get from the fields to the cities. By April Berliners were eating 3 day old dead horse while on the Elbe River American and Soviet troops toasted each other with captured Schanpps...

Few societies were as fanatical as the Germans- but they got hungry enough, and the pain they felt was harsh enough that they threw in the towel. same goes for Japan and surprisingly to people who haven't actually studied the issue- North Vietnam. In 11 days the US crippled North Vietnam which went from 160,000 tons a month of logistical through put on its rail and port system to 30,000 tons and who lost 80% of her electrical generation capacity after the US hit just 14 industrial targets.

Double Edge
09 Nov 11,, 18:35
if Iran blocks the Straits of Hormuz all she has really done is shot herself through the right temple to hit the target on the left. Iran needs oil
Have often wondered about this point but its down to how self-sufficient Iran is.

All these sanctions do is allow them to practice more at being an autarky.

zraver
09 Nov 11,, 20:01
Have often wondered about this point but its down to how self-sufficient Iran is.

All these sanctions do is allow them to practice more at being an autarky.

Doesn't help Iran's food situation... Iran has about half her agricultural industries dependant on rain water. A drought in 2008 meant Iran had to import 15 million tons of wheat. She is also desperately short on sugar and rice. Such a situation would only be made worse with the loss of the electrical and transport grids and the massive concentration of the population in urban centers.

S2
10 Nov 11,, 04:46
"Edward Spannaus, editor of the weekly US-based news magazine Executive Intelligence Review (EIR), had told Iranian television from Washington that “his [US President Barack Obama's] puppet masters, the people who pull his strings, do want war.”

“Iran of course is at the top of the list right now,” he noted and said, “It may start with an attack on Iran, but it would end up in a general world war.”

"This is how dangerous the situation is right now. And Obama -- as we know -- has done everything that Bush [former US president] and Cheney [US vice president under Bush] did, and he is likely to… get us involved in World War III," he said.

On a potential military action by the Western military alliance of NATO against Syria, he said such a measure would function to precede similar ones against other countries. “Syria is very high on the list.”

His remarks come in the wake of the latest anti-Iran publicity campaign by Washington and Tel Aviv in which the duo have once again threatened Tehran with the "option" of a military strike, based on their rhetorical allegation that Iran's nuclear work may consist of a covert military diversion..."

Tell me you didn't quote from Edward Spannaus, the editor of Lyndon LaRouche's personal mouthpiece, the Executive Intelligence Review, and his former campaign embezzler, errr...treasurer with any sense of seriousness?:biggrin:

That's a joke, correct?

And The Canadian (http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/news/intrnational/2011/11/07/1577.html)?

More laughs and giggles?

I pray so lest you be hopeless and utterly dismissive. If not a joke then may you live in interesting times.

citanon
10 Nov 11,, 04:58
"Nation building" a country with 75 millions and 2 thousands years of history behind it? Good luck with that.(hint: they have quite a nation already)
Destruction of the infrastructure will only leave you with 70 + millions p!ssed of iranians,..and I know it sounds terible, but to deal with that you ned to apply something ala Genghis Han. Is it better or worst than a nuclearized ME? I don't know, and I don't think you guys know either. Either way, it's not going to happen, it just seems that you'e aministration can't make up their mind about it and take a clear route.

Nation building works best when there is a well established nation. Witness Germany, and Japan.

vsdoc
10 Nov 11,, 05:59
Pre-Islamic Persians were clobbered left, right, and centre by the Steppes and by those ancestors of yours. Rome and Greece bloodied them on more than a few occasion.

Sir you are talking about a proud race that is more than 5000 years old. A time period like that will have military victories and defeats. Centuries of existence to defeat ratio wise would you like to debate and compare America's score versus that of Persia/Iran? :) I think not.

And I do not know what illusion you are under with regard to my ancestry, but I trace it back to the same pre-Islamic Zoroastrian Persians as Gushtasp, Rustom, Darius, and Cyrus.


After both Iraq and Afghanistan, I question your judgement. The stomach is there.

Iran is not remotely close to what you faced in Iraq and Afghanistan. This "stomach is there or not" back and forth is sounding vaguely familiar to the old argument we had about whether the US would have gone ahead with the Japanese invasion or not.


For all your touting of asymmetric warfare, yet, you failed to see the overwhelming American advantage in this area.

The Americans have already attacked the Iranian nuclear programs twice and twice the nuclear program was set back years in fact.

Iranian nuclear scientists have been killed and their computers wiped clean by an American designed computer worm.

The war has been on for years now ... and the Americans only got victories to show so far.

Mere irritants and speed breakers sir. A country which is hell bent of going nuclear WILL go nuclear. Eventually. History is proof of that. Countries that started out with a lot less than what Iran has today. I believe the debate here is not IF but what happens WHEN.

vsdoc
10 Nov 11,, 06:05
America's purposes in the Persian Gulf are best assured by a meaningful Iranian denunciation of nuclear weapons. Coupled with the present military capabilities of the KSA and GCC along with the eventual re-emergence of a viable Iraqi military counterweight, there'd be little cause for concern about any Iranian hegemonic ambitions.

Under such a scenario, global oil flows. Good for end-users-that's really not America, btw (See EIA Gulf import estimates for America). Good for their economies. Good for our economy.

Under the present scenario America, our gulf allies and the the rest of the global oil-using community are best served by a regime of sanctions coupled with a vigorous U.S. military presence in the gulf. This, too, assures the continued flow of our global economic life-blood.

Further, the present scenario reinforces liberalization inclinations now afoot in otherwise monarchial/autocratic gulf regimes. This outcome is more problematic but represents the only viable long-term pathway available for those regimes continued survival. To that end, a continuing Iranian shia threat serves American interests by providing the necessary impetus towards such.

A nuclear weapon provides Iran, in the face of a strong U.S. military presence in the gulf, one viable use-coverage for assymmetric forces. Nothing else. The threat of an Iranian nuclear weapon behind conventional offensive operations is empty. It's limited utility can only be manifested by its use. Doing so assures the destruction of the Iranian state.

Iran can still achieve its objectives of gulf hegemony, but only through the pursuit of assymmetric operations aimed at shia destabilization of Iraq, KSA, and the GCC. The only viable counter-weight to such is nat'l development in each of these targeted nations coupled with assymmetric operations aimed at the destabilization of Iran. National development means, simply, the liberalization of each society so that member citizens attain full rights of citizenship and meaningful peaceful participation in the nat'l political discourse.

Such an outcome serves American interests and should serve the interests of other peace-minded global entities.

Thanks man. We all know it all boils down to OIL. Always has. Always will.

Nation building. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight!

vsdoc
10 Nov 11,, 06:09
"Nation building" a country with 75 millions and 2 thousands years of history behind it? Good luck with that.(hint: they have quite a nation already)

5000 years actually sir. And they HAD a nation (nay, empire) when native americans were still riding wild mustangs bareback and skinning buffalo on the plains of the American continent.

vsdoc
10 Nov 11,, 06:17
The ideal time to test is when the world no longer has the will to enforce the NPT.

The crux of all debates always on toothless (not to mention "clubby" discriminatory) NPT.

The "world" is never ever going to be a single unanimous entity. Hence for every force, there will be a counter-force. And another nuclear cub will be spawned. And another. To gravitate towards and coalesce with one of the two opposing nuclear masses.

troung
10 Nov 11,, 06:21
And they HAD a nation (nay, empire) when native americans were still riding wild mustangs bareback and skinning buffalo on the plains of the American continent.

Turks were running the place by then.... seriously cut it out...

Officer of Engineers
10 Nov 11,, 06:22
Sir you are talking about a proud race that is more than 5000 years old. A time period like that will have military victories and defeats. Centuries of existence to defeat ratio wise would you like to debate and compare America's score versus that of Persia/Iran? :) I think not.Why not. In the US's short time, she has conquered more territories, defeated more armies, and destroyed more cities than the entire Persian history combined and I'm including the Muguals.


And I do not know what illusion you are under with regard to my ancestry, but I trace it back to the same pre-Islamic Persians as Gushtasp, Rustom and Darius.Then you're missing the point that the proud Persian Empire never ventured into South Asia, and not because they didn't want to.


Iran is not remotely close to what you faced in Iraq and Afghanistan. This "stomach is there or not" back and forth is sounding vaguely familiar to the old argument we had about whether the US would have gone ahead with the Japanese invasion or not.Whatever your feelings towards this. If the primary objective is to deny Iran a nuke, then whatever the outcome of a US military campaign, one thing is for sure, Iran would lack the ability to build a factory, let alone a nuke. The US might or might not be able to occupy Iran but Iran would be left nothing left resembling a power grid, let alone a nuclear power grid, then let a lone a working warhead.


Mere irritants and speed breakers sir. A country which is hell bent of going nuclear WILL go nuclear. Eventually. History is proof of that. Countries that started out with a lot less than what Iran has today. I believe the debate here is not IF but what happens WHEN.Oh really, tell me, how well did your thermonuke went? How about the Pakistani tests? How about the North Koreans. Oh yeah, they all included duds and in the case of both Pakistan and North Korea, they were all duds.

vsdoc
10 Nov 11,, 06:23
US has been very clear on Iran about nuclear weapon, they can not and will not get it

even if they have to bomb Iran back to pre-Islamic Persia

And what happens when thy DO go nuclear and threaten to bomb Israel to Pre-Moses Canaan if attacked? Will the US call their bluff that they cannot and will not dare to? I think not.

Officer of Engineers
10 Nov 11,, 06:24
The crux of all debates always on toothless (not to mention "clubby" discriminatory) NPT.It's a voluntary membership and therefore subject to membership rules. Iran can leave anytime. If not, then she is subject to membership enforcement.

Officer of Engineers
10 Nov 11,, 06:24
And what happens when thy DO go nuclear and threaten to bomb Israel to Pre-Moses Canaan if attacked? Will the US call their bluff that they cannot and will not dare to? I think not.You're seriously thinking that they can weaponized a nuke this fast? You're dreaming.

vsdoc
10 Nov 11,, 06:26
Turks were running the place by then.... seriously cut it out...

I thought that the native americans were always there from ancient times and not just when the Europeans came over. Am sorry but American history is not part of our Indian syllabii. Was just an analogy to get a point across with reference to the arrogance of "nation building" by a fledgling nation in comparative world history terms.

Officer of Engineers
10 Nov 11,, 06:31
The Horse was introduced by the Europeans to North America and hence, your statement is factually incorrect, just as your assumption on Iranian nuclear capabilities and suitabilities.

vsdoc
10 Nov 11,, 06:38
Why not. In the US's short time, she has conquered more territories, defeated more armies, and destroyed more cities than the entire Persian history combined and I'm including the Muguals.

We were talking defeats/century ratio sir. The Persians for all their prowess, could not fly. Yet.


Then you're missing the point that the proud Persian Empire never ve4ntured into South Asia, and not because they didn't want to.

Then that works great for me does it not? As an Indian I now have the best of both worlds. ;)


Whatever your feelings towards this. If the primary objective is to deny Iran a nuke, then whatever the outcome of a US military campaign, one thing is for sure, Iran would lack the ability to build a factory, let alone a nuke. The US might or might not be able to occupy Iran but Iran would be left nothing left resembling a power grid, let alone a nuclear power grid, then let a lone a working warhead.

So destroy from afar it will be. Never denied the US's ability to do that. What then? Will Israel survive that campaign? Will KSA? Maybe. Maybe not. Will the US have the world on its side? Probably not. Will Russia intervene? We don't know. Will China take over as the World economic power. Definitely yes. Will the American economy struggle back? Maybe. Eventually. So many questions sir. All for what? Control over the ME oilfields?

Concentrate on Alaska instead. Will be less painful in the long run.


Oh really, tell me, how well did your thermonuke went? How about the Pakistani tests? How about the North Koreans. Oh yeah, they all included duds and in the case of both Pakistan and North Korea, they were all duds.

You are the expert here on nukes, but does iran really need a thermonuke for either Israel or KSA?

S2
10 Nov 11,, 06:47
"Thanks man. We all know it all boils down to OIL. Always has. Always will..."

Indian Energy Usage (http://www.eia.gov/countries/cab.cfm?fips=IN)

Interesting. 23.7% of India's energy consumption is based on oil. That's 2.9m bbls/D (barrels per day). You produce 800,000 of such domestically and that production is flat despite growing demand. Nearly 70% of your oil imports (or about 1.47m bbls/D) come from the middle east with IRAN being second to KSA. So 11.8% of your overall energy needs are satisfied by mid-east oil...and it's growing to feed an insatiable economy and over 1 billion mouths.

America? Our net imports are about 9.4m bbls/D. 18% of that is mid-east oil of which 2/3rds comes from the KSA. All told we bring in about 1.7m bbls/D and that amount is decreasing steadily since 2005-

EIA American Foreign Oil Dependance (http://www.eia.gov/energy_in_brief/foreign_oil_dependence.cfm)

Soooo...your use goes up as we go down. Nevermind that, overall, half of our imports come from the western hemisphere with another 11% from Nigeria. Draw, therefore, two conclusions, please, 1.) We do not bear the same energy vulnerability to mideast instability that YOU do and, 2.) what respective vulnerabilities we may share are heading in diametrically opposite directions.

In short, we're talking far more about INDIAN oil than American oil. That's o.k. See, our direct interests aren't involved. However, our indirect interests decidedly are. We are a trading nation. To thrive we need viable partners with which to trade. Most, like India, aren't endowed with the mineral riches we possess or to which we have secure access.

To that end, we're willing to secure the sealanes so azzholes like you might make a living by trading with azzholes like us. You can't do it. You really wouldn't know where to start and, likely (if you did) would exploit such to narrow advantage at the expense of greater gain...or, in the parlance of the times "cut off your nose to spite your face".

So, yeah, numbskull. It's about oil. YOUR oil and (btw) everybody else's too. That way we all have a nice global trading system that's made this Goddamned world richer than its ever otherwise been. All since W.W.II, which coincides nicely with the rise of U.S. naval seapower as the ultimate arbiter of our sealanes.

Don't be needlessly stupid and start improving your discourse. Do so by avoiding references using Lyndon LaRouche lackeys. They're laughable. So, right now, are you.

troung
10 Nov 11,, 06:47
I thought that the native americans were always there from ancient times and not just when the Europeans came over. Am sorry but American history is not part of our Indian syllabii. Was just an analogy to get a point across with reference to the arrogance of "nation building" by a fledgling nation in comparative world history terms.

You had no idea what you were discussing. By the time the horse was in North America, Persia had been conquered by Turkic horde after Turkic horde. Doesn't mesh with the proud 5k years of empire. It is idiotic to even pull "past glories" when the place at issue hasn't been a military power since the 1740s, and before/since then has been in the gutter.


Even India has gone up against a tougher adversary multiple times and won.

A series of less then conclusive clashes (minus the East in 1971) with low death tolls on both dies involving F-86 sabers - been quick to back down over the last ten years - and a rout at the hands of the Chinese. Abdali or Babur iced more combatants on their romps through India then have died on both sides in all India-Pakistan wars combined. Pardon me if the rest of the world doesn't hold them up there with ODS. The US made Iraq look easy, they had a more combat capable air force then anything India ever faced - India in 1991 might have fought them to an inconclusive draw in a border clash; then Indians and Iraqis over the internet would have debated who took more square feet.

vsdoc
10 Nov 11,, 06:57
"Thanks man. We all know it all boils down to OIL. Always has. Always will..."

Indian Energy Usage (http://www.eia.gov/countries/cab.cfm?fips=IN)

Interesting. 23.7% of India's energy consumption is based on oil. That's 2.9m bbls/D (barrels per day). You produce 800,000 of such domestically and that production is flat despite growing demand. Nearly 70% of your oil imports (or about 1.47m bbls/D) come from the middle east with IRAN being second to KSA. So 11.8% of your overall energy needs are satisfied by mid-east oil...and it's growing to feed an insatiable economy and over 1 billion mouths.

America? Our net imports are about 9.4m bbls/D. 18% of that is mid-east oil of which 2/3rds comes from the KSA. All told we bring in about 1.7m bbls/D and that amount is decreasing steadily since 2005-

EIA American Foreign Oil Dependance (http://www.eia.gov/energy_in_brief/foreign_oil_dependence.cfm)

Soooo...your use goes up as we go down. Nevermind that, overall, half of our imports come from the western hemisphere with another 11% from Nigeria. Draw, therefore, two conclusions, please, 1.) We do not bear the same energy vulnerability to mideast instability that YOU do and, 2.) what respective vulnerabilities we may share are heading in diametrically opposite directions.

In short, we're talking far more about INDIAN oil than American oil. That's o.k. See, our direct interests aren't involved. However, our indirect interests decidedly are. We are a trading nation. To thrive we need viable partners with which to trade. Most, like India, aren't endowed with the mineral riches we possess or to which we have secure access.

To that end, we're willing to secure the sealanes so azzholes like you might make a living by trading with azzholes like us. You can't do it. You really wouldn't know where to start and, likely (if you did) would exploit such to narrow advantage at the expense of greater gain...or, in the parlance of the times "cut off your nose to spite your face".

So, yeah, numbskull. It's about oil. YOUR oil and (btw) everybody else's too. That way we all have a nice global trading system that's made this Goddamned world richer than its ever otherwise been. All since W.W.II, which coincides nicely with the rise of U.S. naval seapower as the ultimate arbiter of our sealanes.

Don't be needlessly stupid and start improving your discourse. Do so by avoiding references using Lyndon LaRouche lackeys. They're laughable. So, right now, are you.

The only person laughable right now is you for trying to force feed me and us here the same crap that your government, and the ones before it, have been insidiously force-feeding your public for generations to assuage public qualms of morals and conscience amongst the lay public at raping another's home and hearth for profit.

You are doing this for us? For the world? Please give us a break. India and Iran have no issues with each other. never have had. India and KSA have no issues with each other. Never have had. We will get our oil and pay for it in a way of our choosing thank you very much. The US hoards its untapped reserves and bleeds the ME dry till it lasts as an instrument of global control.

There is nothing remotely altruistic about it so please get off your soapbox, cause I'm getting a crick in my neck, and a pain in my rear.

S2
10 Nov 11,, 07:11
"...Will China take over as the World economic power. Definitely yes...."

Really? There it is, the mideast in smoking ruins. Oil at a standstill. Burning tankers littering the ol' gulf like a metal jigsaw puzzle and CHINA is going to take over as the world economic power?

19% of China's energy comes from oil. China consumes 9.2m bbls/D of which more than 50%, 4.8m bbls/D, is imported. 2.2m bbls/D comes from the smoking hole called the mideast that's just been devastated in cataclysmic war. Their own domestic production peaks next year and then flattens.

Now...they COULD go on the warpath to seek out replacement for that energy loss. Where to go? Russia? Won't that be interesting?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIMH50X0F-4

Get my drift? Their options will be limited and their global markets, like America's (and your's), drying up without somebody unscrewing the mideast ASAP.

My guess is that it'll be Chinese humvees full of petroleum engineers getting their azzes blown to kingdom come by Iranian IEDs while they try a little "nation-building" of their own.

Even if you're right, being the top dog in a global slum is virtue to trumpet.

S2
10 Nov 11,, 07:16
"...The only person laughable right now is you for trying to force feed me and us here the same crap that your government, and the ones before it, have been insidiously force-feeding your public for generations..."

I offer statistics from the most trusted and respected energy information site in the world and you offer...Lyndon LaRoche.:rolleyes:

Trust that I could NEVER in a thousand years portray you to be the complete ignoramus you've proven by your own mindless stupidity in a few short posts.

zraver
10 Nov 11,, 07:18
Sir you are talking about a proud race that is more than 5000 years old. A time period like that will have military victories and defeats. Centuries of existence to defeat ratio wise would you like to debate and compare America's score versus that of Persia/Iran? :) I think not.

Sure lets have that debate, when Persia occupied a pole position what other polar powers did she completely defeat? The answer is one- the Neo-Babylonians. After that the Persian Empire in what ever incarnation never defeated a major rival power. They won some battles, but the Persian Empire never regained the breadth of its power which peaked at Thermopylea. After the sack of Athens, Persia never sacked another capitol. But had its own capitol sacked at least 5 times by the time the Mongols were done.

Persian military history is decidely unispiring... it seems when ever they ran into a more martial power they lost. After Cyrus the hieght of power is the Mughals a persian/mongol hybrid that overran much of India. However while this semi-mongol force was over running the subcontient. However the real persians were loosing thier asses to the Ottomans and were beign forced to give itty bitty powers like Holland tradign rights in the Persian Gulf. At almost the same time as the last Mughal Emperor was exiled by the British, the British also set what is now the international border between Russia and Iran and Iran and Afghanistan...

Hrmmm... did England ever impose borders on the US? The answer is no, they conceded borders to the US 3 times... In the two shooting wars between the US ad UK, the UK flat out lost the first one, and in the second the veteran pennisular troops who gave the French fits in Spain were unable to overcome us weak bellied Americans... The British tried to take 4 major American cities- they got one (D.C.) which was undefended.....


Iran is not remotely close to what you faced in Iraq and Afghanistan. This "stomach is there or not" back and forth is sounding vaguely familiar to the old argument we had about whether the US would have gone ahead with the Japanese invasion or not.

Your right, Iran is weaker than Afghanistan when it comes to stomach, and weaker now, than Iraq was in hardware in 1991....


Mere irritants and speed breakers sir. A country which is hell bent of going nuclear WILL go nuclear. Eventually. History is proof of that. Countries that started out with a lot less than what Iran has today. I believe the debate here is not IF but what happens WHEN.

Tell that to South Africa, Argentina, Taiwan, South Korea, Brazil, Lybia, Iraq, Syria, Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan.... Al had and gave up nuclear weapons programs for various reasons from alliances to direct military action. Since North Korea is not a confirmed NWS after 2 duds that "might" have been nuclear I'll put them into the maybe catagory. So of the 19 countries with known nuclear weapon ambitions 10 gave them up, 1 is a maybe and 8 have nukes...

vsdoc
10 Nov 11,, 07:28
"...Will China take over as the World economic power. Definitely yes...."

Really? There it is, the mideast in smoking ruins. Oil at a standstill. Burning tankers littering the ol' gulf like a metal jigsaw puzzle and CHINA is going to take over as the world economic power?

19% of China's energy comes from oil. China consumes 9.2m bbls/D of which more than 50%, 4.8m bbls/D, is imported. 2.2m bbls/D comes from the smoking hole called the mideast that's just been devastated in cataclysmic war. Their own domestic production peaks next year and then flattens.

Now...they COULD go on the warpath to seek out replacement for that energy loss. Where to go? Russia? Won't that be interesting?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIMH50X0F-4

Get my drift? Their options will be limited and their global markets, like America's (and your's), drying up without somebody unscrewing the mideast ASAP.

My guess is that it'll be Chinese humvees full of petroleum engineers getting their azzes blown to kingdom come by Iranian IEDs while they try a little "nation-building" of their own.

Even if you're right, being the top dog in a global slum is virtue to trumpet.

Implications for U.S.-China relations


Although China is banking on oil development projects outside the Middle East, Beijing most likely will insist on nurturing its relations with the main oil-producing states in that region as an insurance policy. But its attempts to gain a foothold in the Middle East and build up a long-term strategic links with countries hostile to the U.S. could also bear heavily on U.S.-China relations. Especially troubling are China's arms sales to the region, its support of state sponsors of terrorism and its proliferation of dual use technology.

A report by the U.S.-China Security Review Commission, a group created by Congress, warned that China's increasing need for imported energy has given it an incentive to become closer to countries supporting terrorism like Iran, Iraq and Sudan. China is the number one oil and gas importer from Iran. The two countries are bound by energy deals reaching a total value of $120 billion and growing. While the U.S. and EU were forging a diplomatic strategy to halt Iran’s nuclear program, China signed in October 2004 its largest energy deal with Iran ever and promised to block any American attempt to refer Iran’s nuclear program to the UN Security Council. This may indicate not only that China is interested in a militarily strong, even nuclear Iran that dominates the Gulf but also that for China, energy security considerations trump international cooperation on critical global security issues.

China also provides conventional weapons that could threaten U.S. military forces securing the Persian Gulf. Of particular concern are China's sales to Iran of anti-ship cruise missiles, which pose a threat to oil tanker traffic and American naval vessels operating there. This arms trafficking presents an increasing threat to U.S. global security interests, particularly in the Middle East and Asia.

A key component of China's strategy to guarantee access to Persian Gulf oil is the special relations it has cultivated with Saudi Arabia. The ties with Riyadh go back to the mid-1980s when China sold Saudi Arabia intermediate range ballistic missiles. Since then, the relations have grown closer. High-level visits of Chinese leaders to Saudi Arabia culminated in 1999 with President Jiang Zemin's state visit in which he pronounced a "strategic oil partnership" between the two countries. China has offered to sell the Saudis intercontinental ballistic missiles. The Saudis have so far preferred to turn down many of the proposals and limit their procurement from China in order to maintain their special relations with the U.S. But continuous deterioration in Saudi-American relations or, in the longer run, a regime change in the oil kingdom, could drive the Saudis to end their reliance on the U.S. as the sole guarantor of their regime's security and offer China an expanded role.

Outside of the Middle East, China’s pursuit of oil could undercut U.S. security interests on multiple fronts: In the South China Sea, China is involved in territorial disputes with Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan, Vietnam and Brunei over access to energy in the Spratly and Paracel Islands. In the East China Sea, where rich oil and gas reserves are believed to exist, rivalry is developing between China and Japan over access to energy resources. China has already begun the exploring process for gas reserves on its side of the East China Sea. The Japanese government claims that some of the reserves are actually on its side of the demarcation line and has accused China of attempting to extract hydrocarbons from its water. It also allowed its own oil firms to drill in the disputed territories—a move considered a provocation by China. Another source of tension is access to Russian oil. For many months, China and Japan have been involved in a bidding war over a major pipeline deal to deliver Russian oil from Eastern Siberia. China’s plan calls for a pipeline running to the Manchurian city of Daqing, while Japan is insisting on a pipeline that would run to Nakhodka, the Russian coastal area opposite to Japan. This tense atmosphere is feeding popular and political animosity, which have already resulted in a wave of violent anti-Japanese demonstrations in April 2005, and are likely to deepen over time. In Africa Chinese oil companies turn a blind eye to the way petrodollars are used by the local governments. One place where such indifference impacts America’s effort to fight against corruption and human rights abuse is Sudan. The Chinese have invested more than $8 billion in joint exploration contracts in this country, including the building of a 900-mile pipeline to the Red Sea, deployed thousands of military personnel disguised as oil workers and provided arms to the Sudanese government to support it in the country's 20-year civil war. In September 2004, the United Nations Security Council passed resolution 1564, threatening Sudan with oil sanctions unless it curbed its support for belligerent militia groups in Darfur. To protect its oil interests in Sudan, which supplies seven percent of China’s oil imports, Beijing stated very clearly that it would veto any bid to impose such sanctions. In the Western Hemisphere China concluded oil and gas deals with Argentina, Brazil, Peru, and Ecuador. But its main country of interest is Venezuela, U.S.' fourth largest oil supplier. A series of oil agreements signed in early 2005 allow Chinese companies to explore for oil and gas and set up refineries in Venezuela. Chinese state-owned oil companies have also begun seeking ambitious oil deals in Canada, the top petroleum supplier to the U.S. China’s continued penetration into the Western Hemisphere could have profound economic and political implications for the U.S. Considering the fact that both U.S.’ and Mexico’s domestic crude production are falling, the U.S. cannot afford to lose chunks of the crude produced by the two countries that together supply a third of its oil imports. With less oil available to the American market the U.S. will be forced to seek this oil elsewhere, primarily in the Middle East, hence becoming more dependnet on this tumultuous region.

S2
10 Nov 11,, 07:34
"...You are doing this for us...?"

India? No. Us. America.

"...For the world...?"

Yup. It's what makes you a fat-cat doctor-people with enough money to pay their medical insurance premiums. That money, be it ducats, deutsche-marks, rupees, yen, English pounds, dollars, pesos, etc. comes from a small trading mechanism called comparative advantage coupled to freely-travelled and unhindered global trade.

"...Please give us a break..."

You, personally, are undeserving. You're a numbskull.

"...India and Iran have no issues with each other. never have had..."

Irrelevant.

"... India and KSA have no issues with each other. Never have had...".

Also irrelevant. Trust, however, that KSA and Iran have major issues with one another and India needs both but can side, should it come to that, with only one. You may not like their choice because I doubt your government will be cozying up with the persian kitty.

"...We will get our oil and pay for it in a way of our choosing thank you very much..."

Not if the mideast is a smoking hole.

"...The US hoards its untapped reserves and bleeds the ME dry till it lasts as an instrument of global control..."

More mindless stupidity. Oil, ALL oil is priced and sold as the market bears. Both present and futures are part of a global energy trading pool. Only numbskulls that have no conception stretching beyond myopic nationalism (YOU) are absent that rather salient fact.

You're personally a product of a win-lose mentality and clearly can't imagine how win-win scenarios are constructed. That may explain why you can't see so-called American altruism for how it serves all of us. That's understandable if, also, regrettable.

My advice to you is read more and write less. Your quite limited brain cells are leaking through your fingers all over that keyboard. It's a mess. Consider such with each stoke made, please?

This public service health message is brought to you by a citizen of your friendly U.S. global hyper-power.;)

vsdoc
10 Nov 11,, 07:36
So of the 19 countries with known nuclear weapon ambitions 10 gave them up, 1 is a maybe and 8 have nukes...

I am not as interested in those that gave up against those that did not. And what the world did or could do to those. And why those that did not, chose not to. I believe all the boxes are ticked for Iran to join up. Your country may soon have to put its forces in harms way. Again. Or back down. As it has before. So we'll see what happens, but it is purely my opinion that you will back down. And if you do, so will Israel. And that of course includes near bankrupt NATO.

zraver
10 Nov 11,, 07:36
Do me a favor please... compare the size of the warhead in the Kosawar missile and the silk worm... Then look up how many tankers Iran actually managed to sink during the tanker war. Now ask yourself how a missile with a much smaller warhead against ships that are now twice as strong is going to sink tankers? Super tankers are damnably hard to sink.

zraver
10 Nov 11,, 07:40
I am not as interested in those that gave up against those that did not. And what the world did or could do to those. And why those that did not, chose not to. I believe all the boxes are ticked for Iran to join up. Your country may soon have to put its forces in harms way. Again. Or back down. As it has before. So we'll see what happens, but it is purely my opinion that you will back down. And if you do, so will Israel. And that of course includes near bankrupt NATO.

You claimed a coutnry hell bent on going nuclear would... I simply showed your claim wasn't even half right which means your still batting close to 1000 here on WAB. What boxes are ticked BTW? We still don'0t know how much damage stunext did, depending on when it was inserted vs when it was detected the entire or a major portion of the LEU stockpile of Iran was ruined and needs reporicessing. Ans thats only one of many dirty tricks the US has or can play...

S2
10 Nov 11,, 07:48
Can you offer a link, please?

Short of it being to a LaRoche website most of us find such to be helpful.

vsdoc
10 Nov 11,, 07:58
India? No. Us. America.

Then get off your soapbox and acknowledge what the world (and Americans more widely traveled) sees you for.


Yup. It's what makes you a fat-cat doctor-people with enough money to pay their medical insurance premiums. That money, be it ducats, deutsche-marks, rupees, yen, English pounds, dollars, pesos, etc. comes from a small trading mechanism called comparative advantage coupled to freely-travelled and unhindered global trade.

I'm not remotely a fat cat man. I hope that's not the reason for some of your insecurities. The point is, global trade has to be win-win. Not rape-win.


You, personally, are undeserving. You're a numbskull.

I can but plead. But I am resilient in the face of cultural arrogance and subliminally mass programmed myopia.


Irrelevant.

Relevant for us. And a irritant of increasing proportions for you as is evident by your President's increasingly poorly disguised rising levels of frustration.


Also irrelevant. Trust, however, that KSA and Iran have major issues with one another and India needs both but can side, should it come to that, with only one. You may not like their choice because I doubt your government will be cozying up with the persian kitty.

Also very relevant for us. We have managed keeping both the Persian kitty and the Arab camel pretty happy thus far. Trust its not making you enormously pleased.


Not if the mideast is a smoking hole.

The smoking hole includes Israel. And half the world's oil. Trust you are not as stupid as you are trying to make yourself out to be with this impotent repeated threat innuendo. Dear cowboy, time to lasso your steer and have some coffee.


More mindless stupidity. Oil, ALL oil is priced and sold as the market bears. Both present and futures are part of a global energy trading pool. Only numbskulls that have no conception stretching beyond myopic nationalism (YOU) are absent that rather salient fact.

And you want to control that trading pool. And Iran says fcuk you. I can understand (my most sympathetic face smiley to be inserted here).


You're personally a product of a win-lose mentality and clearly can't imagine how win-win scenarios are constructed. That may explain why you can't see so-called American altruism for how it serves all of us. That's understandable if, also, regrettable.

You sir are a product of a mentality that believes in taking what you want, and trying to convince the person you are taking from that it is actually good for him.


My advice to you is read more and write less. Your quite limited brain cells are leaking through your fingers all over that keyboard. It's a mess. Consider such with each stoke made, please?

This public service health message is brought to you by a citizen of your friendly U.S. global hyper-power.;)

I am not wasting my advice on you. Your nation is learning and evolving. So will you. Eventually. Darwin waits expectantly in his grave for that. :)

vsdoc
10 Nov 11,, 08:01
Can you offer a link, please?

Short of it being to a LaRoche website most of us find such to be helpful.

Sorry ....

Fueling the dragon: China's race into the oil market, by Gal Luft (http://www.iags.org/china.htm)

vsdoc
10 Nov 11,, 08:19
You claimed a coutnry hell bent on going nuclear would... I simply showed your claim wasn't even half right which means your still batting close to 1000 here on WAB. What boxes are ticked BTW? We still don'0t know how much damage stunext did, depending on when it was inserted vs when it was detected the entire or a major portion of the LEU stockpile of Iran was ruined and needs reporicessing. Ans thats only one of many dirty tricks the US has or can play...

There is a difference between going nuclear and then going back (for whatever reason). You gave examples of countries moving / being moved back. I am speaking of those that did not. The reasons they went nuclear and the reasons they did not and the action the world was willing to take against them and the reasons the world did not. All these are the boxes Iran ticks.

It needs the nuclear bomb as a defense against both the US and Israel.

Once it achieves the bomb, short of Israel coming out in the open and de-nuking completely, and the US moving out of the region for good, Iran will not move back.

The above still leaves Iran with less than friendly nuclear neighbor/regional basket-case/global terror haven Pakistan. Ditto the above as far as Israel is concerned once again. Or the US de-nuke Pakistan before moving out of the region for good. Whichever comes first.

Can the world do anything about it once Iran goes nuclear? Not likely. There will ZERO consensus amongst even the major powers about the need for military action. Likely China will not go along. Neither will India. NATO will play follow the leader with increasingly empty Euro coffers. And Israel and KSA will be in danger of imminent nuclear destructio4n.

And that's all before Russia decides enough is enough and wonders why nobody invited it to the party.

The US sanction or no sanction has a sagging economy to take care of back home. Unemployment. Industry de-growing. And countries rapidly stealing a march on it. Time and place ripe for some good old fashioned Cowboy Spring!

And 20 years on the US becomes Iran's closest ally with 123 Part II and hopes of selling the Imperial Iranian Airforce a bunch of F-by then-56s.

But the Iranians politely refuse and prefer to buy the Indian Tejas Mk IV instead. On full TOT of course. No strings (oil, gas, or otherwise) attached.

S2
10 Nov 11,, 08:35
"Then get off your soapbox and acknowledge what the world (and Americans more widely traveled) sees you for..."

I was born in Taipai. I've lived in Europe and travelled Europe, Asia and Central America. Few Americans are more widely-travelled. "...the world...", btw, is rather too large for you to resort to absolutisms. Your POV is narrowly-myopic and replete with standard anti-American vitriol-much coming from sources too-often laughably inept.

As such, you bear little credibility as a dispassionate and learned observer.

"...I'm not remotely a fat cat man. I hope that's not the reason for some of your insecurities. The point is, global trade has to be win-win. Not rape-win..."

Tacky. Further, global trade has already proven a win-win. The net worth of this planet is exponentially rising and has never been greater per capita. Both India and China are beneficiaries of the exact system of trade fostered, foremost, by the one nation against which you rail.

"...I can but plead. But I am resilient in the face of cultural arrogance and subliminally mass programmed myopia..."

Continue leaning upon rejected outliers like the Executive Intelligence Review for your perspective and your own ignorance will transcend culture.

"...Relevant for us. And a irritant of increasing proportions for you as is evident by your President's increasingly poorly disguised rising levels of frustration..."

I rather doubt he confides in you. Your bedside manner lacks nuance.

"...Also very relevant for us. We have managed keeping both the Persian kitty and the Arab camel pretty happy thus far. Trust its not making you enormously pleased..."

We don't care. Moreover, neither of them care so long as your energy cheques don't bounce.

"...The smoking hole includes Israel. And half the world's oil. Trust you are not as stupid as you are trying to make yourself out to be with this impotent repeated threat innuendo. Dear cowboy, time to lasso your steer and have some coffee..."

I drink virtually nothing BUT coffee...unlike you. It was you whom suggested a mideast at war-

"So destroy from afar it will be. Never denied the US's ability to do that. What then? Will Israel survive that campaign? Will KSA? Maybe. Maybe not. Will the US have the world on its side? Probably not. Will Russia intervene? We don't know. Will China take over as the World economic power. Definitely yes. Will the American economy struggle back? Maybe. Eventually. So many questions sir. All for what? Control over the ME oilfields?"

Your words. Not mine. I'm on record as suggesting such is near impossible.

"...And you want to control that trading pool. And Iran says fcuk you. I can understand (my most sympathetic face smiley to be inserted here)..."

Fool. We wish to ensure equal access to those resources by any whom can pay what the market bears. Have you learned NOTHING? My nation's livelihood exists on the ability to trade with anybody and everybody-large or small. Lest you have forgotten, oil is the lifeblood of nations far beyond simply India or America-many of whom rely upon unfettered access and free trade. Your Iranian friends would very much like to see that changed.

Perhaps you too.

"...You sir are a product of a mentality that believes in taking what you want, and trying to convince the person you are taking from that it is actually good for him..."

Perhaps. I actually am a product of a mentality that believes economic competition is healthy. I practice such daily by manufacturing the world's finest fishing blanks and competing globally for market-share. No free-ride and plenty of competitors. I want that market-share and I'll take it by convincing my customers their interest and mine coincide beautifully. To that end, surrendering their money to me in exchange for surrendering my beautifully-crafted fishing blanks is a win-win scenario absent any subterfuge.

Ask any of my American peers where they might take umbrage with that view. While you're at it, ask any of your Japanese, Korean, German, British, French or Russian friends the same.

It's how we roll.

"...I am not wasting my advice on you. Your nation is learning and evolving. So will you. Eventually. Darwin waits expectantly in his grave for that..."

I see you imply your nation as having learned and evolved. Those not busy living are busy dying.

vsdoc
10 Nov 11,, 09:11
I was born in Taipai. I've lived in Europe and travelled Europe, Asia and Central America. Few Americans are more widely-travelled. "...the world...", btw, is rather too large for you to resort to absolutisms. Your POV is narrowly-myopic and replete with standard anti-American vitriol-much coming from sources too-often laughably inept.

Then I am genuinely surprised. That you really believe that the Iraqis thank you for what you have done to their country. As do the Afghans. As do the Vietnamese. As do the Japanese. Nation building American style is only appreciated by those Americans who have never left their shores, have little contact with people from other nations and cultures, and rely on government and government controlled media and educational sources for their version of world view ensconced within their own society.

I have met and interacted with many Americans both here as well as in your own country and there is a grudging and growing realization that you guys are going too far. And that it is not appreciated by even those not directly affected and resented universally by those you claim to be wanting to help.


As such, you bear little credibility as a dispassionate and learned observer.

Till recently I believed you qualified as well.


Tacky. Further, global trade has already proven a win-win. The net worth of this planet is exponentially rising and has never been greater per capita. Both India and China are beneficiaries of the exact system of trade fostered, foremost, by the one nation against which you rail.

What's tacky is you not being able to carry an argument forward without resorting to name calling. Do you see me doing that? Try it. It increases your credibility in the eyes of others. Even if you still continue re-hashing what your government wants you to believe as it taxes you to pay for the rape of yet another nation state.

As far as China and India are concerned, they are closing the gap rapidly while you seem to be stagnating if not moving backwards. Maybe your system works better for other than it does for you. Or maybe the others are doing something right which you could learn from. Or maybe they are not doing something which you are.


I rather doubt he confides in you. Your bedside manner lacks nuance.

He does not need to. He would suck as a poker player.


We don't care. Moreover, neither of them care so long as your energy cheques don't bounce.

We don't care if you care, seeing as its not your oil we're buying. Was merely replying to your naive assumption about the Indian government having to choose sides. Indians have forgotten more about politics over the past 5000 years than your collective national political acumen I suspect.


I'm on record as suggesting such is near impossible.

So am I. That's how I entered this debate. Its the bravado and reasons thrown for that impossibility that have kept me here.


Fool.

Tacky


We wish to ensure equal access to those resources by any whom can pay what the market bears.

Market? Oil companies? Cartels? Controlled by who? Lines of ownership tracing back where? You control who buys how much from whom for how much in return for what, while making trillions, and bleeding the camel dry before opening your own well preserved box of chocolates for the chosen (and bonded) few. Regime change. Nation building. WMD. So transparent, its frankly embarrassing hearing your hackneyed defense.


I see you imply your nation as having learned and evolved. Those not busy living are busy dying.

Not at all. We have a weak and corrupt leadership and have made our share of mistakes. Supporting the US "nation building" agenda and toeing the US line like so many richer and more developed countries has thankfully not been one of them.

physicsmonk
10 Nov 11,, 09:15
Apart from your reflexive anti US stance, what exactly are you trying to argue? Sure India and US were in opposite camps during cold war, both have moved on now.

btw, if Iran really decides to go nuclear, Indian establishment will definitely NOT take it kindly, despite protestations to the contrary for public consumption.
India's vote against Iran at IAEA is an example.

Dante
10 Nov 11,, 10:12
"...And you want to control that trading pool. And Iran says fcuk you. I can understand (my most sympathetic face smiley to be inserted here)..."

Fool. We wish to ensure equal access to those resources by any whom can pay what the market bears. Have you learned NOTHING? My nation's livelihood exists on the ability to trade with anybody and everybody-large or small. Lest you have forgotten, oil is the lifeblood of nations far beyond simply India or America-many of whom rely upon unfettered access and free trade. Your Iranian friends would very much like to see that changed

Perhaps you too.




You wish to ensure acces to those resources (equal ? i think not) beacaue the American preffered tool of influence is wealth :) The ME oil might not be needed directly that much in the USA, but is sure is needed for different trade partners, ensuring common trade and wealth (and influence, in doing so). Vsodc is not wrong when he says you want to control as much as posible of that trading pool (granting acces to it is also a form of control) Is that a bad thing? For us no, not by a long shot. Is it better for Iran to control as much as they can, from a nuclear regional power point of view? Sure it's not.


The debate was about a posible American atack and the posible ramifications..and it boders me that thsi fight for influence is presented as something else, bee it "nation building", "democratic bla bla" and so on.

Doktor
10 Nov 11,, 10:24
Dante,

If it happens I think it will be properly labeled "Denying nuclear arms to Iran".

Followed by media coverage how they broke NPT and everything that comes with it.

To be perfectly clear, IMHO, if there is a chance for them to acquire nuclear weapons, they should be denied. The sooner the better.

The way it is now it will be by force. Especially after what happened to Duffy when he gave up developing WMD voluntarily.

All this talk about controlling Iran etc, etc... Should have been done during Carter :biggrin:

paintgun
10 Nov 11,, 10:55
And what happens when thy DO go nuclear and threaten to bomb Israel to Pre-Moses Canaan if attacked? Will the US call their bluff that they cannot and will not dare to? I think not.

vsdoc, i don't throw out witty replies just for the sake of sounding witty
certainly not on WAB

Iran will not have nukes, and they are one step away from being reduced to rubbles if they insist on it
read the IAEA report, how it changed from the previous, the next IAEA report on Iran nukes will be the license to kill it

your insistence of Iran prevailing against US/Israel effort to isolate it has shown your biased negative view of US influence, of Pakistan, of Iran itself

perhaps you have a somewhat grandiose view of your country and a disdain of US influence in ME, Iran buying Tejas mkIV? hmm... i must say this is the first time i heard of such thing :redface:

this thread has degrade in a rather distasteful way

vsdoc
10 Nov 11,, 11:23
vsdoc, i don't throw out witty replies just for the sake of sounding witty
certainly not on WAB

Iran will not have nukes, and they are one step away from being reduced to rubbles if they insist on it
read the IAEA report, how it changed from the previous, the next IAEA report on Iran nukes will be the license to kill it

your insistence of Iran prevailing against US/Israel effort to isolate it has shown your biased negative view of US influence, of Pakistan, of Iran itself

perhaps you have a somewhat grandiose view of your country and a disdain of US influence in ME, Iran buying Tejas mkIV? hmm... i must say this is the first time i heard of such thing :redface:

this thread has degrade in a rather distasteful way

Do you have a point I can respond to? Can't see one so just asking.

Officer of Engineers
10 Nov 11,, 11:35
We were talking defeats/century ratio sir. The Persians for all their prowess, could not fly. Yet.Fine. The US, in their short history, dominated and defeated ancient powers far older than they. Spain, Germany (twice), China (Boxer Rebellion), Japan, the British Empire, Russia, the Barbary Pirates, etc.


Then that works great for me does it not? As an Indian I now have the best of both worlds. ;) It goes against your assertion that Iran cannot be easily stomped. They were.


So destroy from afar it will be. Never denied the US's ability to do that. What then? Will Israel survive that campaign? Will KSA? Maybe. Maybe not. Will the US have the world on its side? Probably not. Will Russia intervene? We don't know. Will China take over as the World economic power. Definitely yes. Will the American economy struggle back? Maybe. Eventually. So many questions sir. All for what? Control over the ME oilfields?Control what? The primary objective is the destruction of Iranian nuclear capabilities. There is no need to conquer Iran. There is only need to destroy Iranian nuclear capabilities and that means destroying Iran as a modern country. By the time the USAF and the USN are finished, Iran would not be able to make a flashlight, let alone a nuke. Not once in this entire scenario is it suggested that Iran needs to be conquer.

But there are consequences to such a scenario. How do you prevent 70 million refugees from swamping their neighbours?


Concentrate on Alaska instead. Will be less painful in the long run.Canada and Mexico can certainly replace Iranian oil.


You are the expert here on nukes, but does iran really need a thermonuke for either Israel or KSA?That's not the question. The question is can Iran afford a dud on her first try?

vsdoc
10 Nov 11,, 11:43
But there are consequences to such a scenario. How do you prevent 70 million refugees from swamping their neighbours?

Also, how do you prevent Israel and KSA along with US forces on bases in surrounding countries taking unacceptable casualties from Iranian missiles? I just read a paper that says that given the number of Iranian missiles, the Israeli anti-missile defenses would be swamped.


That's not the question. The question is can Iran afford a dud on her first try?

Good question as always sir. But does their first try have to be a thermonuke? India (and Pakistan?) did not start with thermonukes straight away. For the distances involved, their current missile tech, and the size of the obvious intended targets, wouldn't plain vanilla more than suffice?

Officer of Engineers
10 Nov 11,, 11:47
I am not as interested in those that gave up against those that did not. And what the world did or could do to those. And why those that did not, chose not to. I believe all the boxes are ticked for Iran to join up. Your country may soon have to put its forces in harms way. Again. Or back down. As it has before. So we'll see what happens, but it is purely my opinion that you will back down. And if you do, so will Israel. And that of course includes near bankrupt NATO.No, NOT all the boxes are ticked. At this point, without a test, the Iranians have no clue which of their data is correct and which is not. AQ Khan sold Iran duds, except the CICH-4 warhead but the Iranians have no rockets that would fit that monster.

The only bombs the Iranians are currently capable of making must be delivered by 747s or other equally large aircrafts which makes them extremely vulnerable to interception which is not what they want. They want a warhead that can fit into their rockets and that, they have years to go before they can test, and decades without a test.

Officer of Engineers
10 Nov 11,, 11:57
Also, how do you prevent Israel and KSA along with US forces on bases in surrounding countries taking unacceptable casualties from Iranian missiles? What unacceptable casualties? At best, the Iranians have a 1000 rockets and some/most are not accurate at all. They'll hit dessert more than they hit cities and most certainly would not hit the city block they aim for.

Ask yourself this, what happens after Iran spent her arsenal? As a comparison, on the first day of the Kuwait War, the US launched 2000 sorties. On the opening shot of the Iraq War, Baghdad alone was tasked with 750 cruise missiles alone.

Iran has a terror arsenal, not a warfighting one. If the Iranians concentrated all their missiles on one US base in Iraq, then perhaps they can shut it down. As for inflicting unacceptable casualties? Not going to happen.


Good question as always sir. But does their first try have to be a thermonuke? India (and Pakistan?) did not start with thermonukes straight away. For the distances involved, their current missile tech, and the size of the obvious intended targets, wouldn't plain vanilla more than suffice?I was not referring to a thermonuke and the plane vanilla nuke, the gun type, the Iranians already have and don't need to test. The first test of a gun type nuke was Hiroshima herself.

What the Iranians would like is a warhead that can fit inside their rockets and that is a far harder, much more difficult design. The Pakistanis don't have thermonukes and even with Chinese guidance and expertise on uranium designs, they still managed duds on their first try. Your confidence that the Iranians could achieve where India, China, the US, France, the UK, the USSR, Pakistan, and North Korea could not is misplaced to say the least.

1979
10 Nov 11,, 12:25
read the IAEA report, how it changed from the previous


It's basiclly the same report, with a historical overview included ?

vsdoc
10 Nov 11,, 12:53
Iran's Ballistic Missile Program
Updated April 2010

In February 2009, Iran elevated itself to an exclusive group of nations by launching its first satellite, the Omid, into low earth orbit. It did so by means of its own liquid-fuel, two-stage space rocket. U.S. officials admitted "grave concern" over the achievement and cautioned that the capabilities necessary for the space launch could be applied toward developing long-range ballistic missiles. Just ten months later, Iran again demonstrated how rapidly its rocketry had progressed by test-firing an advanced version of the Sejil-2, Iran’s mobile two-stage, solid-fuel, surface-to-surface ballistic missile. The missile’s range (2,000-2,500 km) brings within reach Israel and other countries in the Middle East, southern Russia, and southern Europe.

The space launch and missile test showed that Iranian engineers have now mastered staging -- a challenging technology necessary for developing longer-range missiles. The Sejil-2's use of solid fuel also demonstrates an advance that contributes to greater mobility and shorter launch times.

Iran's rapid growth in missile prowess has led to increased concern about the country’s intentions. According to Israeli engineer Uzi Rubin, (see interview with Iran Watch) Iran could be building a fleet of long-range missiles that, armed with conventional warheads, might serve a "saturation" strategy. A salvo of such conventionally-armed missiles against an Israeli city, for example, could substitute for Iran's skeletal air force. Given that many of Iran’s ballistic missiles are inherently capable of carrying nuclear payloads, Iran may also be developing a long-range nuclear weapon delivery system. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is investigating evidence that Iran may have begun re-designing a missile re-entry vehicle in order to accommodate a nuclear warhead.

So, while the world ponders Iran's interest in obtaining weapon-grade nuclear material, Iran has also been building a fleet of missiles capable of delivering nuclear warheads. This essay traces the history of Iran's missile effort, explains where Iran managed to find foreign help, and reviews efforts to hinder Iran's missile progress.

LIQUID FUEL TECHNOLOGY

BM-25
In November 2007, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced that North Korea had sold Iran a missile with a range of 2,500 kilometers. This appeared to confirm earlier press reports that Iran had acquired the BM-25, a modified version of the Soviet SS-N-6, which is a single-stage, liquid-fueled, submarine-launched ballistic missile with a range of 2,400 to 3,000 km and the ability to carry a nuclear warhead.

Space Launch Vehicle
In October 2005, Russia launched Iran's first satellite, the Sina-1, on a Russian rocket. From that point, Iran began to pursue the technology needed to launch a satellite into space on its own. February 2008 saw the inauguration of an Iranian space center in Semnan Province, marked by the test launch of Iran's Kavoshgar 1 research rocket. Iran's first space launch vehicle, the Safir, failed during an August 2008 flight test, but the following February, Iran demonstrated how rapidly it was progressing by successfully launching a two-stage space rocket, the Safir-2, and placing Iran’s first domestically-built satellite, Omid, into low earth orbit. According to news reports, the Safir-2 is a 22-meter-long, liquid-fueled rocket with a diameter of about 1.25 meters, which is sufficient to accommodate a nuclear warhead.

As a result of the launch, international concern over Iran’s ballistic missile program increased exponentially. According to the findings of a joint assessment by U.S. and Russian technical experts, the successful launch showed that Iran “can exploit low-thrust rocket motors to build a two-stage rocket, and that it has qualified engineers who are able to make good use of the technology that is available to them.” According to the U.S. Air Force’s National Air and Space Intelligence Center, Iran’s space launch vehicle could “serve as a testbed for long-range ballistic missile technologies.” The U.S.-Russian joint assessment calculated that “the Safir could be modified with a different upper rocket stage so that it could carry a warhead weighing roughly 1,000 kg to a range of about 2,000 km.”

SOLID FUEL TECHNOLOGY

In addition to its Scud and Shahab missiles, which rely on liquid fuel technology, Iran has developed solid fuel technology, which is more useful militarily.

Sejjil and Sejjil-2
On May 20, 2009, Iran successfully tested the Sejjil-2, a two-stage, solid-fuel, surface-to-surface missile. U.S. officials confirmed Iran’s claim that the missile’s range is between 2,000 to 2,500 km. A May 2009 joint threat assessment by U.S. and Russian technical experts estimated the rocket motors for each of the two stages are alike except for their length. The assessment also estimated an overall weight of roughly 21 tons, if the missile were carrying a 1-ton warhead, which the Sejjil "should be able to carry…to a range of about 2200 km.” Further advances on the Sejjil continue. Iran announced that it test-fired an upgraded version in December 2009. According to an Iranian official, this version boasted a shorter launch time.

MATING WARHEAD TO MISSILE

In 2008, the International Atomic Energy Agency reported that it had been shown documents containing evidence of high explosives testing, and work done to redesign the inner payload chamber of the Shahab-3 re-entry vehicle to accommodate a "nuclear device." This effort was known as "Project 111." The IAEA has repeatedly asked Iran to explain this evidence, but Iran has claimed that the evidence was fabricated.

CLAIMS BY THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF RESISTANCE OF IRAN

The National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), an exiled Iranian opposition group that is listed as a terrorist organization by the U.S. government, has made a number of claims about Iran's missile program. Its claims should be viewed with caution. Nevertheless, its information has sometimes proved reliable. In the summer of 2002, the NCRI disclosed information about a number of Iranian nuclear sites that were either unknown or poorly understood at the time. The information proved accurate and triggered a strong international reaction.

The NCRI has claimed recently that, according to information from the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI/MEK), the actual range of Iran's two-stage solid-fuel missiles, is 2,500 to 3,000 km and that the missiles are capable of carrying a nuclear warhead. Because this would put several European countries within range of the missiles, the NCRI asserts that the Iranian government has deliberately concealed the true range to avoid international reactions such as heightened sanctions. According to the NCRI, the solid fuel missiles are manufactured by Bakeri Industry Group, which has been sanctioned by the United States and by the U.N. Security Council. The NCRI also asserts that Iran's liquid-fuel missiles are made by Hemmat Aerospace Industry Group. The U.S. government has not confirmed any of these claims.

FOREIGN SUPPLIERS

China
For years, Beijing has been a major supplier of battlefield and cruise missiles to Iran. In 1987, Iran purchased the Chinese Silkworm anti-ship missile and then acquired the more capable C-802, a Chinese anti-ship missile that Iran test-fired in 1996 from one of its ten Chinese-built "Houdong" patrol boats. During the 1990s, Iran reportedly acquired Chinese CSS 8 surface-to-surface missiles, which can carry a 190 kg warhead up to 150 km.

China has also outfitted Iran with solid fuel missile technology. Beijing's help appears to have started in the 1980s, during Iran's work on the Mushak missile, described above. In 1998, The Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States (known as the Rumsfeld Commission after its chair, Donald Rumsfeld) reported that China had already "carried out extensive transfers to Iran's solid-fueled ballistic missile program."

In addition, Iran has received missile testing and guidance assistance from China. In June 1996, the chairman of a Congressional hearing cited U.S. intelligence findings that China had already "delivered dozens, perhaps hundreds of missile guidance systems and computerized tools to Iran."

In response to such transfers, the U.S. State Department sanctioned a number of Chinese firms for engaging in proliferation activities with Iran. In June 2006, the U.S. Department of the Treasury added the China Precision Machinery Import-Export Corporation (CPMIEC) to the Specially Designated National (SDN) list, freezing its assets under U.S. jurisdiction, for the sale of goods controlled under the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) to the Shahid Bakeri Industrial Group (SBIG). CPMIEC markets the "M-family" missile, liquid and solid rocket motors, precision machinery, and a variety of tactical missiles; it supplied C-801 and C-802 anti-ship cruise missiles to Iran, according to the Defense Intelligence Agency. . The firm, like a number of other Chinese firms, is a repeat offender.

A number of other Chinese firms engaged in missile-related work have also been punished by the United States for proliferation activities with Iran, including the China Shipbuilding Trading Company; Beijing Alite Technologies Company; and LIMMT Metallurgy and Minerals Company Ltd.

The Chinese government has pledged to improve its proliferation posture, notably by committing not to assist any country in the development of a ballistic missile capable of delivering a nuclear weapon, and by adopting a set of export control laws. In 2004, China also began talks with officials from the Missile Technology Control Regime on Beijing's national export control system and China's possible membership in the regime. China has since adopted export control legislation similar to the controls of the Missile Technology Control Regime, but the 2009 Director of National Intelligence report to Congress found that "Chinese entities continue to supply a variety of missile-related items to multiple customers, including recent exports to Iran and Pakistan.”

Russia
Despite Russia's adherence to the Missile Technology Control Regime since 1995, Russian entities have continued to help Iran develop missiles. In October 2000, the Central Intelligence Agency reported to Congress that Russian assistance had "helped Iran save years in its development of the Shahab-3." And in its report covering missile proliferation during the first half of 2003, the CIA observed that Russian assistance was also supporting "Iranian efforts to develop new missiles and increase Tehran's self-sufficiency in missile production."

In July 1998, the State Department imposed sanctions on seven Russian entities for "proliferation activities related to Iran's missile programs." They were the INOR Scientific Center, Grafit Research Institute, Polyus Scientific Production Association, Glavkosmos, MOSO Company, Baltic State Technical University, and Europalace 2000.

Reportedly, INOR contracted in September 1997 to supply special alloys for long-range missiles, including steel for missile casings and foil to shield missile guidance components. In addition, Russia's arms exporting agency, Rosoboronexport, was allegedly involved in Iran's Shahab program. Rosoboronexport also reportedly helped to construct a wind tunnel, in 1997, which can be used to design and test missile components. Russian assistance to Iran's Shahid Hemmat Industrial Group (SHIG) was thought to include solid rocket fuel technology and the design of guidance and propulsion systems. Europalace 2000 reportedly was caught shipping Iran 22 tons of stainless steel that could have been used to make fuel tanks for Scuds, while Polyus was suspected of supplying navigation and guidance technology. Grafit was said to make material used to coat missile warheads, and U.S. officials reportedly suspected that Iranians were being trained in missile guidance and propulsion at Baltic State Technical University and through a joint missile education center called Persepolis. These suspicions culminated in the Russian investigations and the U.S. sanctions. The United States imposed additional sanctions on Rosoboronexport for proliferation activities in 2006 and 2008.

WPONAC: Iran's Ballistic Missile Program (http://www.iranwatch.org/wmd/wmd-iranmissileessay.htm)

In addition I read elsewhere that the older liquid North Korean "Nodong" tech Shahab 3 they have been manufacturing starting 2000 at the rate of 30-35 per year. That should put them at around 400 Shahab 3's currently - all capable of hitting Israel - albeit within an accuracy envelope of of 2 kms approximately. More than adequate on their own to inundate the US/Israeli Arrow missile defense system according to experts. And cause serious damage to major urban population concentrations. Acceptable?

vsdoc
10 Nov 11,, 13:30
Iran’s Asymmetric Naval Warfare
Fariborz Haghshenass
Policy Focus #87 | September 2008
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy

http://www.metransparent.com/IMG/pdf/PolicyFocus87.pdf

About the Author: Fariborz Haghshenass is an expert on the Iranian military who has published widely on the subject. He is the author of the Washington Institute PolicyWatches “Iran’s Doctrine of Asymmetric Naval Warfare” (December 21, 2006) and “Iran’s Air Forces: Struggling to Maintain Readiness” (December 22, 2005).

astralis
10 Nov 11,, 14:29
vsdoc,

let's put it this way. iran has the power to annoy the US and perhaps make it painful for her if the US decides to occupy the country.

if the US decides to... wipe iran off the map...or just bomb it to smithreens, there's jack-all they can do to stop it, or even impose minimal costs.

Officer of Engineers
10 Nov 11,, 14:33
[B][U][I]Iran's Ballistic Missile ProgramNothing that we don't already know and does not negate the fact that

1) They are not that accurate
2) They have a poor history of reliability
3) Iran does not have a nuke that would fit on them


In addition I read elsewhere that the older liquid North Korean "Nodong" tech Shahab 3 they have been manufacturing starting 2000 at the rate of 30-35 per year. That should put them at around 400 Shahab 3's currently - all capable of hitting Israel - albeit within an accuracy envelope of of 2 kms approximately. More than adequate on their own to inundate the US/Israeli Arrow missile defense system according to experts. And cause serious damage to major urban population concentrations. Acceptable?Translation - they'll hit water just as often as they hit Israeli cities and forget about attacking any airbase.

Double Edge
10 Nov 11,, 14:43
Doesn't help Iran's food situation... Iran has about half her agricultural industries dependant on rain water. A drought in 2008 meant Iran had to import 15 million tons of wheat. She is also desperately short on sugar and rice. Such a situation would only be made worse with the loss of the electrical and transport grids and the massive concentration of the population in urban centers.
Ok here's a counter :)

Yes, sinking tankers in the strait of hormuz will also affect Iran's exports/imports.

The main quesiton is how long does it take to clear up the bottleneck ?

2-3 months, how much will global oil prices rise by that time. Iran might have to endure less food but they are self-sufficient in fuel. So they just have to stock up on food & fuel reserves for 3 months.

Their idea will be to make everybody feel their pain. We are dealing with a narrow strip here, 2 mile wide channels in either direction with a buffer of another 2 miles in between the two lanes.

So even if you only rely on ME oil for < 20% of your needs the rest of your purchases might double if not more in price. How well can the world deal with oil prices that double even triple quickly and remain that way for a period of 3 months ?

This is one sure way to address the asymmetric difference in military strength and just see at the global impact :frown:

Now, how many countries in the UN will support miltary action against Iran even if they do test ?

Double Edge
10 Nov 11,, 14:46
I believe the debate here is not IF but what happens WHEN.
And what according to you should the world response be at that point ?

Agree Iran is hellbent on getting nukes or at least thats the perception they give. Keep thinking of that line from die hard 3, the only thing more valuable than getting nukes is for others to believe it. From this pov they are waging a psywar just as Israel. There are gains to be had domestically for the leaders as it gets every body to rally around the flag in both countries. The longer this charade goes on the better.

One thinks Iran wants to get nukes because they want to ensure they can never be toppled again like '53. That to me was a double cross by Mossadegh for whch Iran paid the price, just like signing the NPT and reneging on it is today. Have they reneged as yet ? no, but it seems like they will.

Its all perceptions or is it illusions, in our minds, strong suspicion from circumstantial evidence but no direct proof as yet. This is all one big exercise in WHAT-IF..
- Iran tests
- Israel attacks


The crux of all debates always on toothless (not to mention "clubby" discriminatory) NPT.
Or until such time as a P5 member supports them like NoK.

Would not say its toothless, osirak is an example already.


The "world" is never ever going to be a single unanimous entity. Hence for every force, there will be a counter-force. And another nuclear cub will be spawned. And another. To gravitate towards and coalesce with one of the two opposing nuclear masses.
Do not compare our situation to Iran, its not valid.

Treaties signed are expected to be adhered to. Though there are some that think the time of the NPT is over there isn't anything tangible as yet to replace it, neither is there any member country that has flouted it. What are the penalties of breaking the treaty ? is there any penalty specified. I don't think so, its upto to whatever the powers that be to decide on it and that implies all options are on the table.

Officer of Engineers
10 Nov 11,, 14:47
Yes, sinking tankers in the strait of hormuz will also affect Iran's exports/imports.

The main quesiton is how long does it take to clear up the bottleneck ?The Tanker War.

Officer of Engineers
10 Nov 11,, 14:57
Now, how many countries in the UN will support miltary action against Iran even if they do test ?That can be avoided by not going to the UN. Moscow did not seek UN approval for her direct threats against both China and Israel.

Double Edge
10 Nov 11,, 14:58
You did not press Iran as hard then.There were no attempts to attack the country per se so their response will be proportional. Whereas now they've had plenty of time to resist & plot more counters.

Also oil prices then were rock bottom and not five times as high as they are presently.

The question really is how effectively can you pacify the oil market and prevent it from going into speculation overdrive and staying that way for an extended period of time. The punch for Iran here is the knock on or second/tertiary order effects of a war there.

Officer of Engineers
10 Nov 11,, 15:04
You did not press Iran as hard then.There were no attempts to attack the country per se so their response will be proportional. Whereas now they've had plenty of time to resist & plot more counters.Not much has changed since then. Iranian abilities to detect targets at sea without venturing forth has not improved.

S2
10 Nov 11,, 15:06
"...Iran might have to endure less food but they are self-sufficient in fuel..."

Wrong. They lack refining capacity and have to import gasoline. Can't drive on crude.

Double Edge
10 Nov 11,, 15:08
That can be avoided by not going to the UN. Moscow did not seek UN approval for her direct threats against both China and Israel.
That was the height of the cold war in the late 60s. Nowadays there seems to be a bigger impetus for global consensus. We are all much more economically intertwined together thanks to globalisation. Perceptions & attitudes today are different.

1979
10 Nov 11,, 15:11
The question really is how effectively can you pacify the oil market and prevent it from going into speculation overdrive and staying that way for an extended period of time.

call me a pessimist but you can not.

Double Edge
10 Nov 11,, 15:13
"...Iran might have to endure less food but they are self-sufficient in fuel..."

Wrong. They lack refining capacity and have to import gasoline. Can't drive on crude.
What does their reserves infrastructure picture look like.

2-3 months is all they need.

Double Edge
10 Nov 11,, 15:15
call me a pessimist but you can not.
Agree, so what happens if you temporarily stop the market trading in oil ?

It creates more distortions with even more wildly swinging prices from one supplier to the next.

S2
10 Nov 11,, 15:17
"What does their reserves infrastructure picture look like..."

You tell me. They import refined petroleum products daily. You said they're self-sufficient. They're decidedly not.

Officer of Engineers
10 Nov 11,, 15:17
That was the height of the cold war in the late 60s. Nowadays there seems to be a bigger impetus for global consensus. We are all much more economically intertwined together thanks to globalisation. Perceptions & attitudes today are different.Moscow did not seek permission for Chechnya and Israel did not seek the same for the Israeli-Hezbollah and the Israeli-Hamas Wars

Come to think of it, if the US decides that she has sufficient cause (read Moscow's stance on both China and Israel with regards to the NPT), then she can decide that she doesn't need the UN, ala the UN debacle vis-a-vi Saddam's Iraq.

Double Edge
10 Nov 11,, 15:27
"What does their reserves infrastructure picture look like..."

You tell me. They import refined petroleum products daily. You said they're self-sufficient. They're decidedly not.
I don't know. If they're importing then who's to say they aren't also creating strategic reserves at the same time as well. It would be prudent to do so given the current path they're on.


Moscow did not seek permission for Chechnya and Israel did not seek the same for the Israeli-Hezbollah and the Israeli-Hamas Wars

Come to think of it, if the US decides that she has sufficient cause (read Moscow's stance on both China and Israel with regards to the NPT), then she can decide that she doesn't need the UN, ala the UN debacle vis-a-vi Saddam's Iraq.
Neither of these conflicts affect global oil prices.

Does it seem reasonable that in the event of a conflict where everybody has to bear with higher oil prices that they would demand to have a say ?

Push comes to shove, you attack but does everybody just keep quiet ?

Doktor
10 Nov 11,, 15:37
I don't know. If they're importing then who's to say they aren't also creating strategic reserves at the same time as well. It would be prudent to do so given the current path they're on.
What's the capacity of Iranian strategic reserves? What period? War time consumption is higher or lower then average?


Neither of these conflicts affect global oil prices.

Does it seem reasonable that in the event of a conflict where everybody has to bear with higher oil prices that they would demand to have a say ?

Push comes to shove, you attack but does everybody just keep quiet ?

In some of the previous posts you said 3 months high oil prices.
Even a small country like mine has 6 months reserves. That's a minimum to even look towards EU, meaning all of EU should have strategic reserves for at least that period.

Officer of Engineers
10 Nov 11,, 15:38
Push comes to shove, you attack but does everybody just keep quiet ?How much good did French screaming did to stop the Iraq War?

paintgun
10 Nov 11,, 16:49
Do you have a point I can respond to? Can't see one so just asking.

nor was i seeking for any reply, you were in a heated debate


It's basiclly the same report, with a historical overview included ?

i'll paste the summary of IAEA report 2010


Iran has not provided the necessary co-operation to permit the agency to confirm that all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities.

Iran is not implementing the requirements contained in the relevant resolutions of the board of governors and the security council... which are essential to building confidence in the exclusively peaceful purpose of its nuclear programme and to resolve outstanding questions.

In particular, Iran needs to co-operate in clarifying outstanding issues which give rise to concerns about possible military dimensions to Iran's nuclear programme.

Contrary to the relevant resolutions of the board of governors and the security council, Iran has continued with the operation of PFEP and FEP at Natanz, and the construction of a new enrichment plant at Fordow. Iran has also announced the intention to build 10 new enrichment plants.

Contrary to the relevant resolutions of the board of governors and the security council, Iran has also continued with the construction of the IR-40 reactor and related heavy water activities. The agency has not been permitted to take samples of the heavy water which is stored at UCF, and has not been provided with access to the heavy water production plant.

The director general requests Iran to take steps towards the full implementation of its safeguards agreement and its other obligations.

and this one Novem 2011


52. While the Agency continues to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material at the nuclear facilities and LOFs declared by Iran under its Safeguards Agreement, as Iran is not providing the necessary cooperation, including by not implementing its Additional Protocol, the Agency is unable to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran, and therefore to conclude that all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities.42

53. The Agency has serious concerns regarding possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear programme. After assessing carefully and critically the extensive information available to it, the Agency finds the information to be, overall, credible. The information indicates that Iran has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device. The information also indicates that prior to the end of 2003, these activities took place under a structured programme, and that some activities may still be ongoing.

54. Given the concerns identified above, Iran is requested to engage substantively with the Agency without delay for the purpose of providing clarifications regarding possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear programme as identified in the Annex to this report.

55. The Agency is working with Iran with a view to resolving the discrepancy identified during the recent PIV at JHL.

56. The Director General urges Iran, as required in the binding resolutions of the Board of Governors and mandatory Security Council resolutions, to take steps towards the full implementation of its Safeguards Agreement and its other obligations, including: implementation of the provisions of its Additional
Protocol; implementation of the modified Code 3.1 of the Subsidiary Arrangements General Part to its Safeguards Agreement; suspension of enrichment related activities; suspension of heavy water related
activities; and, as referred to above, addressing the Agency’s serious concerns about possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear programme, in order to establish international confidence in the exclusively
peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear programme.

57. The Director General will continue to report as appropriate.
__________________________________________________ ________________________________

the information presented by IAEA is indeed not far from the previous report, but their stance regarding that information has changed, depending on how you look at it, they are one step away from declaring Iran as actively pursuing nuclear weapon programme

here's different view on IAEA report

Iran nuclear report: Why it may not be a game-changer after all (http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2011/1109/Iran-nuclear-report-Why-it-may-not-be-a-game-changer-after-all?cmpid=ema:nws:Daily%20Custom%202%20(11092011)&cmpid=ema:nws:NzQ4MDU0ODA5NQS2)

-------

getting back to the core of this topic, this past week has been more of a media blitz and rhetorical warnings against Iran. The IAEA report does not provide the legal ground for a strike against Iran or should we say they are not readying it up just yet ;)
But what we have here is the affirming of US/UK/Israel attitude against Iran's nuke. It won't be tolerable.
Any men with straight thinking will always pick the best solution for themselves. The mullahs, assuming they are sane people, are just being kindly reminded that the guns are still on the table, ready for them if they try to screw the game and run off with the pot.

Double Edge
10 Nov 11,, 17:13
OOE,

Iraq did not affect oil prices too much, located at the top of the arabian gulf, they were unable to affect the flow of traffic. But here we are dealing with a country whose shoreline borders the entire region upto a strategic choke point. What are they capable of when forced.

Next, whatever the plan is, it has to be serious enough that Iran as a collective never decides to go down this path again. That they actually relinquish whatever supplies they have and come clean like the Libyans did. Failing which its going to require boots on the ground to coerce & ensure compliance.

Is that too demanding or is it enough with air strikes just to set them back for a few years for now ?

You then issue an extremely deadly & credible threat for non-compliance. I don't think the drumroll since 2007 qualifies as such. It would require something similar to the run up to the Iraq war at the UN. Similar resolution without authorising explicit attack but with enough holes to do just that. This gives each country sufficient wiggle room so nobody gets blamed for directly supporting the attack.

This is really a deadlock situation for Iran, if they give up any supplies the regime falls and if they do not the same result ensues. Iran would opt for a fight in this case.

Aryajet
10 Nov 11,, 18:13
When civvies will start being collateral damage, tell their families "Oh we were hitting your regime, too bad yours got in the way".

Doktor, Sir!

True, but far more lives will be lost if they decide to topple that regime on their own.

Doktor
10 Nov 11,, 18:22
Doktor, Sir!

True, but far more lives will be lost if they decide to topple that regime on their own.

Aryajet,

Agreed. It's virtually impossible to change a regime without collateral damage.

I was arguing how the idea is presented (we will topple the dictator for you), but nobody says civvies will die in the process.

Later that will hit the liberator on it's own head.

Officer of Engineers
10 Nov 11,, 19:42
Next, whatever the plan is, it has to be serious enough that Iran as a collective never decides to go down this path again. That they actually relinquish whatever supplies they have and come clean like the Libyans did. Failing which its going to require boots on the ground to coerce & ensure compliance.I don't see how they're going to build a nuke if they're rebuilding from the stone age?


Is that too demanding or is it enough with air strikes just to set them back for a few years for now ?We did to Iraq in 7 hours what Iran failed to do in 7 years. Iran could not be so dense as to not understand just how tilted the balance is.

Also, despite Vsdoc's assertion, Iran chickened out before against Saddam and his chems. The only thing that is convincing Iran that she would prevail is the lack of demonstrative resolve by the Americans, not that they could actually hope to come out of this with a nuke in an exchange.


You then issue an extremely deadly & credible threat for non-compliance. I don't think the drumroll since 2007 qualifies as such. It would require something similar to the run up to the Iraq war at the UN. Similar resolution without authorising explicit attack but with enough holes to do just that. This gives each country sufficient wiggle room so nobody gets blamed for directly supporting the attack.And that has stopped Washington, Moscow, Beijing, Paris, London, how?


This is really a deadlock situation for Iran, if they give up any supplies the regime falls and if they do not the same result ensues. Iran would opt for a fight in this case.Saddam had shown that this was not the case when threatened with chemical extinction.

zraver
10 Nov 11,, 19:43
It needs the nuclear bomb as a defense against both the US and Israel.

Really how so? Care to explain your reasoning here? lets say that Iran gets the bomb and does an above ground test to announce its membership in the nuclear weapons club and claims they have 5 more bombs ready to go if anyone says boo. How exactly does that protect them? Do their SAM's suddenly become more accurate, their radars able to see stealth? can those 5 bombs do anything at all militarily until Iran has the technology to shrink them to fit on the end of a missile? Even then- Israel has produced enough plutonium to make 400 weapons.... Israel is a small country, but Iran is smaller still if you look at where the population is- 70% in and near Tehran...

So how exactly does Iran benefit defnesively from having the bomb. The Russians vice Soviets and the US have all been attacked despite truly massive arsenals of nukes...


Once it achieves the bomb, short of Israel coming out in the open and de-nuking completely, and the US moving out of the region for good, Iran will not move back.

And you base this prediction on.....?


The above still leaves Iran with less than friendly nuclear neighbor/regional basket-case/global terror haven Pakistan. Ditto the above as far as Israel is concerned once again. Or the US de-nuke Pakistan before moving out of the region for good. Whichever comes first.

Hate to break it to you, but as far as Nukes go, Pakistan is no worse than India....


Can the world do anything about it once Iran goes nuclear? Not likely. There will ZERO consensus amongst even the major powers about the need for military action. Likely China will not go along. Neither will India.

Whoa... India... major power.... since when?


NATO will play follow the leader with increasingly empty Euro coffers. And Israel and KSA will be in danger of imminent nuclear destructio4n.

How will Israel be in such danger since Israel can hold Tehran hostage? And you really think the Shia will nuke Mecca?


And that's all before Russia decides enough is enough and wonders why nobody invited it to the party.

LOL, Russia plays its own game


The US sanction or no sanction has a sagging economy to take care of back home. Unemployment. Industry de-growing. And countries rapidly stealing a march on it. Time and place ripe for some good old fashioned Cowboy Spring!

None of which stops the USN....


And 20 years on the US becomes Iran's closest ally with 123 Part II and hopes of selling the Imperial Iranian Airforce a bunch of F-by then-56s.

The US and Iran are natural allies, but wont be again until the Mullahs fall.


But the Iranians politely refuse and prefer to buy the Indian Tejas Mk IV instead. On full TOT of course. No strings (oil, gas, or otherwise) attached.

So your prediction for India is it will be making 4th gen fighter aircraft in 2032 while the US will have moved on to 7th generation for itself while selling potential allies 6th generation? And I thought you were a nationalist...

zraver
10 Nov 11,, 19:48
I don't know. If they're importing then who's to say they aren't also creating strategic reserves at the same time as well. It would be prudent to do so given the current path they're on.

Depends on how many salt deposits they have, Iknow they have salt mines but they've been worked for thousands of years. You need the salt to act as a barrier to the surronding rock so that the void you create can be used to store fuel. its also harder to store already refined product which has a shelf life and a dedicate end use. The US stores crude oil not refined product.

Parihaka
10 Nov 11,, 21:46
Also, how do you prevent Israel and KSA along with US forces on bases in surrounding countries taking unacceptable casualties from Iranian missiles? I just read a paper that says that given the number of Iranian missiles, the Israeli anti-missile defenses would be swamped.


Have you looked at Iranian missile capability? Specifically accurate targetting? At the moment 'swamping' Israel with missiles simply means they're trying to shoot a bear with a shotgun. Sure they can do damage but it's not like the Israelis aren't used to missiles raining down randomly (with an emphasis on random). On the other hand the targeted munitions fired at Iran will take them back to pre-twentieth century, whereas Israel will just need a broom to sweep up the mess.

zraver
10 Nov 11,, 23:39
Originally Posted by vsdoc View Post
Also, how do you prevent Israel and KSA along with US forces on bases in surrounding countries taking unacceptable casualties from Iranian missiles? I just read a paper that says that given the number of Iranian missiles, the Israeli anti-missile defenses would be swamped.

Its not the number of missiles, but the number of launchers, and the types of missiles.

It does not matter if Iran has 1 million medium range ballistic missiles if they only have 10 launchers, and the missiles are liquid fueled.

In the case of Iran she has a few dozen launchers for each system that can fire the missiles that can reach the GCC or Israel in the case of their biggest systems. For Israel most of the missiles she is facing are liquid fueled. This means a very slow reload time measured in shots per day... If Iran can salvo 24 missiles, Israel by generally accepted conventional wisdom needs to salvo 48 anti-missiles, but may only need to fire 24. Israel's anti-missile system the Arrow uses solid fueled missiles which have a much faster reload time. So for Iran to make sure one missile gets through she has to fire 1 more missile than Israel can fire in response. If she can't- she risks no missiles getting through. Plus is a shooting war US Aegis systems in the Med will likely be defending Israel as well and IIRC each Burke has 96 missiles (not all SM-3). Plus depending on the overall trajectory any shots straying to close to Syria or Egypt are likely to be engaged by those countries. Syria may take Iranian money but she won't accept Iranian missiles business end first.

The problem in the Gulf is more complex becuase Iran has more systems that can lob missiles into the GCC region. Some have claimed cross-range maneuvering (unproven) which makes interception more difficult. However the US has deployed the THAAD system and the US and several of its Gulf allies use the Patriot Pac-3 which is a very effective system against SRBM's. Plus depending on US plans, or how the war started there might well be several Aegis equipped vessels in the Gulf loaded up with SM-3's to boost the anti-ballistic missile capabilities there.

So as for swamping... doubtful Iran has more launchers than the US and her allies do, and doubtful she has more missiles overall than the US and her allies do. Of the missiles Iran does have most are SCUD clones or missiles like the Fatah-110 which is an impressive feat for Iran, but still not much of a threat becuase of its CEP.

CEP is the final part of the argument. A US B-2 bomber can drop 26 1 ton bombs and chances are 25 of them will hit within 1 meter of their target ie a less than 1m CEP. Most Iranian missiles have a CEP in the 50-500m range meaning half the missiles fired will land outside the circle. Some of Iran's oldest systems have CEP's in the 1-5km range.

So lets say Iran manages to get 100 missiles into Israel and past the defenses. each missile has a 50m CEP and packs a 1 ton warhead... Do you think Israel can survive 100 random 1 ton explosions or roughly 2000m^2 in cratering? Even if they all land in Tel Aviv and each one takes out a building... Do you think Tel Aviv has more than 100 buildings? Tehran survived close to 500 ballistic missile hits in the Iran Iraq war....

Ballistic missiles without nukes are not effective weapons in damaging another country.

Double Edge
11 Nov 11,, 00:59
Depends on how many salt deposits they have, Iknow they have salt mines but they've been worked for thousands of years. You need the salt to act as a barrier to the surronding rock so that the void you create can be used to store fuel. its also harder to store already refined product which has a shelf life and a dedicate end use. The US stores crude oil not refined product.
Very good. Now, do they have enough refinery capacity to feed their forces & militias. Won't matter as you'll be hitting any refineries or depots they have anyway. This reduces the time Iran can play which means a speedier resolution hopefully.


I don't see how they're going to build a nuke if they're rebuilding from the stone age?
Ok, so a massive bombing campaign without ruling out the use of nukes. That could be bluff enough to make Iran reconsider or face a replay of Hiroshima.


We did to Iraq in 7 hours what Iran failed to do in 7 years. Iran could not be so dense as to not understand just how tilted the balance is.

Also, despite Vsdoc's assertion, Iran chickened out before against Saddam and his chems. The only thing that is convincing Iran that she would prevail is the lack of demonstrative resolve by the Americans, not that they could actually hope to come out of this with a nuke in an exchange.
I don't know how far the Iranians will go. Whether they will cave in to threats early or not. They've gotten bigger in the head over the last ten years compared to earlier because of some of the recent strategic gains and yes, a lack of american resolve to push further. What has the west really done to counter Iran besides a war of words & media campaign. Some assasinations & Stuxnet.

You mentioned the Tanker war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–Iraq_War#1984:_.27Tanker_War.27_in_Persian_Gu lf) earlier..


Saddam's hope in beginning the "tanker war" was that in response to Iraqi attacks against its shipping, the Iranians might do something extreme in retaliation such as closing the Strait of Hormuz to all shipping. The United States had threatened several times to go to war if the Strait of Hormuz was closed. For this reason, the Iranians refused to rise to the bait, and so limited their attacks in retaliation to Iraqi shipping.
Your point was Iran did not dare to do it then but in an all out war will they be as restrained.

Here is one counter from the folks at Heritage.

An Israeli Preventive Attack on Iran's Nuclear Sites: Implications for the U.S. | Heritage Foundation | January 15, 2010 (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/01/an-israeli-preventive-attack-on-iran-nuclear-sites-implications-for-the-us)


Iran has threatened to disrupt oil shipping through the Strait of Hormuz in the event of a crisis. This would put at risk approximately 16-17 million barrels of oil per day, or about 20 percent of world oil consumption. Such a disruption would spike oil prices to previously unseen heights and would impose a major oil shock on the global economy. Iran could also launch air attacks, naval attacks, commando raids, or sabotage operations against Arab oil facilities in the Persian Gulf to further disrupt world oil markets.

The United States and its allies must be prepared to immediately take action to defend against these attacks, repair any damage to pipeline or other oil infrastructure, and facilitate the production and transportation of alternative sources of oil to panicked oil consumers. Washington should mobilize and lead a coalition of NATO, the Gulf Cooperation Council, Japan, Australia, India, and other interested countries to deploy naval and air forces to prevent the closure of the Strait of Hormuz and minimize the economic impact of an oil crisis as soon as possible.

Washington should also warn Tehran that if it takes action to disrupt Arab oil production in the Persian Gulf or attacks American targets, the U.S. will prevent any Iranian oil from being exported through a naval blockade. Communicating this ahead of time could help to deter Iran, as the loss of oil income would be a major blow that would threaten the survival of the regime.
How bout that ?

There is one more point here for Z, during the later stages of the tanker war, Iran just moved it's shipping port to Larak Island in the straights of Hormuz to get around the disruption in the gulf. Will not work in this situation though.


And that has stopped Washington, Moscow, Beijing, Paris, London, how?
This is the part where i agree with you over how it could play out in the UN like it did with Iraq. So the world will get a say or rather only those in the UNSC will.

The only showstopper is veto from China. From the heritage link linked earlier


Beijing is likely to protect its growing economic, energy, and geopolitical investment in Iran by firmly supporting its ally at the Security Council and pushing for a denunciation and possible sanctions against Israel.

China seems reluctant to increase the level of sanctions, the IAEA report may help here. But if she needs to be armtwisted into just increasing sanctions how much more will she require to not veto a resolution that indirectly sets the dogs loose.

Will you now say no veto for WMDs in Iraq so why for Iran :biggrin:

Israel could just attack and then where is the UN in the picture. They could use similar reasons as Saddam did to go to war with Iran. The US would be drawn in as would others. Game on at that point.


Saddam had shown that this was not the case when threatened with chemical extinction.
Ideally if this could be pulled off with minimal damage it would be great but given how intractable the demands are from both sides i have difficulty seeing a peaceful resolution here. If it gets to that then we've got a tough 3 months ahead. Oil prices are going to soar big time.

Aryajet
11 Nov 11,, 02:19
Your right, Iran is weaker than Afghanistan when it comes to stomach

Ah, C'mon Doctor Z, your statement surprises some one who admires your vast knowledge about Iran in general. Less stomach than Afghanistan he?

If we speak about stomach I would say U.S might be more vulnerable in that regard than Iran. Iran can take over 1 million casualties without any one protesting or having the ability to hold the government accountable, but (god forbid) picture of 3, 4. 500 American seamen floating in the waters of Sea of Hormuz on the cover of Time magazine will create domestic quagmire. Vietnam war was lost in the Main street U.S, not in Saigon.

S2
11 Nov 11,, 02:27
"...but (god forbid) picture of 3, 4. 500 American seamen floating in the waters of Sea of Hormuz on the cover of Time magazine will create domestic quagmire..."

Maybe. History can be useful but beware of the conclusions you might draw. Such could easily provoke the opposite reaction. Consider the U.S.S. Maine and Pearl Harbor as an alternative.

Aryajet
11 Nov 11,, 02:48
We did to Iraq in 7 hours what Iran failed to do in 7 years. Iran could not be so dense as to not understand just how tilted the balance is.

Col, Sir!
Not accurate!
I must bring it to your attention to where Iranian military stood after so called revolution, it seemed like Iran had no enemies except army officers, they where being executed about 20 a day, the larger the brass, the higher priority facing the firing squad, till war broke out.
The remaining rushed to front lines acting as military advisers without a hint of their previous rank. Still Iran managed to kick out Iraqis and cross Arvand Roud and start shelling Basra.
KSA, Q8 and other PGCC nation scrambled for hasten solution and sent high ranking leaders from 9 different muslim nations (including president Zia ul Hagh of Pakistan) to negotiate a seize fire. Khomeini refused the very sizable compensation offer and decided to continue the war of attrition b/c the war was god given gift for him to get rid of moderate nationalists camp, consolidate power and let islamists high jack the revolution. That was the reason the war stalemated for 7 years, other wise officially was over in less than 14 month.

Officer of Engineers
11 Nov 11,, 02:54
Col, Sir!
Not accurate!
I must bring it to your attention to where Iranian military stood after so called revolution, it seemed like Iran had no enemies except army officers, they where being executed about 20 a day, the larger the brass, the higher priority facing the firing squad, till war broke out.
The remaining rushed to front lines acting as military advisers without a hint of their previous rank. Still Iran managed to kick out Iraqis and cross Arvand Roud and start shelling Basra.
KSA, Q8 and other PGCC nation scrambled for hasten solution and sent high ranking leaders from 9 different muslim nations (including president Zia ul Hagh of Pakistan) to negotiate a seize fire. Khomeini refused the very sizable compensation offer and decided to continue the war of attrition b/c the war was god given gift for him to get rid of moderate nationalists camp, consolidate power and let islamists high jack the revolution. That was the reason the war stalemated for 7 years, other wise officially was over in less than 14 month.I do not see how my statement is inaccurate. Iran fought a war in 7 years, both inflicting and suffering losses. Just because the war could have ended earlier does not negate the damage Iran did to Iraq in 7 years ... and the subsequent comparison to the first 7 hours of the Kuwait War in which the Americans did more damage.

Aryajet
11 Nov 11,, 03:00
"...but (god forbid) picture of 3, 4. 500 American seamen floating in the waters of Sea of Hormuz on the cover of Time magazine will create domestic quagmire..."

Maybe. History can be useful but beware of the conclusions you might draw. Such could easily provoke the opposite reaction. Consider the U.S.S. Maine and Pearl Harbor as an alternative.
Pardon my ignorance Steve,
But you are referring to wrong comparison,

If Iran was the aggressor like Imperial Japan or Cuba then she would deserve what ever could be ushered her way. Not yet.

BTW: I'm a proud American and I don't even want to witness a single bloody nose from either side.

Officer of Engineers
11 Nov 11,, 03:08
Ok, so a massive bombing campaign without ruling out the use of nukes. That could be bluff enough to make Iran reconsider or face a replay of Hiroshima.We can inflict the necessary damage without nukes. Do recall that 750 cruise missiles were tasked against Baghdad the first days of the Iraq War.


I don't know how far the Iranians will go. Whether they will cave in to threats early or not. They've gotten bigger in the head over the last ten years compared to earlier because of some of the recent strategic gains and yes, a lack of american resolve to push further. What has the west really done to counter Iran besides a war of words & media campaign. Some assasinations & Stuxnet.I speak from a military PoV but diplomacy is heavy at work here. There has been some movement; namely the National Command Authority is currently refusing to give the final go for device development beyond the basics.


Your point was Iran did not dare to do it then but in an all out war will they be as restrained.Iran did not attack from shore. She had to come out to find her targets. That part has not changed.


This is the part where i agree with you over how it could play out in the UN like it did with Iraq. So the world will get a say or rather only those in the UNSC will

The only showstopper is veto from China. From the heritage link linked earlierThe way to avoid a veto is not to ask for a vote.

Ideally if this could be pulled off with minimal damage it would be great but given how intractable the demands are from both sides i have difficulty seeing a peaceful resolution here. If it gets to that then we've got a tough 3 months ahead. Oil prices are going to soar big time.Nothing we have not been through before. The speculators learned a lesson. Raise the price too high and the Americans just stopped driving and they're left holding the price to those expensive oil with no one buying.

Double Edge
11 Nov 11,, 03:51
Come to think of it, if the US decides that she has sufficient cause (read Moscow's stance on both China and Israel with regards to the NPT), then she can decide that she doesn't need the UN, ala the UN debacle vis-a-vi Saddam's Iraq.
Moscows stance on Israel was 1967, China was 1969

Moscow signed NPT in 1968, China in 1992 and Israel never.

USSR planned nuclear attack on China in 1969 | Daily Telegraph | 13 May 2010 (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/7720461/USSR-planned-nuclear-attack-on-China-in-1969.html)

Moscow wanted to go after China as a result of the border war along with other differences that developed in that decade but could not act due to US.

What got my attention in that article was this...


The historian claims that Washington saw the USSR as a greater threat than China and wanted a strong China to counter-balance Soviet power. Then US President Richard Nixon was also apparently fearful of the effect of a nuclear war on 250,000 US troops stationed in the Asia-Pacific region and still smarting from a Soviet refusal five years earlier to stage a joint attack on China's nascent nuclear programme.

US wanted to stage a joint attack on China in 1964 but was refused by Moscow (!)

So this is the same situation today with Iran isn't it. Only that Moscow will not refuse this time.

Israel can attack because they can cite supreme interest.

So how does the US do it ? domestically the war powers resolution allows 60-90 days.

But the reason is flouting the NPT which is a mutli-lateral treaty so isn't there some obligation that requires a sit down with other powers rather than acting unilaterally. The forum for this is the UN.

Can this be turned into a national security/interest threat like with Saddam.