Major Dad

They surrounded their launch complexes with water. You can not build an entire nuclear weapons program in a missile silo. And even if the Iranians decided to follow the Soviet lead, this would slow down their program by years, not to mention adding God knows howm much to the cost. Also, I suspect there are some places in Iran where the environment would make this course of action physically impossible.

__________________
The more I think about it, ol' Billy was right.
Lets kill all the lawyers, lets kill 'em tonight.
- The Eagles

lwarmonger

The United States is not going to initiate a unilateral nuclear conflict without a nuclear first use by Iran. We could take out North Korea with nuclear weapons (and they have surely given us a far greater reason to), however we have decided not to. With that being the case, and with our military extremely overextended, we aren't going to widen the conflict by ourselves this time. We simply don't have the resources (to deal with the consequences).

Officer of Engineers

Let's get a few facts straight here.

1) There is no target. The facilities to build the facilities to build the bombs have not even been built yet. Destroy this this early in the game is a waste of effort.

2) The Iranians do NOT have hardened facilities nor do they have the knowledge and money to build them to even Cold War standards.

3) We have conventional weapons that are equal in mission effect to the counter-force nukes of old.

__________________
Chimo

Swift Sword

IIRC, the US retired its enhanced radiation weapons in the early 1990s when the W70 and W79 were removed from the inventory so the capability is currently not available.

The W70 was an SRBM warhead and the W79 was for atomic artillery (8 inch gun?) and neither of these types of systems would be appropriate in the Iranian threater.

Furthermore, ER weapons still have a fission trigger with a kt or two of yield which would still be quite destructive and herein lies one the biggest problems with using nuclear weapons in a preemptive scenario: detruction of the evidence.

Gathering intelligence on these programs in the wake of strikes would be very important for two reasons. First, the case for preemption would have to be justified. Secondly, seeing how the Iranians were conducting there program would give insight into the pace and scope of clandestine nuclear activities which might be useful in dealing with proliferation threats in the future.

In general, ER weapons were costly to maintain due to the half life of tritium. Coincidentally, IIRC, under the Clinton Administration, Oak Ridge was ramping up tritium production so who knows what the future may hold.

Regards,

William

__________________
Pharoh was pimp but now he is dead. What are you going to do today?

Swift Sword

Hello Parihaka,

Casting a glance about and seeing who is getting the best contracts on high profile, advanced projects requiring high degrees of technical expertise I am not so sure I can fully accept that assertion.

For instance the Chinese just completed their first domesitc LNG tanker build. While this represents a significant increase in engineering and shipyard capability, it is old hat in the West.

Also, in areas such as GTL plants and LNG trains, Western companies appear to have and edge. The Chinese are developing these capabilities but I do not think that the Chinese would be able to provide for a rapid increase in Iranian export capacity such as that which is happening in Qatar.

In fact, CNOOC awarded a Franco-Italian consortium contracts to build an LNG receiving terminal and associated pipelines at Guangdong, not Chinese companies.

You may have better or different information so I may indeed have it wrong but that is the way I see it.

I am thinking in terms of a soft war now or a hard war later. Stiff medicine I know, but the possibility must be considered if the US is truly committed to altering the course of events in Iran.

The US and the Europeans as well as a few other actors are projecting increasing methane imports so Iranian reserves are in the minds of Ministers around the World.

To be frank, as an American, I think it would be good strategy to dissuade the Chinese from seeking Iranian gas. Those assets would better serve US interests if they were shipped elsewhere, IMO.

Forcing the Chinese to do gas business with the Indonesians and Austrailians suits my twisted worldview just fine as I do have a vested interest .

Regards,

William

Parihaka

Hi Swift Sword
LOL, no better information, simply the knowledge that any dealings with american companies if allowed by America, would come with enormous baggage, the associated costs would easily outweigh any slight technological advantage American companies have. All this ignores the current antipathy to American companies in Iran.


I still fail to see how your wish for trade embargoes against China and Russia would lead to anything other than a :world war b: cold war 2, but this time against two protagonists rather than one. Nor will you have prevented China from control of Iranian reserves. In either case it's a far greater escalation than a mere war with Iran.


Yes, thank you, I know.

Of course it is in Americas and Americans interests that China not gain unfettered access to Iranian reserves, in a less direct way in my interests as well. Given the antipathy of Iran to the west however, the only way to achieve this is through regime change in Iran, and soon.
The Chinese, in case you haven't noticed, are already doing business with Indonesia and Australia, infact everyone in south-east Asia, and have been doing so, apart from a brief blip of twenty years of so, for quite some time.

Swift Sword

Hi Parihaka,

"No Strings Attached" is, I agree, definitley is not an operative phrase. However, I am sure that the Chinese offers are not entirely devoid of baggage either.

Ultimately, the current regime in Tehran would probably get more beneift to itself from dealing with the Chinese but in the long view I suspect the population of Iran at large would probably fair better carrying American laundry in the valaise.

The reason I say this is that much of is called the Iranain middle class and those that are technically inclined are generally considered to be nominally pro American. They have already made their choice and this is why Bluesman, myself and a few others are awestruck that this opportunity for robust INFOWAR and PSYOPS campaigns is slipping from the Bush Administration's grasp.

It is quite possible that the United States may have a cold war of sorts with the Chinese anyway and there is some reason to speculate that there might be a certain amount of friction with the Russians at a later date as well. The US is stronger after a fashion (that is to say in several key regards) than either the Russians or the Chinese so now is a better time to act.

I agree the prospects are unsavory squaring off with the Iranian's Sugar Daddies but an outright large scale shooting with war Iran will probably lead to a worse outcome than a tit for tat economic fracas.

The US is faced with three choices:

1. Fight the Iranians now or later (and they are going to be better prepared later, undoubtedly);

2. Use measures other than war to modify the Iranian regime's behavoir (and given that Iran is pretty well isolated viz the US as it is, these measures will have to be used where Iran is vulnerable and that would be to try to split them from their partners),

3. Aquiesce to Iranian interests and all which that entails (and by proxy the interests of the Russians and Chinese).

Outcome 1 favors action sooner rather than later but it would be unadvisable to engage Iran militarily without strong, vibrant and friendly governments and populations in Iraq and Afghanistan. To do otherwise would very likely lead to a belt of "failed states" and instability from the Syrian frontier all the way to the border of China. Such a situation could very well generate a huge regional war or possibly a "small" world war.

Outcome 2 covers a huge range of potential solutions many of which have already been outlined in this thread and several of which have already been tried. Unfortunately, some of the best options have alread proven to be unatttainable at this time.

Economic warfare falls under this heading and could take one of several forms including the drastic, worst case scenario I have articulated but there are several intermediate steps.

Outcome 3 is not favorable to US or European interests (which I happen to support). Outcome 3 still has the potential for regional or global conflict as states scramble to offset a strong, nuclear armed Iran by combinations of armament programs--including possible WMD prolideration e.g. Arabian, Syrian or Egyptian pusuit of fission weapons--or new alliances of varying degrees of stability and utility.

Regardless of which strategy and resulting set of tactics is employed, the US needs to act to meet its stated and real policy objectives. Acting now is certainly better than acting later regardless of course of action and actions involving shooting are the least desirable of all.

Personally, I think the Russians would very likely go along with the US and Europeand after some tit for tat activity and some deal making but the Chinese would probably take less kindly to it. I do not think that either country would go to war over it but the Chinese might use it as a pretext for a cold war. However, the likelihood of a cold war with China in the long run anyway so the US should act while it occupies a relative position of strength.

Bottom Line: regardless of course of action the time is now. I favor a non shooting course of action if at all possible but I fully agree with you it would not be without its price to pay; I just do not think that the other guys will go to war over it and even if they did we are better prepared today than we are likely to be tommorrow as near as I can tell.




It took me a little while to figure out just how much money we are talking about. It is amazing, though, how few people have the slightest inkling of how much wealth and power is going to change hands by the end of this decade and the few years beyond.

I have barely scratched the surface of the matter and it is truly staggering: we could be looking at the start of a shift in a thousand year old pattern of commercial activity.

Nothing to argue with here . The why of regime change is well answered but it is the how that is undefined as yet and the whole while the sand is slipping our grasp .

Yup; I've noticed. They pay me quarterly to be happy with the situation .

Regards,

William

Parihaka

Indeed, it really comes down simply to the perceptions of the rulers of Iran.
They would certainly be far better off in the long run going with America but I doubt the rulers see it this way.
Agreed, but I doubt their will power.


Agreed.




I've surprised myself by how little of this I saw coming even two years ago. The fact that we stand at a crossroads now which will determine 'empires' for the forseable future is both exhilarating and very scary. I'm finding myself making decisions now on a personal level which will have a strong and direct influence on my mokopuna for generations to come.


Whatever action is chosen, action MUST happen now.

Cool, one should always have an eye for the main chance

Garry

The situation when Pakistan, Israel and India has got nuclear weapons and were not really punished for it... nor forced to get rid of IS REAL threat to non-prolifiration. Iran will get its bomb despite embargo..... it has everything to do that.

If there is a thing that can stop Iran it would be MILLITARY INTERVENTION

Officer of Engineers

FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO DID NOT LIVE THROUGH THE COLD WAR!

We avoided Nuclear War by sheer, dumb, good luck!

Think this through!

Garry,

I'm surprised at you. I've raised the Sino-Soviet conflict more than once ... and it was only through sheer dumb luck that we've avoided it! If Nixon had even said a "maybe," we've would seen a mushroom cloud over Peking!

Garry

Hi Officer of Engineers,

I am afraid we all will need much more LUCK when nuclear club will be extended by Iran.... and then somebody else. However from what I read in the analytical articles I come to conlusion that EMBARGO will not stop them. They believe that Iraq was attacked because IT HAD NO BOMB.... and that Pakistan, India and Israel are left unpunished because the GOT IT.

They will go for confrontation with Russia.... China... or whoever else. USA and Europe are long in the list of their adversaries and they do not care much about their oppinions. They know that bombing will not stop them. They know that attack can. But they know that attack now is not possible and that only thing they need now is TIME..... nobody knows how much but it they decided to take this risky direction it might be not that MUCH.

Lets see. I am very interested..... and will be probably scared later.

Srirangan

I'll stick my neck out here. I'ld say if Pakistan can have nukes, so can Iran.

__________________
I rant, therefore I am.

Officer of Engineers

That's not the point. The point is that someone has decided (rightly or wrongly) not to allow Iran to have nukes. I raised the historic example of the Sino-Soviet conflict to show that the Soviets were quite ready, willing, and able to goto nuclear war to eliminate the China threat. It was only the US threat that stopped them.

Garry

OK. I understood your point now.

However Russia will not welcome US using nuckes on its border. Moreover it will be hard to justify the NON-prolifiration after nuckes were used against Iran, which did not have nuckes and did not attack anybody directly.....

I am very much interested to see how it develops now. I really see so many scenarios but have little idea how it will play further....

EMBARGO
I see it likelly to happen. In Russia the proponents of embargo are getting stronger.... RUSSIA DOES NOT WANT IRAN TO HAVE BOMB. And they would agree to give up all cooperation playing the role of a forced victim.... They hope that EMBARGO threat will stop Iran.

China is not willing to expand the nuclear club.... and it will not stay the only one supporting Iran if Russia backs up.... China is not willing to be the only bustard, so openly opposing to US.

However from what I understand Iran has already made their choice..... they don't care about delivery of Russia arms nor Chinese cash for their oil. They WANT TO MANUFACTURE A BOMB. And they are ready to put much on this bet.

AIR STRICKES
US can and will strike Iran. However Iran knows that it will not stop them... they have raw material.... even if Natanz is bombed out they can make other smaller sites. I did ask people who work at TVEL... Russian civil nuclear fuel producer how splitting from large plant to few small plants affect capacity.... from them I understood that what matters is a number of centrifuges.... and their individual capacity. How they are going to be configured - ten small lines or one big will only affect CAPITAL INVESTMENT costs and OPERATING COST but not CAPACITY. Iranians now don't care about cost! They know that NATANZ will be bombed and I guess they are preparing now smaller sites to bring there centrifuges. Even poor North Korea could afford these costs.

Air strickes will delay them at best.

INTERVENTION
The more I read the more I understand that US internal situation will not let them start a major war which would require around 200,000 soldiers, and so unclear exit strategy. If to occupy timelly then no guarantee that enrichment will not be resumed after you left..... But it is not possible to change the leader.... So it is much harder to understand most IMPORTANT part of millitary operation - when to stop? when it is over? what to achieve? In my view after Iraq it will be hard to find support for intervention into Iran.

NUCLEAR STRICKES
Before striking with nuckes on Russian border USA will need at least inform them. Russia would be uphappy but it can not stricke back millitarily. But it will strike all along other issues......

Nuclear strike will not stop Iranians technically but may stop them politically. If they understood that USA is willing to destroy them all once they have a nucke they may stop. But I see this quite unlikelly. It is hard to strike somebody who does not attack you WITH NUCKES..... Iran gives no justification for that.... and such untriggered action would result into big problems for US. Seems not very likelly to me...... USSR could do it much easier.... USA today?!?!? Sounds unlikelly

Srirangan

True. Iran may very well be just as trigger friendly. But, as an Indian for me Pakistan is perceived as a greater threat. And back in 1999 and 2002 they showed the same enthusiasm levels in pushing the button as the Iranians might ever show.There isn't any reason for the world to believe that this has changed.

Instead of Tel Aviv it can be a mushroom cloud here in New Delhi. Is this not worth addressing?