YES
Not without US backing
NO
Aryajet. I do not understand your opinion that they(Iran) would continue nuclear R&D all the way to the point of just short of making the actual bomb and then they will stop? It's like saying that a marathon runner will just stop short of the finish line.Originally Posted by Aryajet
Can you please explain you opinion as to why Iran would stop at the finish line?
IF they even are. If If If and only If.Aryajet. I do not understand your opinion that they(Iran) would continue nuclear R&D all the way to the point of just short of making the actual bomb and then they will stop? It's like saying that a marathon runner will just stop short of the finish line.
Can you please explain you opinion as to why Iran would stop at the finish line?
Everybody talks about Israel just attacking Iran like they can do it whenever they want. They just don't have the capability to attack Iran on their own. Without the support of any of the other countries in the area (granting access to airspace etc..) - And this time around it's abit harder than the attack on Iraq.
And even if the US thought of using Iraq airspace for an Israeli attack on Iran, it would pretty much throw Iraq back into chaos and basically wipe out all gains made in Iraq. I doubt the Iraqi people would take kindly to it, unless some people here think otherwise?
So basically, I think Israel just do not have the capability to carry out an attack on Iran on their own. Well, except for using ballistic missiles I guess, but I'd imagine they're no way near accurate enough.
Some people bring up points like this in other threads. Ignoring problems with using Iraqi or other airspace, Israeli fighter jets would have to operate at their very maximum range to reach some of Iran's nuclear sites. Which are heavily defended, and often in bunkers. Israel simply doesn't have the resources, let alone the political ability to launch a knock-out type attack on Iran's nuclear sites. Can't without direct, not tacit, US support.
Smells like napalm, tastes like chicken!
I believe Isreal has tha capabilities of in flight refueling so what seems to be a problem with max range. Refuel before they go "in" and refuel "out". High Altitude fly down the Red Sea, turn left at the Gulf of Aden in the Arabian Sea, then to Gulf of Oman. All within international air space. Refuel as needed. Last refuel at Gulf of Oman. 1000km. to Tehran. Max range of all F series fighters is between 3330km to 4215km. Red Sea width is 190-220 miles. The length is 2250km. No air space problems. Fly over Djibouti(French) or Yemen(who cares). Last refuel Gulf of Oman area. Tehran is 1000km in and 1000km out. Reverse plan on way out. BaDa Bing.
______________________________________
The Ox is slow but the earth is patient.
Buddist Monk
High Road to China 1983
No. And no again, and again and again.
This is playing with fire, bigtime. Iran is not Iraq - an Israeli air attack will provoke Iran into pumping every missile they have into the direction of Israel, and they do have a lot of missiles with that range. And there are also many big American ships in the Persian Gulf at risk of missile attack, let alone bases in Iraq. What's worse is that a land invasion of Iran would be really difficult and possibly provoke a Russian or even Chinese reaction. We could talking WW3 here.
But why should we be concerned about this? Another muslim country, Pakistan, already has nuclear weapons, and nobody is making a fuss about them. Iran is not an unstable country about to break into civil war, it's a stable country with a developing economy and a strong government. Now, of curse, that government is not friendly to Israel or the West, but neither was the USSR and we survived that period. I believe Iran can be contained by a state of 'cold war'. After all, Iran can't afford to spend enormous sums, so as long as the West maintains a deterrent in the region everyhing should be OK.Aryajet. I do not understand your opinion that they(Iran) would continue nuclear R&D all the way to the point of just short of making the actual bomb and then they will stop? It's like saying that a marathon runner will just stop short of the finish line.
Can you please explain you opinion as to why Iran would stop at the finish line?
And I would not take Ahmadinejad too seriously. He is just a populist, playing to his home crowd.
An initial look at the Iranian inventory shows that they only have about 325-550 missiles that can reach Israel.
http://www.nti.org/e_research/profil...sile/3367.html
Yes, it's a target rich environment, meaning the Iranians are going run out of bombs long before the Americans would even be starting to hurt.
What does Iran got that could stop III Corps from storming Tehran?
Last I check, neither Moscow nor Beijing has offered any security guarrantees nor is Iran even invited into their quasi alliance, the SCO.
Chimo
I agree with this. I think a nuclear-armed Iran is a manageable problem.
It should also be noted that under Iran's constitution, unlike in many other republics, the President is not the C-in-C of the armed forces.
Regarding the quarter-century or so that has passed since the Iranian Revolution, I see little evidence that those governing that country, whatever their rhetoric, are actually irrational in their conduct of foreign policy.
NO, the hell it is NOT! Iran signed the NPT! Iran has REFUSED to withdraw from the NPT!
There are those of us willing to give up nuclear weapons even though we have nuclear weapons knowledge (Canada, Germany, Australia, Japan, etc) but by the same token we expect those without it will not seek it (ie, Iran).
Either Iran's word means anything or it does not. Period!
Chimo
The only country that gave up nuclear weapons was South Africa. Whether they did it to prevent new, post-apartheid regime from getting them or for some other reason is another matter but they gave them up. countries you mention simply did not develop them. Swiss held a referendum in IIRC 1960s whether to build them or not, the answer was no so they passed. But not getting them is not same as giving them up.
Well, so far Iran has stated repeatedly that it is not seeking a nucear weapon. Until it changes this declaration we have to assume that it intends not to develop one.
I maintain that it's too risky to start a war with Iran over the possibility that it might be building a nuclear weapon.
Then, yolu have not been following the news. AQ Khan sold Iran a warhead blueprint and the technologies to build it.
Try again, CF-104s at CFB Lahrs were tasked to drop nuclear bombs on Soviet columns. In fact, that was their only armament, not even a gun.
Tac nukes were finally withdrawn from 4CMBG in the 70s.
Chimo
No, the Supreme Leader, an unelected religious nut who merges politics, religion, end-times beliefs, etc., who does as a matter of fact govern Iran as a theocracy in contravention to the mainstream beliefs of the majority of the Shi'ite ayatollahs in Iran, who view theocracy very skeptically, is the Iranian commander-in-chief.
Regarding the last quarter-century of Iranian foreign policy, it has shown behavior that can be defined as anything but rational. It continued a war with Iraq for six years and lost hundreds of thousands more lives when a cease-fire was available in 1982, for religious ideological reasons (defeat the infidel Saddam!)
What is the main reason that Iran suffered so badly in the 1980s when it was fighting the Iran-Iraq War? Because of its behavior during the Iranian hostage crisis, where its irrational and lunatic behavior made it internationally isolated!
Did the Iranian government sponsor a number of terrorist bombings targeting embassies and other facilities throughout the Middle East in the 1980s? Yes, it did!
How about its adoption of a position against Israel that is more hard-line than any Arab state or even the Palestinians themselves? Is that rational?
Some Iranian foreign policy is rational, but at the same time much of it is irrational.
As someone who has actually visited Iran I can report that the natives are friendly - despite the history of UK/US interference.
The Rose Garden of the Martyrs by Chris de Bellaigue provides an excellent overview of life in & history of Persia aka Iran.
I fear we are being wound up for some military action...
Mr AhMADinejad is another matter: if the sins of a country's nominal leader are to be visited on its general population, I am concerned for UK (post Bliar [sic]) and US - Bush; they all seem to claim endorsement from a higher power.
I do not think anyone on this thread has mentioned Israel's possession of nuclear weapons - this was confirmed by Jimmy Carter last year.
South Africa: there are reports of a stockpile of weapons grade plutonium remaining at Pelindaba.
Bomb design: there is lots of data in the public domain - not very difficult - the Manhattan project produced a design in 2 years using hand calculators and punched card multipliers - see Richard Feynman.
Plutonium - chemical extraction from spent reactor fuel is straightforward though hazardous - ergo stringent control necessary on reactors.
Uranium - initial difficulty of producing the orange cake from low grade ores; subsequent problems of U235/U238 separation by diffusion or centrifuge (via uranium hexafluoride) to get fissile material.
Lots of electrical energy needed either way - so an approach to containing an Iranian "threat" (BTW are they in breach of their NPT obligations?) would be to disrupt the power supplies at the nuclear development sites
The critical factor is therefore control of the plutonium or enriched uranium. Tom Clancey has explored some of these issues in "The sum of all fears"
Why would Israel use its air force?; it too has missiles of adequate range to reach Iran.
Rather a ramble... scope for WAB members to research with google..
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Share this thread with friends: