Endgame in Iran?

**Countezero** · 29 Dec 09, 17:36

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Have you even read Stuart Slade's Nuke War 101, 102, and 103? Getting the nuke makes absolute zero sense until you have the means to deliver them. Iran may get the bomb but her ability to deliver a nuke anywhere is zilch. In short, she gets a nuke, she is a target.

It was my understanding that Iran had recently developed new missiles that could deliver a nuclear payload. I also thought Iran could very easily deploy the weapon via a plane.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

And 140,000 foot soldiers are going to die of thirst.

If Iran wants to, it can kill a lot of Americans in Iraq first. Not to mention the Shia brigades there will kill even more. And then, of course, there is Iran's ability to sink the region into chaos through its proxies.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Neither India nor Pakistan are signatories to the NPT and neither was the PRC during her time of proliferation.

Wasn't aware of the bit about India, but I do know from the Nuclear Jihadist -- an excellent book on Pakistan's program -- that it consistently lied to and deceived the US about its program. It never paid for that.

**Dreadnought** · 29 Dec 09, 17:42

Originally Posted by tankie

Hoo hoo hullaballoo , the Brits will reply with a stiff upper lip , robustly , B/S smack them back harder

Reuters

Iran summoned the British ambassador in Tehran on Tuesday, with Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki threatening Britain with a "slap in the mouth" if it did not stop interfering in Iranian affairs.

The Foreign Office said the ambassador would respond "robustly" to any criticism of a British government statement calling on Tehran to respect the human rights of Iranian citizens.

Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards earlier said Iran's opposition was linked to the country's foreign enemies.

Mottaki told a news conference that the ambassador had been summoned over Britain's interference in Iran's domestic affairs. "If Britain does not stop talking nonsense it will get a slap in the mouth," he said.

On Monday British Foreign Secretary David Miliband criticised the Tehran regime after at least eight people were killed in anti-government protests.

Miliband said the deaths were "yet another reminder of how the Iranian regime deals with protest" and praised the courage of protesters.

At least 20 opposition figures have been arrested since Sunday as hardline rulers intensify a crackdown on Iran's reform movement

*Its ALWAYS someone elses fault, NEVER the regimes, thats about how pathetically brainwashed these morons are. If I was the ambassador, I'd tell them all to grow the hell up and give them a "V", and wish them a "good day" for how many they actually have left.

)

Tick,TickTick...

**Zinja** · 29 Dec 09, 18:02

Originally Posted by Bigfella

Doing what any US President with a brain should do - back the protesters rhetorically & keep any other visible hint of US involvement out of the picture. Any credible hint of US involvement here & the protest movement is dealt a severe, perhaps mortal blow.

As in the election, this must be about Iran & Iranians. Obama did the smart thing then & the movement has survived & perhaps even thrived. I'm yet to see any credible suggestions as to what else Obama should be doing, just cheap shots about what he is doing Using this for partisan point scoring won't help anyone, least of all Iranians.

Obama, West stand behind Iran protesters

Oh Bigfella, this was not a rebuke on Obama. It just happened that i had just read an article of Obama having been rushed off home abruptly from his golf game with friends, then i saw the article from the London Telegraph with the question 'Iranians are dying for Freedom—Where is Barack Obama?'. And i thought it kinda funny that he was playing golf with friends.

On the contrary im a now a firm believer in countries liberating themselves. For far too long the US has been getting the stick at every turn for trying to help people. And sometimes more often than not, the same people who the US help then come back to bite the US. Its about time the US held back a bit until people learn to appreciate help the next time they get it. I bet you some of those people who are now battling the Iranian regime, two years ago have been chanting death to the US and Israel. I really sympathise with what they are doing now trying to secure their freedom, but i still hold firmly that unless people themselves pay the price for their freedom, they will never appreciate it.

**Zinja** · 29 Dec 09, 18:04

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

For you defenders of Iran, FIND ME ONE MILITARY REASON FOR IRAN TO GET NUKES!

There is none sir, except plain mischief!

**Zinja** · 29 Dec 09, 18:42

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

John Kerry going to meet in Iran?

Please, just keep him once hes there, He can and has done more damage to the US just by running his mouth more then Iran can with any kind of threat those pathetic morons can dream up.

PLEASE KEEP HIM OVER THERE!

*Will you also except Pelosi, Reid and Boxer as long as we promise not to bomb your asses back to the stone age?

)

Is he really visiting Iran Dreadnought?

**Dreadnought** · 29 Dec 09, 18:49

Originally Posted by Zinja

Is he really visiting Iran Dreadnought?

It has been proposed that "the almighty" Mr Obama might send "the savior"

John Kerry aka "Frankenstein" over to Iran to talk. The only problem is not only has time run out for Iran but Obama sending anyone to Iran at this time with protests going on could in fact do more harm to those protesters then any of them realize. With the way Iran spins facts and common sense it could be easily misconstrued as the US supporting their crackdown on the protestors. Something we surely do not and would not support.

**citanon** · 29 Dec 09, 19:52

Originally Posted by Countezero

If Iran wants to, it can kill a lot of Americans in Iraq first. Not to mention the Shia brigades there will kill even more.

Iran tried. And then Sadr ran away with his tail between his legs after his militia was slaughtered around him.

Name one reason why the Iraqi Shia would want to throw away their hard won status for Iran now?

And then, of course, there is Iran's ability to sink the region into chaos through its proxies.

Hamas has just taken a pasting, and Hezbollah is on thin ice. Would an Iranian response through those two be a disaster, or an opportunity for Israel?

**Countezero** · 29 Dec 09, 20:10

Originally Posted by citanon

Iran tried. And then Sadr ran away with his tail between his legs after his militia was slaughtered around him.

Sorry, but that's not quite the perception of events that I got.

Originally Posted by citanon

Name one reason why the Iraqi Shia would want to throw away their hard won status for Iran now?

Um, because they're religious fundamentalists who receive their ideology, funding and weapons from Iran? I mean, do you think they're going to sit still while the US hits Iran, probably from bases in Iraq? I don't.

Originally Posted by citanon

Hamas has just taken a pasting, and Hezbollah is on thin ice. Would an Iranian response through those two be a disaster, or an opportunity for Israel?

Um, I don't know what news you're reading, but Hezbollah ran Israel out of Lebanon the last time the two tangled and Hamas is in control of the Palestinian territories -- unless I missed an election?

**Officer of Engineers** · 29 Dec 09, 20:13

Originally Posted by Countezero

It was my understanding that Iran had recently developed new missiles that could deliver a nuclear payload. I also thought Iran could very easily deploy the weapon via a plane.

No impact fuse development. No re-entry vehicle development. No arming mechanism. About the only nuke that they can develop is a simple gun design that would have to be delivered via cargo aircraft that would be blasted out of the sky before it leaves Iran's borders. You're giving the Iranians way more credit than they deserve.

Originally Posted by Countezero

If Iran wants to, it can kill a lot of Americans in Iraq first. Not to mention the Shia brigades there will kill even more. And then, of course, there is Iran's ability to sink the region into chaos through its proxies.

You're assuming, of course, that this a central Iranian power left. I strongly recommend you read

Nuclear Warfare 101
Nuclear Warfare 102
Nuclear Warfare 103

You will be forgiven for not realizing that such destruction can be achieved without nuclear weapons. Want to kill a city? Kill the water/sewage and electricity and let cholera do the rest.

For a country like Iran, her cities are gone and those 140,000 troops that you so touted would be needed for internal security if not outright civil war when local government would make do without a central authority.

Originally Posted by Countezero

Wasn't aware of the bit about India, but I do know from the Nuclear Jihadist -- an excellent book on Pakistan's program -- that it consistently lied to and deceived the US about its program. It never paid for that.

What Pakistan ... and China did was NOT illegal. Neither were signatories to the NPT at the time. Iran signed the NPT and as hypocrticial as the NPT is, Iran is the one who signed on the dotted line. No one forced them to.

At least the North Koreans withdrew from the NPT before testing their duds.

While India, Pakistan, and China were not legally bound by the NPT when they did their stuff, the NPT, however, was used as legal justification by both superpowers to prepare to attack non-NPT compliant countries. The US against North Korea and Iran, Moscow against Lop Nor and Dimona.

Iran is SOL since she clearly has not withdrawn from the NPT and thus subject to full enforcement of the treaty by all powers involved.

**Dreadnought** · 29 Dec 09, 20:32

Um, because they're religious fundamentalists who receive their ideology, funding and weapons from Iran? I mean, do you think they're going to sit still while the US hits Iran, probably from bases in Iraq? I don't.

*Meanwhile a (possibly even two) USN CVBG's is on stand by, The guided missle cruisers in her group alone could shower Tehran with many missles not including the CVBG's escort attack subs which would add to that volley two fold with Tomahawks. The US would not stand by and allow Iran nor her proxies to attack US & NATO forces in Iraq. Iran knows this already and is not willing to take that chance.

*The US wont hit from Iraq. It is written within the two countries agreements. She will hit from the sea and hit very hard no doubt. And when Iran reacts and attempts to close Hormuz, they will be waiting for her.

**citanon** · 29 Dec 09, 20:41

Originally Posted by Countezero

Sorry, but that's not quite the perception of events that I got.

Iraq spring fighting of 2008 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Um, because they're religious fundamentalists who receive their ideology, funding and weapons from Iran?

Those were pummeled down with Sadr, and then slowly mopped up. The Iraqi government is now in charge, and the Shia main stream is overwhelmingly non-fundamentalist.

Post-invasion Iraq, 2003?present - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notice where they are getting their weapons and funding from.

I mean, do you think they're going to sit still while the US hits Iran, probably from bases in Iraq? I don't.

The US has bases in more than one country. As Dreadnaught pointed out, they have a little something called a CVBG.

And did you not notice a recent other thread?

Iran Captures Iraqi Oil Fields In Disputed Region

A preview of things to come. Some might protest, and others will cheer. Rather fewer will die for Iran.

Um, I don't know what news you're reading, but Hezbollah ran Israel out of Lebanon the last time the two tangled

The Israelis learned their lessons

Gaza War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and Hamas is in control of the Palestinian territories -- unless I missed an election?

No you just missed reality.

Mahmoud Abbas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And again:

Gaza War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

PS Listen to Officer of Engineers. He knows what he's talking about. Also read the links he sent. They are very well written and rather enlightening.

**Parihaka** · 29 Dec 09, 21:43

Originally Posted by Countezero

That's the bombastic rhetoric that gets picked up (some would say used) by the Western Media.

Ah, that old canard. Alone amongst the nations of the Earth, Iran does not mean what it says. If my govt. says it's going to raise the official cash rate, or declares war on Germany, well, everyone takes them at their word. Same goes for Egypt, France, or Krygystan.
But with Iran, "Nah, that's just them mad mullahs, they don't really mean it, hah ha, good one Amjad, it's the way you tell em"

Oddly enough, while we are asked to accept that in the field of official communicated Iranian policy the theocracy is a sandwich short of a picnic, we are simultaneously asked to treat them as perfectly rational players when it comes to the use of nuclear weapons.
Personally, I just prefer to take them at their word when they say they wish to destroy Israel, especially since all empirical evidence points to them, along with their allies in the region, rapidly developing the means to do so.

Originally Posted by Countezero

That's an amazing position to me. On what do you base that?

It's called MAD, you might want to look it up some time. Central to it is the determination that if you have nuclear weapons, you will use them if you deem it necessary. Otherwise they're just expensive book-ends.

**Countezero** · 29 Dec 09, 21:52

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

*Meanwhile a (possibly even two) USN CVBG's is on stand by, The guided missle cruisers in her group alone could shower Tehran with many missles not including the CVBG's escort attack subs which would add to that volley two fold with Tomahawks. The US would not stand by and allow Iran nor her proxies to attack US & NATO forces in Iraq. Iran knows this already and is not willing to take that chance.

All I'm asking is that you to include a turbulent region and horrendous bloody reprisals in you analysis of hitting Iran. Right now, your thinking reminds me of pre-Iraq. Yes, we will steamroll them. . . And then what? We're in a mess now precisely because too few people asked that question and were allowed to consider the more frightening possibilities. I think and attack on Iran could open a huge can of worms. Or maybe not. Maybe nothing happens. Who knows?

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

*The US wont hit from Iraq. It is written within the two countries agreements. She will hit from the sea and hit very hard no doubt. And when Iran reacts and attempts to close Hormuz, they will be waiting for her.

Apparently, you're unfamiliar with the exercise in which the US Navy got its ass handed to it in the Gulf?

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

No impact fuse development. No re-entry vehicle development. No arming mechanism. About the only nuke that they can develop is a simple gun design that would have to be delivered via cargo aircraft that would be blasted out of the sky before it leaves Iran's borders. You're giving the Iranians way more credit than they deserve.

Perhaps, but as I said, I don't know. I read they had developed a missile capable of delivering the nuke. Meanwhile, if they're really as hopeless as you make out, then bombing them becomes an even more remote possibility, as apparently we have nothing to worry about for some time to come.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

You will be forgiven for not realizing that such destruction can be achieved without nuclear weapons. Want to kill a city? Kill the water/sewage and electricity and let cholera do the rest.

Yes, I will be forgiven (apparently). I'm well aware of that. Look, I'm not arguing the US would lose a conflict with Iran, I'm arguing the fallout from the conflict makes for a sober cost-benefit analysis. Iran could really bloody our nose. And, of course, could wreak havoc in the region, as I've said about half a dozen times now.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

For a country like Iran, her cities are gone and those 140,000 troops that you so touted would be needed for internal security if not outright civil war when local government would make do without a central authority.

I didn't tout anything.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

While India, Pakistan, and China were not legally bound by the NPT when they did their stuff, the NPT, however, was used as legal justification by both superpowers to prepare to attack non-NPT compliant countries. The US against North Korea and Iran, Moscow against Lop Nor and Dimona.

The point I am making is that Iran has seen relatively few consequences for nations that developed nukes secretly and against the desires of the West. Pakistan, in particular, lied to our faces. We did nothing. Now that country is ostensibly our ally.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Iran is SOL since she clearly has not withdrawn from the NPT and thus subject to full enforcement of the treaty by all powers involved.

Agreed, but those powers are divided about what to do and no real consensus has emerged. Hence, my offering alternative solutions, like a summit. But I get it, believe me. The crowd around here wants to bomb and never look back...

Originally Posted by citanon

Iraq spring fighting of 2008 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Those were pummeled down with Sadr, and then slowly mopped up. The Iraqi government is now in charge, and the Shia main stream is overwhelmingly non-fundamentalist.

Post-invasion Iraq, 2003?present - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notice where they are getting their weapons and funding from.

The US has bases in more than one country. As Dreadnaught pointed out, they have a little something called a CVBG.

And did you not notice a recent other thread?

Iran Captures Iraqi Oil Fields In Disputed Region

A preview of things to come. Some might protest, and others will cheer. Rather fewer will die for Iran.

The Israelis learned their lessons

Gaza War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No you just missed reality.

Mahmoud Abbas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And again:

Gaza War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

PS Listen to Officer of Engineers. He knows what he's talking about. Also read the links he sent. They are very well written and rather enlightening.

I'm not reading pages of wiki in search of a point you've failed to make. If you want to make an argument, make one. You can't just link to "Gaza" and pretend that proves a point.

Originally Posted by Parihaka

Ah, that old canard. Alone amongst the nations of the Earth, Iran does not mean what it says. If my govt. says it's going to raise the official cash rate, or declares war on Germany, well, everyone takes them at their word. Same goes for Egypt, France, or Krygystan.
But with Iran, "Nah, that's just them mad mullahs, they don't really mean it, hah ha, good one Amjad, it's the way you tell em"

Oddly enough, while we are asked to accept that in the field of official communicated Iranian policy the theocracy is a sandwich short of a picnic, we are simultaneously asked to treat them as perfectly rational players when it comes to the use of nuclear weapons. Personally, I just prefer to take them at their word when they say they wish to destroy Israel, especially since all empirical evidence points to them, along with their allies in the region, rapidly developing the means to do so.

I gave you the Soviet example. You've ignored it. You apparently choose to ignore the fact that all nations, including the US, say things they do not mean, for political and rhetorical reasons. Now, like you, I tend to think Iran, with its history of exporting revolution, means a lot more of the crazy things it says than most other places. But I stop at the point where they set of a nuke in Israel. I just can't go there. I think they are rational actors (at least in their own minds) and they challenge Israel in arenas that matter to them (the Shia world), not in Israel proper. I also think they are smart enough to realize that their is no scenario where they attack Israel with a nuke that ends well for them.

Originally Posted by Parihaka

It's called MAD, you might want to look it up some time. Central to it is the determination that if you have nuclear weapons, you will use them if you deem it necessary. Otherwise they're just expensive book-ends.

I'm well aware of what MAD is, thanks very much. I also know that no nation on Earth has used a nuclear weapon to attack another nation since 1945, despite many nations developing them. On top of that, I know that Iran hasn't attacked another country in centuries.

**Parihaka** · 29 Dec 09, 21:57

Originally Posted by Countezero

Iran could really bloody our nose. And, of course, could wreak havoc in the region, as I've said about half a dozen times now.

You can say it as many times as you like but until you can actually demonstrate how, people are just going to continue to laugh at you.

**Mihais** · 29 Dec 09, 22:13

Originally Posted by Countezero

All I'm asking is that you to include a turbulent region and horrendous bloody reprisals in you analysis of hitting Iran. Right now, your thinking reminds me of pre-Iraq. Yes, we will steamroll them. . . And then what? We're in a mess now precisely because too few people asked that question and were allowed to consider the more frightening possibilities. I think and attack on Iran could open a huge can of worms. Or maybe not. Maybe nothing happens. Who knows?

Or you could lay waste and call it peace.The can of worms will be open with an attack or without it.

Originally Posted by Countezero

Apparently, you're unfamiliar with the exercise in which the US Navy got its ass handed to it in the Gulf?

Look in the thread about the war with Iran.Its a year old,but you'll find some info you won't find otherwise in a sensationalistic articles.In short,your admirals aren't idiots and USN doesn't need to send many warships inside the Golf to do its job.

Originally Posted by Countezero

Agreed, but those powers are divided about what to do and no real consensus has emerged. Hence, my offering alternative solutions, like a summit. But I get it, believe me. The crowd around here wants to bomb and never look back...

I think plenty of meetings have taken place already.The red phones in every major capitol were used.A summit is a place where decisions already agreed upon receive the public acknowledge.Why organize such a event when nothing is agreed upon?Why even bother when interests may diverge?
Bombing and never looking back= 21st century gunboat diplomacy.What's wrong with it?
FYI,up until a few months ago I wasn't convinced of the need to move against Iran.Their blatant ''f... off world'' i.e Qom did a bit to change my mind.

Thread: Endgame in Iran?

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Rate This Thread

Display

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Similar Threads

US exports to Iran increase in Bush years

Stopping Iran:Why the Case For Military Action Still Stands

When Is Islamic Terrorism Actually "Anti-Islamic Activity"?

Candidates, How would you grapple with Iran's nuclear drive?

A Preemptive Attack on Iran's Nuclear Facilities: Possible Consequences

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions