astralis

dreadnought,

the only way for the israelis to attack iran is through iraq, which would mean US compliance if not outright total support in the matter. if that's the case, the US would probably be better off doing it itself.

as for iranian motivations, i find the "iran is irrational" argument to be doubtful, especially as they have shown GREATER rationality as they move away from their revolutionary past. as i've said before, iran faces restraints in its foreign policy due to its own internal conditions. everyone talks about how the iranian president wished for the destruction of the zionist entity; what is often less heard is that he was roundly criticized in domestic political circles at home for unnecessarily rocking the boat and making things harder for the iranians. and these are only words- NOT a fullscale nuclear attack of israel or the west.

instead of playing a cat and mouse game, why not just do as we did to the USSR?- heck, even better, because the iranians will surely never get MAD capability, we can just say very clearly: any suspected use of iranian nukes, either by you or a proxy, will result in iran turning into the world's largest piece of glass in a matter of minutes. and we are watching.

Dreadnought

I just dont think the worlds ready for another disaster especially something on the nuclear scale. And I certainly hope that Russia is thinking long and hard before selling some of these capabilities to whomever.

lwarmonger

We don't need Russia's manufactured products, because we produce more, better. And so there is nothing we can offer Russia, short of outright bribes.

And all we have to do is "follow our interests" in other pro-Moscow regimes in Central Asia to upset Russia's sphere of influence.

There governments won't... but their people will.

Joke is on you buddy. The Soviet Union couldn't manage things in Afghanistan, and I don't think the Russian government had anything to laugh about in Chechnya. We could arrange similar situations all over Russia's southern frontier if we truly wanted to. I'm not talking about selling weapons.... I'm talking about giving them.


And do you think our current administration is particularly worried about Russian conventional forces?


And are there nukes in Cuba now? We had a test of wills, and Russia lost. Russia is a lot weaker compared to the United States today then it was back then (if you honestly believe that Russia will escalate to nuclear weapons for Iran...).


If we see it in an Iranian harbor, we sink it. Nothing illegal about that. You enter a warzone, you take your chances.

The only revenge Russia could exact would be nuclear. Conventionally, Russia would lose hands down. A nuclear conflict we would both lose... however it would not be the US starting that.

Clinton adminstration... Bush administration. Very different.

We don't need to just use A-10's. We have a large number of other aircraft in our inventory, which are perfectly capable of taking out vehicles.

Meh. They could consider this repayment for not supporting us in the last war. They will hardly go to war with the United States over it. And I doubt we would have to officially grant statehood to the Kurds (although I am in favor of doing just that). Just continue to ship them weapons for free, and use American troops on their soil to guarantee their protection against the Iranians, Turks, and Iraqis, and we're both happy.

lwarmonger

True, but sometimes we do learn from our mistakes.

Also true, but I doubt Russia would go nuclear because a few of their ships/planes/trucks in a declared war zone were destroyed.

But Russia can no longer afford to supply those enemies for free, and most of them don't have the money to pay. We can supply their enemies for free.

I am not saying that many of the former Soviet republics would go to war with Russia, but many of them have very shaky regimes that could easily fall to be replaced by pro-Western governments. Also, I would remind you of the Chechans and Georgians who infiltrated into Russia and caused havoc during the 1990's. If we actively started encouraging and arming such activity, Russia would have significant problems dealing with it.

Turkey would not fight the United States over this. They know the outcome of such a conflict. In the UN, we (and the Kurds) could easily argue "self-determination" and make it stick. Besides, a long term American military presence in Kurdistan would ensure their protection (and autonomy) for quite some time to come (from all of their neighbors) regardless of whether we recognize their independence. I think the Kurds would be happy with that as well.

Garry

I guess you did not get my point. Who cares do you need these products or not. If you don't buy them there are others to buy them. And they need them. Very simple.

You already do it up to your possibility. But you are limited. To play with central asian regimes you need to accept those bustards who rule them. But this is against your principles (which I admire). On the other side revolutions in the regione are against your interest..... your Central Asian policy now in deep crisis. I follow it on daily basis. There is only one thing you may to do to help CA nations and reduce Russian influence - independent pipeline routes... like Baku - Ceihan.

I traveled to all of those states many times in a year. Like this year I was in Georgia, 3 times in Ukraine, 4 times in Kazakhtan, 2 times in Uzbekistan, once in Kyrgyzstan, and once in Belorussia. (in general I travel a lot in FSU and globally). I am not Russian so people talk to me freely about what they think of Russians. The are only one territory where Russians are really hated - Lvov region of Ukraine. There is a strong tention in Georgia. In general many people are quite nostalgic about Russian rule, or very friendly about them.

The weapons are not really problem for Chechens... because Russian soldiers sell them at much cheaper price than you can even imagine and supply them regularly.

As for other mentioned nations. These nations have no shortage of simple weapons but shortage of advanced weapons like helicopters, aircraft, radars, SAMs etc.... giving this would enhace them. But I don't really see how it will harm Russians. They still depend on Russia up to the ears..... look on average around 60% of trade ballance is with Russia..... and around half of all capital investments come from there. The state which punished itself bitter was Georgia - the country is in deep powerty since Russia banned only one of their products - organges..... if Russia bans their wine and cuts off electricity for overdue debt they are just doomed. Most of them really depend on trading with Russia.......

There are so many bad consequences of the war - like confiscation of emeny's property on your territory. Let's say LUKOIL loses all of its refuel stations in US. But US companies will lose all of their oil fields in Russia..... you know they simply don't let your administration to do this stupid thing.

In addition to that - conventional war with Russia will end with smoke over the plannet. Nobody will even dare of this risk for hypothetical Iranian bombs.

As for Cuba. There was a trade. US pooled off a whoe class of missiles from Europe. Russia pooled off from Cuba. They settled this without direct encounter....

I doubt that first revenge would be nuclear. Russia can send a regiment of T-160 and sink few of your ships in Persina gulf from Astrakhan base.... with a large salvo of 3,000 km range missiles. Lets say 15 bombers shoot 10 missiles each - this would make a salvo of 150 missiles..... This is not a Pacific Ocean.... targeting and positioning of groups is really easy in Persian gulf even with once in a day mode.... you can't escape there + Iran will give its base for Tu-142 reconnaisance aircraft.....

No need for Russia to fight in Europe..... in case of war Russia can help Iran on land war with you..... all those tanks/aircraft/artillery guns roasting now in Siberia you meet you in Iran/Iraq border...... Make sure that you deploy enough soldiers there to counter an armed shia riot. The stuff may be easily delivered through Casian Sea.... Russian piliots will go to Iranian to protect their skys. And we all see what is really cooler - Eagle or Flanker

Wow.... lots is fantasy ha? Actually this will never happen. You will not sink a most lousy of Russia ships in neutral waters. Declaration of war zone does not release from responsibility for sinking ships here. If you did it you call for a war. Nobody will ever do it......

Every politician understands this even Bush - the attack of Russian civilian cargo aircraft would have resulted in much more harm to US than letting it go.... Same regarding transport ships. Same was with Russian deliveries to Vietnam and Chinese railroad to Vietnam. While sorting out small problems don't mess with really big ones....

I guess you don't understand what Kurds really want. What ever they do it is all about getting closer to one goal - INDEPENDENT KURDISTAN

Tor-M1 are easy to knock out. They are too short-range. But they are cheap... and the large number of them.... As I told earlier the whole purpose of Russian policy is to enhance Iran only margnally. To keep it dependent on future help..... once the help would be neede Russians will think if they want to go further.

The S-300PMU is very mobile.... it can be delivered by a cargo aircraft and stationed in just few minutues.... Iranians are in Moscow for last 4 years.... they study how to use Russian stuff.

Monk

Domestic pressure results in strange decisions. There is always a threshold for anybody after which it is anybody's guess.


This is the fundamental point. They would supply Nuclear weapons or Dirty bombs for free which US would never do. And that is the problem. Conventional weapons still mean very little against a nuke.

1) To be frank none of the erstwhile soviet republics would go to war with Russia with the exception of the Chechens and the European baltic states.
2) Can you name regions other than Chechnya(caucasus) where your policy of stoking low-intensity armed conflict would work? Further still would Russia be troubled by them.
3) If Russia decided enough is enough and invaded those countries, I will guarantee that Europe will sit back and watch. It will again be left to the US to run the gamut, hence my point about Nuclear war.



1) Turkey may not fight the US but it can cause serious problems in the islamic world all over again for the US. Any kurd action towards independance will be viewed as a US oil conspiracy. The entire region would be destabilised.
2) Self-Determination would be shot to pieces at the UNSC. Russia has chechnya, China has XinJiang (With a large uighur muslim population) and UK has northern Ireland, any vote in favor of Kurd right to self determination would stir up a hornet's nest.
3) But yes, you may be able to appease the kurds to shutup and not talk about Independance.

__________________
"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those others that have been tried from time to time. "

"Although prepared for martyrdom, I preferred that it be postponed."

Sir Winston Churchill

Dreadnought

IMO if Russia wants to sell their black market weaponary then do so. However if they sell a missle that can deliver a nuclear warhead or provide them with the material or facility to construct that warhead then they should certainly be held accountable by all of the nations collectively. They know far well whats on their customers minds at the time of purchase and the responsibility is theirs alone. I hope for their sake that Iran doesnt attempt a strike on Israel because the results will be really bad for Iran and whomever supplied them the weaponary. They will have more problems then just Chechnya. Chechnya would be a birthday party compared to the events that would follow a nuclear incident. The question is whats more important to them cash in the short run or a future without conflicts that will last a much longer time.

lwarmonger

But we will not buy those products if we do not need them. However, my point is also simple. Directly supporting our enemies with weapons that will clearly be used to kill American soldiers is a hostile act. The United States will respond to a hostile act against it with another hostile act. If Russia is shipping in weapons to Iran while Iran and the United States are at war, then as soon as those weapons enter Iranian territory, they are viable targets... whether their Russian transporters are still with them or not.


I wasn't suggesting that we back the dictators that are in power. I was suggesting backing their opposition movements, therefore overthrowing regimes that are essentially puppets of Moscow.

Which is why Ukraine recently voted in a government that is very emphatically pro-West? There are significant numbers of Muslims in those former republics who still resent Russian influence (athiestic socialism didn't fit in too well with Islam). That appears to have been partly mitigated, and partly perpetuated by the demographic changes which occured in the Central Asian Republics under Soviet rule (Russians make up a considerable proportion of the population in these countries, which changes the political situation... however they are also there to remind the natives of their lost land and relative poverty).

Incursions into Russia from many of these nations (of Islamists and nationalists) have been a substantial problem, and with active American support and encouragement could be again. Supplying SAMs and guided anti-tank missiles would seriously damage Russia, and hurt them in a manner that is far more serious than the Russian supply of arms to Iran could hurt us. Once again, you have to distinguish the population from the government.

Consider Saudi Arabia. They are highly reliant upon the West (for they require the oil trade as much as we do), but significant proportions of their population hate the West independent of (or sometimes as a part of) the government. So while the government is very pro-West (because it has to be), their population is more than willing to try and kill Americans and Europeans.


Were it to come to that, we could shut Russia off from all sea trade, which would hurt Russia a great deal more than confiscating the assets of American corporations would hurt the US.

Things can escalate very quickly, I agree. However, I must reiterate that at no time would the US need to consider the use of atomic weapons to achieve our ends. Therefore we could keep things purely conventional (at any level), and still win. If we don't think that Russia would go nuclear (and personally I don't think they would for the sake of Iran), then why should we tolerate losses that could be easily prevented (by taking out Russian weapons systems that are in Iran before they are operational)?

We were already removing the missiles because they were obsolete. What did it look like to the world?


Carrier battle groups could make anything less than full Backfire regiments irrelevant. However, that being said, Russia lacks the spare parts and logistical support to really make a go of it against the United States Air Force and navy.

Our electronics and logistical support is unmatched (I won't take up the "Flanker vs Eagle" debate, as that has been discussed extensively elsewhere). That is an air war that we would win... and if Russia actually decided to pour conventional forces into a direct conflict with American troops in the Middle East (a major escalation), then the probability of both conventional and nuclear escalation (into Russia itself) goes up dramatically.

WWI and WWII, both sides targeted neutral shipping for destruction and confiscation. However, I am not even talking about Russian ships in neutral waters. I am referring to hitting them while they are docked in Iranian ports. Then they are a legitimate target, and can be sunk accordingly.

One of the biggest reasons why we lost Vietnam, was a weak kneed unwillingness to actually take out the sources of NVA weapons. That is a mistake I do not think that the current administration would repeat. And one must remember history at that time. Would China have gone to war with the United States if we had started hitting their railheads? Probably. Would the Soviet Union have objected to the United States glassing China? Probably not (since the Soviets came to us with an offer of a combined nuclear offensive to arrest China's nuclear development a few years later). Would the USSR have gone to war with the United States over Haiphong harbor being taken out? Probably not, and I base this on the fact that Soviet planners (at least for foriegn policy) tended to be pretty rational. They understood the ramifications of the Sino-Soviet split alot better than the US did at the time, and would most likely not have gone to war with the United States until their position vis a vis the Chinese could be clarified.


I understand perfectly that is what the Kurds want. But I also understand that they are willing to settle for unofficial autonomy, especially if that autonomy is backed up by a direct US military presence on their soil. In fact, from a Kurdish perspective, that is probably better than complete independence without a direct American presence, because US troops ensure that neither Iraq, Iran, or Turkey move in to crush their new state.

And for now, we aren't stopping that. If we took a more aggressive stance towards Iran, and actually went to war with them, and Russia continued supplying weapons that were killing American soldiers.... then things would change.

lwarmonger

True, however that will not deter the United States. If that did, then any nation with nuclear weapons could get anything they wanted from us.

I doubt Russia would supply nukes to any unstable radical regimes or organizations for the following reasons.

1) A lot of these people hate us both (most of them perhaps hate the US more... but then Russia is closer, and I doubt Putin would count on that).

2) If there was any chance that the nuke (once used upon the US) could be traced back to Russia, then that would create an extremely volatile situation that Russia would have little control over. The US would require a lot of compensation (in blood from some, in money from others) from everyone even remotely responsible, and if Russia wasn't willing to give it...?

3) In the above situation, it would essentally put Russia's foriegn and nuclear policy in the hands of another, unpredictable country/organization, which is most unacceptable to the Russian government.

I'm not talking about a war pitting nation state against nation state. I am talking about large numbers of armed men entering Russia and wreaking havoc (such as happened in the 1990's).

Russia has certainly been troubled by Chechnya and their insurgents, both now and in the 1990's. As for nations who have problems with Russia, while Garry is correct that pro-Russian tendencies remain in the Central Asian Republics (especially in the cities where the majority of the ethnic Russians live), radical Islam has made significant inroads into the countryside (which was a cause of concern for Soviet policy makers, and has hardly gone away now that the Soviet Union is gone). Those people have clerics who remember oppression by the KGB and Party apparatus, and radical Islam isn't exactly based around a "forgive and forget" principle.

Why would we bother intervening militarily at that point? It would be like Afghanistan was for the Soviets, except spread over a much larger area, with a lot more people and fewer resources with which to deal with it. Russia could take those republics by force I'm sure.... but the way things are now I doubt they could hold them down, and would merely exhaust themselves trying.

Depends. I doubt Turkey's ability to sway the Islamic right, simply because they are so determined to be secular themselves (the military ensures that even when the people are wavering as is happening today). The region in Turkey and Iran might be destabilized, but I doubt that the creation of an independent Kurdistan would be any more disruptive than Iraqi Freedom, or the Iran-Iraq War.

We wouldn't need UN approval (after all, we would present them with a fait accompli), we would simply need acknowledgement. After a few years of independence, and consistant arming and economic support from the American government, the world would get used to the idea of an independent Kurdistan (much like the world got used to a Communist China).

Monk

I wasn't talking about swaying the US. My point was that Russia would be swayed towards a war and the need for revenge to satisfy its populace.


1) The Russians are too damn smart to be supplying nukes to anyone hostile to them. All they would need to do is "help" along someone like NK a little bit.

2) How much of the US will be left for the kind of retaliation you are talking about. What would be the strength of what is left after a surprise nuclear attack? What makes you sure that Russia wouldn't step in to finish of what is left, if it smelled the opportunity? As you know very well, the key to any victory is tactical surprise, if a nuke detonation on US soil achieves that, then Russia wins.

3) Russia needn't handover the nuke to anybody as such. All they need is to provide them physical access to one. They could still retain the final firing code etc.



This is a very imaginary view. I don't see hordes of central asians, caucasians and Baltics crossing over the border into Russia with guns in hand. Its simply too unrealistic. What happened in the 90's was different. What you have today is a very disillusioned group of erstwhile soviet states, many of whom are nostalgic about the good old days.


Chehcnya has largely been crushed by the thugs Russia sent in. And in the future I can only see Russia making an example out of Chechnya so that no one else to dares to attempt the same thing.


Gotcha. 1) Aiding Islamic terrorism would be one of the worst things the US could do. "Whither war on Terror?".
2) If you did that, you would create several OBLs not unlike the original you created in the 80's with the same Anti-Russia policy in afghanistan.


Fair Enough. This point has merit. But how about all those pro-russian people within these countries who are nostalgic about Russia and would gladly switch allegiances to the Russian side. You would have an untenable uprising and Russia would then use brutal force to crush them. You know how well they do "Jackboots".

1) Turkey is a very divided country. Eastern Turkey is very islamic and their wails would be heard throughout the Islamic world.
2) Turkey at minimum would be seriously destabilised causing massive damage to that region.


1) I answered that since you came up with the UN point.
2) Fairly accurate estimate however kirkuk will be a serious problem. Any move of integrating Kirkuk into an independant kurdistan will cause serious problems.

lwarmonger

I understand what you meant... what I was saying was that if the United States let that deter us, than any nation with atomic weapons would be able to blackmail us.

The problem with nations like NK is that they are too unpredictable. If China or Japan go up in a nuclear conflagration, then Russia's economy is in the tank (being largely a resource/steel/cement provider to these eastern economies). Russia does not want a nuclear war right next to their border any more than we would want one!

If any nation but Russia were to attack us with nuclear weapons, our nuclear deterrant would remain almost entirely intact. No other nation has enough nukes that can hit us to justify targeting anything but our cities. And if it is a country that has recently acquired nukes, or the ability to use them, then they would only have a few. With one or two cities gone, the US would still be the strongest nation on earth... and more than capable of waging a nuclear war against any comers.

Once the nukes are out of Russian hands, anything can happen. I will be the first person to admit that I know very little regarding the construction of atomic weapons. However, I do know that one of the most difficult engineering tasks in their construction is the acquisition of weapons grade materials to construct the bomb. That requires a massive investment in facilities that few countries have mastered. By handing over nuclear weapons, the Russians would be giving nations nuclear material that is already shaped into a weapon. If they have to rebuild the trigger in order to use them, so what? That is still a huge step forward technologically for any nation that does not already possess a finished weapon.