Thread: Iran Is Judged 10 Years From Nuclear Bomb

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

Garry perhaps you misunderstood the statement. Is Russia willing to risk the price it would pay for supplying Iran in a nuclear conflict? I dont see the cash from the deal being greater then the fallout that would happen following the conflict.
Why is it that they cannot see that this man has absolutely no good intentions towards his neighbors with these weapons they will supply.

To say that its the cash and nothing else strongly identifies the short sightedness they have over what will happen afterwards. If they are willing to risk this over this man Irans president and his ill will towards Israel then surely they are not thinking clearly and decisively on the matter. In comparison why not just sell a loaded hand gun to a five year old on the street corner the effects will be the very same giving his racist and childish demeanor.

Iran would only be invaded for very few specific reasons.

If the allies prove that they are suppling these new IED's then Iran will definately have a problem and I doubt anybody will back them if it comes to this.
Because its not just Americas troops that are getting killed by them its Allies as well.

If they continue to attempt building a bomb and all talks and all negotiations fail.

However I doubt that the US. would be alone in a matter that concerns all of the countries that surround Iran. How many Arab nations do you think would approve of them having a nuclear threat.

*There is only one thing that helps in this situation as was stated above - Russia is next target after US.....

Garry then you have no worries because they will never make it that far to begin with.

Sure. Russian president will not risk a major conflict with US over Iran until you try to occupy it. But if you try to invade it, then he will give all support to stop you. Iran is bordering with Russia, and he does not need your troops on its border...

He will try to play a game - bad policement and good policement. To make sure that you force Iran to move enrichment to Russia.... be bad guys.... while Russia gets the fruits - a neigbour without a bomb + dependent on Russian support.

However they don't want you to invade them. They alredy made it clear with this marginal enhancement.... Air strick they will tollerate but it does not stop Iran.

Probably they will hint to Iran that they will give up protecting them in UN.... to make Iran more flexible and take alternative - enrichment on Russian territory + removal of used fuel to Russia.

Originally Posted by Garry

Iran and USA are not in war => US soldiers has nothing to do on Iranian territory. If the war starts this may change….

Then sure, on enemy’s territory/port any transporter is subject to attack. However it is look again at the map. You can not attack it in Caspian Sea….. Another point is that there is no evidence that this particular transporter was carrying grain or S-300 PMU. It is not possible to check it in Caspian Sea.

Yes. They are legitimate targets in Iranian ports, if there is a war between Iran and USA.

Ok, I think this removes a substantial amount of the disagreement between us right here. I was never suggesting that the United States would attack Russian ships in the Caspian Sea while they are still at sea. I was referring to Russian ships in (or entering) Iranian harbors, and how they would be legitimate targets in a time of war.

This might be smart. In fact I forgot to mention that Russia has added one more nation to have more hostile feelings to them – Uzbeks. In November when I was in Samarkand, Uzbeks were very disappointed with Russian support of Uzbek president Karimov, who is widely hated there. In this particular case a short-term benefit of being friend of Karimov hurts long-term. If Russia continues this stupid policy it will yield another hostile nation…..

Still most of those puppets are not controlled by Moscow nor USA…. They play their own games, and obey only to those who pay in cash…. Russia has almost not control over them. But they will never go against Russia as it may make their life harder.

Well, you did have a very good point when you said that there is a limit to how independent these nations can become from Russia (after all, their economies are quite integrated), however if you see a large number of Islamic Republics or liberal democracies springing up on Russia's southern border, having overthrown governments loyal to Moscow, it significantly weakens Russia's influence in the area and can also have long term economic ramifications.

Yes your point is correct here. In rural areas of Central Asia Russians have much less support than in cities. With few years of brainwashing from mullahs people may turn hostile to Russia…. some marginals already fight in Chechnya…. Poverty only helps to this process. However this still takes much time to bolster, and I doubt that USA will play with Islamic factor ever again. As Afghanistan proved, for those to whom Russia is target number one the USA is target number two….. while for Middle Eastern terrorists/fighters it is otherwise….

Which is exactly my point. The United States and Russia can hurt one another quite badly by supplying weapons to their respective enemies. Better that both nations adopt a "I won't arm your enemies if you don't arm mine" approach then try to get into a bleeding match. I've always felt that since Russia and the United States have so few areas where their interests clash (Iran being one of the few permanant areas, Central Asia is merely a passing area of American interest that will fade with the Afghani intervention), that the two make natural diplomatic (if not economic) partners. It was only a freak coincidence of ideology and post WWII devistation that caused us to become enemies to begin with.

There were never incursions to Russian from any of them. Russia is separated from them, having Kazakhstan as a buffer. Look at the map. May be I did not understood your point.

I'm not just talking about Central Asia here, but also the Caucasian states as well (where such an event has occured). I will agree, that Kazakhstan is a useful, stable buffer between Russia and the other Central Asian republics. However, chaos in the neighboring states could easily destabilize Kazakhstan's government (which is not particularly broad based), and in turn spill over into Russia.

I don’t really see how supply of weapons to Central Asian regimes would endanger Russia if they are still dependent on selling their fruits, vegetables and cotton in Russian cities. Russian economic power is too large.

Palestine is largely dependent upon Israel for their entire economic existence. That does not stop daily suicide bombings. The Mullahs in the countryside are demagogues, and not particularly rational.

Sure a direct clash would be dangerious for both. Even if presidents understand that they are better to back up it would be too late for them to back up due to pressure from people and their emotions. If you attack Russian ships, it may end up into a large conflict at which mutual destruction would be one of the options. After, last 12 years of humiliation, most of Russians have such a feelings that they would undoubtfully support a major retaliation to US, which they think lost awareness of their importance. From what I see they would certainly strike just to make you understand that you went too far from your borders. So president Putin would try to resolve this issue before it resulted to a direct clash. Then it will be too late…. He would not be able to avoid following stupid wishes of electorate.

Same if Russians manage to sink anything in the attack on battle carrier group it would be invitation for nuclear strike.

The US would not initiate a nuclear strike on Russia, because we have no need to. Our conventional air and naval forces can hit a large number of retaliatory targets on Russia's coastline. That being said, I don't think Russia would go nuclear for the sake of national pride (the Soviets certainly weren't willing to, and they had ideology partly driving them). The electorate cannot give the orders for a nuclear strike, and Putin, whatever else people may think of his domestic policies, is a rational man.

If fact Cuba conflict was not really about rationale but about politic…. Russians new that they do not need missiles in Cuba to destroy USA…. Having missiles there did not change much. If you can destroy you enemy 100 times then moving it to 120 times is not that important. Same applied to US and their missiles in Europe.

Actually the Cuban Missile Crisis was a few years before Mutually Assured Destruction came into play. In 1962, Russia had around 300 nuclear warheads (not 300 mounted on ICBM's, 300 total). Now, given that around half of those were prepared for use in the assault into Germany, with a few more for use in depth in the European theater (France, England, ect), that doesn't leave too many for the continental US. With our 5100 nuclear weapons, the United States clearly had the edge in any nuclear conflict. What those nuclear weapons in Cuba gave the Soviets the ability to do, was launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike on America's Strategic Air Command before it could respond. This would have severely disrupted our ability to coordinate our nuclear counteroffensive in the event of a Soviet first strike, and went quite a ways towards compensating for Russia's nuclear inferiority vis a vis the United States.

Yes. SU would not start over the war with US for Vietnam. They would love to see China involved in major clash with US. However we know it only now. Your politics then could not know about this. SU was making a lot of false statements indicating that they would fight over if their ships would be hit. No president would risk a nuclear war for a lousy ship, even if it was full of weapons to Vietnam. Would he risk today?

Probably. The United States did not take a very sober look at foriegn policy in the 1960's, while the Soviet Union did. If we had an objective method of analyzing foriegn policy (instead of the State Department), then we probably could have seen the Soviet's real position, regardless of their rhetoric. It was not until the 1970's that we began to take an opproach based on pragmitism instead of ideology.

I think that Vietnam was lost not because of number of Russian weapons. North Vietnamese did not win a single major battle against US troops. US lost the battle for hearts and minds there and home.

But the reason we lost that battle was because we had to keep fighting over in Vietnam. And the reason the NVA was able to keep fighting, was because the Soviets and Chinese were supplying them. The USAF turned North Vietnam into the surface of the moon, but it didn't matter because they weren't producing their own weapons. They had no industry to bomb, and so we couldn't really make a dent in their warfighting capability.

However I doubt that it will happen. You can not attack Iran….. simply not enough resources nor political support inside US. A limited air strike is more possible reaction….. but it will really not stop Iran, while giving them all reasons to continue.

I agree that we will most likely not be invading Iran in the near future. It would be both costly, and unwise. The scenario I have been making reference to the most, is extensive air strikes against Iranian infrastructure, nuclear facilities, and military factories. But if Russia suddenly starts upping it's shipments of SAM missiles into Iran because of this, the United States would respond.

Originally Posted by Monk

1) I don't know why you feel NK would use nukes against China, unless you know something more than I do on that issue. Otherwise it seems odd that you believe NK would use a nuke against its staunchest supporter.

I don't think NK would use nukes on China. However, if a regional nuclear war were to erupt, the danger of China being sucked in is fairly significant.

2) I also believe that with weaponised nukes, NK's first target would be the USA not Japan. That is where the Russian nudge could help NK.

Afraid I must disagree with you here. I think that NK's first target would be South Korea. 25% of your nearest (and most numerous) enemies population in one city... simply too good an opportunity to pass up. Japan would most likely be hit (or threatened) to deny the US of a staging area for reinforcements. Attacks on the US would most likely be threatened as retaliation for American nuclear attack, but not actually enacted unless NK is glassed (and even then, odds are we'd get their nukes in our strike anyways.

You are assuming that the country launching attacks would have only one or two nukes.

Well, if they had just developed them or acquired them from Russia, that is all they would have. The only nation that retains a truly credible second strike capability against the United States is Russia.

First off, even "dirty" bombs are very effective you don't need weapons from enriched uranium or plutonium. With attacks on a large number of US cities with this type of weapons, the US ability to wage war can seriously be restricted. Of course, the USN would still be there and that is a different ball game. Secondly, if the US mainland was seriously afflicted, Russia would smell an opportunity and a second strike directly from Russia could be telling. This is provided that Russia can build in enough tactical surprise to prevent a US retaliation.

Regardless of any of this, there is simply no way to prevent massive US retaliation with our nuclear deterrent. Even assuming that Russian nukes catch every one of our missiles still in their silos (highly unlikely, but let's just assume), our submarine based nuclear deterrent is still sufficient to wipe out every urban area in Russia. It would still be suicide to attack usin this manner.

Usually as I seem to understand, a nuclear weapon has more than one trigger. And the triggers are actually difficult to master in a sophisticated nuke. Therefore someone who has been "gifted" a nuke by Russia won't be able to remaster a trigger any time soon. Hence Russia would still determine the firing of the weapon. Like you said, it is a "huge step forward technologically" for a country who has been "gifted" a nuke.

I'm not so sure about this. However, something I do know is that if necessary, the country in question can simply remove the nuclear materials, and use it to create their own nuclear weapon (even if much more primitive).

Good Question. I read that some of the erstwhile soviet republics like Lithuania have the highest suicide rates in the world. In Central Asia, other than kazakhstan, not one of the other countries have delivered on any of the independance time promises. Ukraine's new government is already developing cracks, the President dismissed his own cabinet and government recently. None of the erstwhile soviet republics are stable or well off economically. Therefore yes, a lot of these populations look back on the soviet era as the "good times".

From what I've read, most of the "uneducated poor" (who still form a large majority in these nations) like neither their current government (for the reasons you outlined above), nor the Russians (for oppression and Russianization). This means that destabilization in the regimes in these countries is unlikely to work to Russia's benifit.

Afghanistan and chechnya are not one and the same in psyche. Chechnians have already been brutally repressed by the Russians. It is very difficult for any large uprising in Chechnya. And Chechnya is not viewed by the Russians as a country they are invading but as a part of their country, their will to fight will be superior than in Afghanistan. Supplying the Chechnians wont do the US a whole lot of good.

It would bleed the Russians, and if the Russians are already bleeding us, what would be our incentive not to do so? My main argument here, is that it is in both country's best interests not to get involved in this kind of low level bleeding contest.

Yes. The famous mandala theory of Chanakya. But the problem is that the enemies of the US are stronger than the enemies of Russia.

But we are also far stronger than Russia, and much further away from our enemies. Personally, I think it evens out.

Thsi would be a very serious tactical blunder. IF you helped Islamic extremists, you would look so hypocritical as to lose every friend you have on this planet. Not only that, you have already seen the backlash of that policy once, it can only be worse this time around.

You can pass off nearly anything as being acceptable. Here we are merely endorsing "self-determination" of the long suppressed people of Central Asia. Remember how the world shrugged off Iraqi use of chemical weapons on the Iranians by blaming both sides equally? That kind of spin control happens all the time.

The higlighted statement makes no sense, you lost 4000ppl in one day on 9/11, how is that a beneficial trade off? Not only this but the fact that every US asset in the world has become a target for terrorism seems beneficial to you?

How many would we have lost if the Soviets had charged into West Germany?

For Example, the oil ministry in Kazakhstan is under strong Russian influence, I think the minister is also Russian. Islam Karmiov of Uzbekistan also seems to enjoy strong Russian support. The local population wants jobs and better living conditions, there were revolts not because they wanted democracy but due to the failure to deliver on promises by the previous governments.

I'm not arguing about the government, or even the urban population. It's the rural poor that would carry this fight into Russia.

I really place no belief in the fighting abilities of the muslims. They pretty much run away from battlefields.

Which is why the United States is having absolutely no problem in Iraq?

I'm not questioning anyone's ability to take land full of Muslims, I am questioning their ability to hold it indefinately.

1) The kurds are a different ball game. Its not a simple political decision.

I concur that the Kurds are a very special case. However, from a perspective of American self-interest, it should be an easy decision to arrive at.

2) Turkey going under is a major problem for south-eastern Europe, Greece, Cyprus and west Asia. I don't think destabilising 70% of the world's oil is a brilliant idea.

Most of the oil coming out of that region right now comes from the Gulf, which wouldn't be particularly disturbed by a seperate Kurdistan, even if Turkey did come apart (highly unlikely that they would, however).

3) I am also against destabilising Secular, democratic governments.

LOL. Good point, and I must admit you have me there. The only response I really have to that, is that it is better to reward our staunchest friends than it is to reward those who have been lukewarm supporters at best. Just because a nation is a democracy, doesn't mean that it can't work against our best interests.