Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Iran Deal

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by astralis View Post
    well, "a few" being one of the largest (if not the largest) US security assistance organizations...there's probably some 200-300 US personnel, trainers, and support in SA.
    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    I find The 64th Air Expeditionary Group to be a very viable nuclear target.
    By the logic you're implying here, Cuba has carte blanche nuclear protection under the American umbrella.
    In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

    Leibniz

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
      The quote refers to a specific instance
      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ng-Poland.html
      Gotcha.

      Still, considering the spotty track record of the GMD program compared to the surprisingly good performance of the SM-3 program, I imagine the Poles are pretty happy with the change in course these days.

      I can see how it probably looked like nothing but politics at the time, but I imagine that if the Pentagon wanted to change course for technical reasons anyway, Obama would have been happy to use the opportunity to score some political points as well.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
        By the logic you're implying here, Cuba has carte blanche nuclear protection under the American umbrella.
        I think a WMD attack against a US military base such as in the KSA or Cuba for that matter would be a sufficient casus belli to justify an American nuclear response, but the national security council will have more flexibility in deciding how to respond in the absence of a treaty.

        If the Norks nuked Guantanamo, the US may decide to limit the response to conventional weapons, as they would suffice to dismantle the country and involve less chaos in the aftermath. If the Norks nuked Tokyo on the other hand, they better have a deep cave and potassium iodide handy.

        Not being under the American nuclear umbrella doesn't mean US nukes won't be involved in a conflict, it just means they aren't guaranteed to be used.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
          Not being under the American nuclear umbrella doesn't mean US nukes won't be involved in a conflict, it just means they aren't guaranteed to be used.
          I agree. I see no American guarantee for Saudi Arabia that it is protected under an American nuclear umbrella, which takes us back to this
          In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

          Leibniz

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
            By the logic you're implying here, Cuba has carte blanche nuclear protection under the American umbrella.
            The only nuclear worthy targets in the KSA are those vital to American national intrests.

            As the example, the Americans made it very clear that a nuclear response was warranted if Saddam used biochems during the Kuwait War and the only viable targets for biochems were all in the KSA.

            Also, I remind you that the Obama Doctrine (a biochem attack will not get a nuclear response) has been quietly dropped and we're back to a WMD response to a WMD attack no matter what the source.
            Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 18 Jul 15,, 01:12.
            Chimo

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
              I think a WMD attack against a US military base such as in the KSA or Cuba for that matter would be a sufficient casus belli to justify an American nuclear response, but the national security council will have more flexibility in deciding how to respond in the absence of a treaty.
              There is nothing in the NORTH ATLANTIC TREAY that obligates an American nuclear response. Military preparations, however, would state otherwise, ie you must respond with nuclear weapons to reduce the enemy's combat effectiveness.
              Chimo

              Comment


              • #37
                Colonel,

                I would be curious to get your take on the verification measures in the current agreement. I've heard that there is a 24 day warning to be given ahead of inspections, but I don't know enough about what other oversight there is or what ongoing info the US & IAEA will have. Are the measures listed sufficient to allow observers to know what is going on with Iran's nuke program?
                sigpic

                Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

                Comment


                • #38
                  DE, I agree. Many people seem to overlook the importance of Carter basically saying "no one is effing with our flow again!" Absolutely HUGE moment in history.

                  That being said, this debate over the US nuclear umbrella reminds me of cartoon in the POD I saw the other day. Two guys are at an OCS reunion, and they're wondering where their submariner friend is and the guy says "I don't where he is, but I'm pretty sure he knows where we are." Everyone here fixated on ground based assets seems to forget our boys in the boomers.
                  "We are all special cases." - Camus

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Bigfella View Post
                    I would be curious to get your take on the verification measures in the current agreement. I've heard that there is a 24 day warning to be given ahead of inspections, but I don't know enough about what other oversight there is or what ongoing info the US & IAEA will have. Are the measures listed sufficient to allow observers to know what is going on with Iran's nuke program?
                    Hell NO. The way I read things is that Iran can have AT LEAST 24 Days delay. We're not going to stop their technological progress ... and they get to keep whatever nukes they have right now (1 to 3) or the materials to build 1 to 3 nukes with a fair confidence that they will work.

                    About the only thing these inspections will impede is storage. You can bet that any suspected site will be watched like a hawk with all trucks in and out accounted for. So, while the Iranians can make more, they will have a very hard time to store more.

                    Not even a good compromise.
                    Chimo

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                      The only nuclear worthy targets in the KSA are those vital to American national intrests.
                      You're not the Theocracy. Their definition of worthy targets may be different than yours.
                      In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

                      Leibniz

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
                        You're not the Theocracy. Their definition of worthy targets may be different than yours.
                        Have not seen anything different in all the wars they've fought.
                        Chimo

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                          Have not seen anything different in all the wars they've fought.
                          You say the only targets in KSA are American ones. Iran operates by targeting what it can, not what is the most strategically useful. You say the KSA is under American protection, under the Obama administration I've seen no evidence of that. In some ways opposite by strengthening their mortal enemy. You say the red line is back, (Chem WMD) but what use is a red line when it can be dropped whenever convenient? How can the KSA hang their security on that? I'm sorry, I'm just not seeing an American guaranteed security mean squat to the SA.
                          In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

                          Leibniz

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
                            You say the only targets in KSA are American ones. Iran operates by targeting what it can, not what is the most strategically useful.
                            You don't waste a warhead on a camel shit spot. Like everything else, there is cost-effectiveness involved.

                            Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
                            You say the KSA is under American protection, under the Obama administration I've seen no evidence of that.
                            You've got me there. I had strong doubts that Obama got the guts to retalliate with a nuke even if Washington DC was hit. We had no such doubts under both Bushes.

                            Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
                            In some ways opposite by strengthening their mortal enemy. You say the red line is back, (Chem WMD) but what use is a red line when it can be dropped whenever convenient? How can the KSA hang their security on that? I'm sorry, I'm just not seeing an American guaranteed security mean squat to the SA.
                            Who else is there? Pakistan? They need all the nukes they've got against India. Israel? They can't even acknowledge they have nukes and their security guarrantees are worth even less than the Americans. Christian Americans were annoyed out of the KSA. Do you even want to imagine Jewish Israelis at Mecca?
                            Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 18 Jul 15,, 16:49.
                            Chimo

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                              Wait for the next administration.
                              Not in writing or word but in action. See both gulf wars.
                              The gulf wars were not to protect the gulf states, they were to protect oil.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                                American military bases in the KSA. That is a bigger committement of nuclear protection than anything Israel have. After all, they are primary military nuclear targets.
                                The US is not going to throw boomers on Tehran just because Huthis/hezbollah or Iran itself has detonated a device on Riyadh. If KSA is holding onto such a fantasy then they are very naive indeed.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X