Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
The Iran Deal
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Parihaka View PostThe quote refers to a specific instance
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ng-Poland.html
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
-
Originally posted by Parihaka View PostBy the logic you're implying here, Cuba has carte blanche nuclear protection under the American umbrella.
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
-
Originally posted by SteveDaPirate View PostNot 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.In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.
Leibniz
Comment
-
Originally posted by Parihaka View PostBy the logic you're implying here, Cuba has carte blanche nuclear protection under the American umbrella.
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
-
Originally posted by SteveDaPirate View PostI 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.Chimo
Comment
-
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
-
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
-
Originally posted by Bigfella View PostI 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?
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
-
Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View PostThe only nuclear worthy targets in the KSA are those vital to American national intrests.In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.
Leibniz
Comment
-
Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View PostHave not seen anything different in all the wars they've fought.In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.
Leibniz
Comment
-
Originally posted by Parihaka View PostYou say the only targets in KSA are American ones. Iran operates by targeting what it can, not what is the most strategically useful.
Originally posted by Parihaka View PostYou say the KSA is under American protection, under the Obama administration I've seen no evidence of that.
Originally posted by Parihaka View PostIn 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.Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 18 Jul 15,, 16:49.Chimo
Comment
-
Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View PostAmerican 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.
Comment
Comment