Page 3 of 17 FirstFirst 123456789101112 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 246

Thread: The Iran Deal

  1. #31
    Dirty Kiwi Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    10 Nov 04
    Location
    Wellington, Te Ika a Maui, Aotearoa
    Posts
    19,744
    Quote 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.
    Quote 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

    Gottfried Leibniz

  2. #32
    Senior Contributor SteveDaPirate's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Aug 13
    Location
    Kansas City, United States
    Posts
    1,221
    Quote 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.

  3. #33
    Senior Contributor SteveDaPirate's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Aug 13
    Location
    Kansas City, United States
    Posts
    1,221
    Quote 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.

  4. #34
    Dirty Kiwi Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    10 Nov 04
    Location
    Wellington, Te Ika a Maui, Aotearoa
    Posts
    19,744
    Quote 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

    Gottfried Leibniz

  5. #35
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    29,353
    Quote 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, at 01:12.
    Chimo

  6. #36
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    29,353
    Quote 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

  7. #37
    Senior Contributor Bigfella's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jan 07
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    9,093
    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?


    Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

  8. #38
    Patron Squirrel's Avatar
    Join Date
    10 Jul 11
    Location
    The Study
    Posts
    272
    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

  9. #39
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    29,353
    Quote 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

  10. #40
    Dirty Kiwi Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    10 Nov 04
    Location
    Wellington, Te Ika a Maui, Aotearoa
    Posts
    19,744
    Quote 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

    Gottfried Leibniz

  11. #41
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    29,353
    Quote 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

  12. #42
    Dirty Kiwi Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    10 Nov 04
    Location
    Wellington, Te Ika a Maui, Aotearoa
    Posts
    19,744
    Quote 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

    Gottfried Leibniz

  13. #43
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    29,353
    Quote 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.

    Quote 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.

    Quote 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, at 16:49.
    Chimo

  14. #44
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Jun 07
    Posts
    1,482
    Quote 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.

  15. #45
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Jun 07
    Posts
    1,482
    Quote 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.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Biden giving Israel go-ahead to deal with Iran?
    By Traps in forum The Iranian Question
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12 Aug 15,, 00:52
  2. How Iran and al-Qaeda made a deal - Asia Times
    By 1980s in forum The Iranian Question
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11 Aug 15,, 22:55
  3. Russia, Iran May Sign Nuke Deal This Month
    By nickshepAK in forum The Middle East and North Africa
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08 Aug 15,, 19:33
  4. Iran breaks gas deal
    By platinum786 in forum International Economy
    Replies: 62
    Last Post: 02 Oct 05,, 03:45
  5. Indian Oil clinches $3bn Iran gas deal
    By Ray in forum International Economy
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03 Nov 04,, 16:03

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •