Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Iran Deal

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

  • Originally posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
    In the absence of a deal, this equipment keeps on truckin' with nary a pause at all. How is a delay of a decade or so worse than continued operation?
    Because we allowed it. Don't fool yourself. Sanctions worked. They came back begging.

    Originally posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
    This is always a possibility deal or not. With a deal in place it is less likely, as the repercussions of getting caught include sanctions snapping back and the perfect causus belli for the US. Without a deal it's just another spot on the map for drones to keep an eye on.
    Sanctions are gone. The unity before this has disappearred.

    Originally posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
    S300s may represent a speed bump, but shouldn't be a deal breaker for the US. American allies like Egypt and even NATO members like Greece and Turkey have S300 systems, and the US has certainly had the opportunity to study them thoroughly.

    By the time Iran gets an actual IADS based on the S300 setup, the US will have F-35s, Next Generation Jammers, stealthy munitions, and perhaps even warship based railguns to dismantle such a system.
    We will run out of bombs before we run out of targets.

    Originally posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
    The deal is set to delay Iran's ability to build a bomb longer than if we carried out airstrikes tomorrow, without ever removing the ability to carry out said airstrikes if Iran proves dishonorable.
    While Iran go full bore with her missile development. In 10 years time, they will have at least 20+ IRBMs that can accept a nuke.
    Chimo

    Comment


    • Originally posted by astralis View Post
      given the number of centrifuges they built during the sanctions period I think that shows you how much they feared war. a completely accurate risk assessment; if -bush- couldn't bring himself to do it with 100,000+ US troops next door, what were the chances of ANY successor president doing it, especially given the Iraq debacle?
      Disagree. Fordow was in exact response to the threat of war. A hardened weapons factory.
      Chimo

      Comment


      • col,

        Sanctions are gone. The unity before this has disappearred.
        not my argument but snapback sanctions won't require a Security Council vote; in fact if the US even -thinks- Iran is violating the deal, then the Security Council is obligated to reinstate sanctions...and to undo that would require another vote, which the US can veto.

        We will run out of bombs before we run out of targets.
        weren't you the one who said that it wouldn't be all that hard to simply hit the electrical grid and water supplies and then plunge iran into utter chaos?

        Disagree. Fordow was in exact response to the threat of war. A hardened weapons factory.
        it was the obvious precaution to overwhelming US aerial superiority. obviously even Bush couldn't intimidate Iran into stopping her nuclear program, in fact Iran sped it up in response to the Iraq War.

        so my question is, say there were no negotiations on the table, how long would sanctions have lasted for? and would sanctions have prevented Iran from getting breakout capability?

        in short, what is the alternative? we've already slapped sanctions about heavy as they can go, and moreover this at the same time oil is plummeting. in terms of economic damage we've done about as complete a job as we reasonably can. the only thing to hold over their heads is war, and from all the open-source military/intel analyses out there, the only way to do that is via a combined air campaign/ground invasion.
        There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

        Comment


        • Originally posted by astralis View Post
          not my argument but snapback sanctions won't require a Security Council vote; in fact if the US even -thinks- Iran is violating the deal, then the Security Council is obligated to reinstate sanctions...and to undo that would require another vote, which the US can veto.
          Russia and China can veto re-installing the sanctions.

          Originally posted by astralis View Post
          weren't you the one who said that it wouldn't be all that hard to simply hit the electrical grid and water supplies and then plunge iran into utter chaos?
          Iran already has one or two nukes and efforts must be to stop their launch ... and that means, all the C4s, all the BMs, all the airfields, every freaking place we can think of, unless we resort to a nuclear first strike.

          Originally posted by astralis View Post
          it was the obvious precaution to overwhelming US aerial superiority. obviously even Bush couldn't intimidate Iran into stopping her nuclear program, in fact Iran sped it up in response to the Iraq War.
          Your timeline is off. Iran bought CHANGAI-I blueprints way before the Iraq War.

          Originally posted by astralis View Post
          so my question is, say there were no negotiations on the table, how long would sanctions have lasted for? and would sanctions have prevented Iran from getting breakout capability?
          Again, sanctions were working. The Iranians came back begging.
          Chimo

          Comment


          • col,

            Russia and China can veto re-installing the sanctions.
            no. the sanctions are automatically back in place if the Americans deem there's a violation. it doesn't require a SC vote. china and russia agreed to that point.

            taking down the new sanctions, on the other hand, does.

            Iran already has one or two nukes and efforts must be to stop their launch ... and that means, all the C4s, all the BMs, all the airfields, every freaking place we can think of, unless we resort to a nuclear first strike.
            if Iran -already- has nukes, then chances are there will be no invasion unless they do something truly stupid, like actually using them. in that case there's likely not going to be an invasion anyways; instead iran turns into glass.

            i'm talking about an attempted breakout scenario, where iran brazenly flouts the deal and charges for breakout. that's the only situation, past a pre-emptive strike, where i find a military scenario realistic.

            Your timeline is off. Iran bought CHANGAI-I blueprints way before the Iraq War.
            i meant an underground/hardened nuclear site. from all indications, fordow was built during the iraq war. and a lot of the program was sped up during the concurrent I'm-a-dinner-jacket years.

            Again, sanctions were working. The Iranians came back begging.
            if it was as simple as this, then the obvious US position would be complete nuclear disarmament. the -effect- of sanctions have been sharpened as of late because of the recent oil glut, but that was a very surprising and happy coincidence.

            let's put it another way, if -North Korea- could bloody build some nuclear duds with sanctions, I doubt sanctions would have decisively crippled Iran, with an economy 30x larger.
            There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

            Comment


            • Originally posted by astralis View Post
              no. the sanctions are automatically back in place if the Americans deem there's a violation. it doesn't require a SC vote. china and russia agreed to that point.
              Eric, are you seriously going to believe that? The US says sanctions. Russia and China says no. How the hell is the US going to force Russia and China to comply with sanctions, especially when BOTH SAYS IT IS NOT A VIOLATION OF UNSC REOLUTIONS?

              Case in point, the Iraq War. The US said yes, it is a violation. France, China, Russia said no.

              Originally posted by astralis View Post
              if Iran -already- has nukes, then chances are there will be no invasion unless they do something truly stupid, like actually using them. in that case there's likely not going to be an invasion anyways; instead iran turns into glass.
              So you're assuming that Iran doesn't have a nuke?

              Originally posted by astralis View Post
              i'm talking about an attempted breakout scenario, where iran brazenly flouts the deal and charges for breakout. that's the only situation, past a pre-emptive strike, where i find a military scenario realistic.
              North Korea although I do expect the Iranian 1st attempt will be much better than the NK's 3rd attempt. What then? It is NOT illegal to withdraw from the NPT.

              Originally posted by astralis View Post
              i meant an underground/hardened nuclear site. from all indications, fordow was built during the iraq war. and a lot of the program was sped up during the concurrent I'm-a-dinner-jacket years.
              Oh come on!!!!!! A minutuarized "working" warhead blueprint that can fit into Iranian rockets? You really want to try again????????

              Originally posted by astralis View Post
              if it was as simple as this, then the obvious US position would be complete nuclear disarmament. the -effect- of sanctions have been sharpened as of late because of the recent oil glut, but that was a very surprising and happy coincidence.
              Who the hell cares? Sooner or later, the effects would come into place. If the oil glut didn't happenned today, it would either happenned yesterday or tommorrow. We all know it was comiing. We don't put sanctions into place against the NK's tonka toys to South Korea.

              Originally posted by astralis View Post
              let's put it another way, if -North Korea- could bloody build some nuclear duds with sanctions, I doubt sanctions would have decisively crippled Iran, with an economy 30x larger.
              China was not on our side with NK. She didn't care about an Iranian collapse.
              Chimo

              Comment


              • col,

                Eric, are you seriously going to believe that? The US says sanctions. Russia and China says no. How the hell is the US going to force Russia and China to comply with sanctions, especially when BOTH SAYS IT IS NOT A VIOLATION OF UNSC REOLUTIONS?

                Case in point, the Iraq War. The US said yes, it is a violation. France, China, Russia said no.
                but the iraq war example required positive movement. in this case, the positive movement onus is on Iran.

                i understand your point that Beijing or Moscow can choose to ignore the deal. OK, fine...what the US can threaten then is unilateral war, or at least an air campaign. that was at least part of the reason why they signed on to the whole idea of sanctions in the first place. hell, even -Obama- is saying that's pretty much the only alternative to a deal.

                So you're assuming that Iran doesn't have a nuke?
                i'm sure they are fairly close to breakout capability but i haven't seen anything yet on them actually having nukes. i doubt they do; any testing would be easily detectable. iran has supposedly been 18-24 months away from breakout capability since the 1980s, lol.

                Oh come on!!!!!! A minutuarized "working" warhead blueprint that can fit into Iranian rockets? You really want to try again????????
                i don't see what that has to do with my statement here. iran has had a nuclear program since the 80s. that program sped up significantly from 2002-2013. it's true that the sanctions regime was part of the reason why Iran came to the table (with the harshest and most effective sanctions, by the way, signed into law by Obama), but i have not seen a single analysis that said that the sanctions regime would bring Iran to her knees. if it can't bring NK or previously Iraq to stop their idiocy, why would it stop a significantly wealthier country?

                let's review the purpose of the sanctions. they were meant to punish iran, damage her economy, and slow her down from achieving nuclear capability. OK, got the first two; but did Iran stop building centrifuges even as the US slammed the Iranian economy, hacked into and destroyed large quantities of centrifuges in Natanz, all while Israel was assassinating the odd Iranian scientist or three?

                as far as i can tell, the pace -accelerated-.

                China was not on our side with NK. She didn't care about an Iranian collapse.
                actually China would be quite concerned because any war with Iran means a huge disruption in oil supply, not just what she buys from Iran but from Iran threatening the Strait of Hormuz. there was a good reason why China signed onto the sanctions regime in the first place.
                Last edited by astralis; 06 Aug 15,, 02:32.
                There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                Comment


                • Originally posted by astralis View Post
                  citanon,



                  lol, if the USAF can't handle iran in that regards, USAF has no hope of handling china.

                  and we're not afraid of handling china.
                  It's not the USAF that's the weak link. Your argument, which is the one that the Obama administration is putting forth, implies that they do not want to "handle" Iran NOW. What happens if Iran grows some more teeth? Really all they have to do is wait for the next Obama.
                  Last edited by citanon; 06 Aug 15,, 04:41.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by astralis View Post
                    let's put it another way, if -North Korea- could bloody build some nuclear duds with sanctions, I doubt sanctions would have decisively crippled Iran, with an economy 30x larger.
                    Iran doesn't have NK's secret police and cult of personality. Iran also doesn't have NK's existing deterrence of conventional and chemical biological arms. In 15 years they will have the deterrence and no sanctions.

                    Comment


                    • So you are saying AFIRI can match PLA's numbers and quality in 10 years?

                      You do realize they'd need to 5x the personnel and 15x the military budget?
                      No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

                      To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

                      Comment


                      • I'm saying they need no where near that to become nuclear while deterring American interference if they are judicious about timing. Obama has just proven it.

                        Comment


                        • To be fair, Obama could do little else. The people have no stomach for war with Iran. The deficit and all that QE weigh heavily on the economy.
                          He is not the kind of ruthless hard handed man who would fight regardless.
                          This is just a symptom of the twilight of the American age.

                          OOE has a very good point; Iran has gained the most precious commodity of all, time. Time to grow her economy, modernize her military and cheat as much as she can on this agreement.
                          For every year that goes by now America will be weaker, more insular more divided. There will be fewer men fewer ships and fewer fancy weapons and toys.
                          From the various threads here I have been reading again and again on how tough it is to pay for them.

                          At the end of 15 years she will be home free. But Obama doesn't care, all he wants are some shiny talking points to burnish his legacy.
                          Last edited by bolo121; 06 Aug 15,, 11:49.
                          For Gallifrey! For Victory! For the end of time itself!!

                          Comment


                          • citanon,

                            your argument, which is the one that the Obama administration is putting forth, implies that they do not want to "handle" Iran NOW. What happens if Iran grows some more teeth? Really all they have to do is wait for the next Obama.
                            by "handling" iran, you mean war. as i said, -bush- didn't want to "handle" iran, and that was with 100K+ US troops next door and USAF/USN in the vicinity, the US public riding high on a 21 day campaign into Baghdad.

                            Iran doesn't have NK's secret police and cult of personality. Iran also doesn't have NK's existing deterrence of conventional and chemical biological arms. In 15 years they will have the deterrence and no sanctions.
                            actually, iran does have a secret police, and a cult of personality around the ayatollah. really, the only thing NK has on iran is being able to threaten seoul.

                            given what they were doing before the deal, they would have had their deterrence and sanctions, which they could live with. lifted sanctions means iran will have a stronger conventional capability, but stronger or not that is meaningless against the might of US conventional capability.

                            the ultimate calculus is that while the US does not want iran to have nuclear weapons, she is also extremely, extremely loath to fight a war over the issue. even the most hawkish republicans aren't advocating that at this time. all they want is a continuation of the sanctions, which 1.) wouldn't happen if Russia/China didn't think the US was trying to do a deal, and 2.) were ultimately ineffectual to their stated goal, which is to deter Iran from getting nuclear capability.

                            by the way, these are the exact same arguments for/against the US dealing with communist china in the 1960s-1970s. the only difference being that these are stricter controls against iran having a nuke than china ever had.

                            and mao was far more an enemy to the US than the ayatollahs ever were.
                            Last edited by astralis; 06 Aug 15,, 17:44.
                            There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by astralis View Post
                              citanon,



                              by "handling" iran, you mean war. as i said, -bush- didn't want to "handle" iran, and that was with 100K+ US troops next door and USAF/USN in the vicinity, the US public riding high on a 21 day campaign into Baghdad.



                              actually, iran does have a secret police, and a cult of personality around the ayatollah. really, the only thing NK has on iran is being able to threaten seoul.

                              given what they were doing before the deal, they would have had their deterrence and sanctions, which they could live with. lifted sanctions means iran will have a stronger conventional capability, but stronger or not that is meaningless against the might of US conventional capability.

                              the ultimate calculus is that while the US does not want iran to have nuclear weapons, she is also extremely, extremely loath to fight a war over the issue. even the most hawkish republicans aren't advocating that at this time. all they want is a continuation of the sanctions, which 1.) wouldn't happen if Russia/China didn't think the US was trying to do a deal, and 2.) were ultimately ineffectual to their stated goal, which is to deter Iran from getting nuclear capability.

                              by the way, these are the exact same arguments for/against the US dealing with communist china in the 1960s-1970s. the only difference being that these are stricter controls against iran having a nuke than china ever had.

                              and mao was far more an enemy to the US than the ayatollahs ever were.
                              Agree with most of what you are saying, but I don't think you can really contend that the Iranian state is as powerful & all pervasive as the DPRK. It is plenty powerful enough to crush most dissent, but on its worst day it doesn't touch the DPRK on its most liberal. I think the point here is that Iran has a big enough economy & strong enough state to deal with the sanctions while building a bomb if that was what it chose to do. I also suspect there is a fair bit of support for building a bomb given internal perceptions (not entirely unrealistic) of potential external threats.
                              sigpic

                              Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

                              Comment


                              • Hey guys .... long time no see

                                Was watching the republication debate on FOX, they asked about the Iran deal, ... and reminded of some of the back-in-the-day debates on WAB. So came back browsing on WAB and glad to see discussion are still in full swing

                                Hope all is well with everyone

                                And looks like everyone has exactly the same point of view as ten years ago :-)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X