Bunker Busters shipped to Diego Garcia

[zraver]

Good for you. Now become the world's only global commodity trader and I'll care.

don;t ask questions if you don't think you'll like the answer.

And you're a narrow minded, ignorant tosser. See? I can insult people too!

See there is a problem, actually several of them

A- you didn't read the survival guide

B- your a fool

C- your fvcking moron who somehow thinks it will all just work itself out.

Does this matter? The government is illegitimate, everyone knows that. If you want, you're more than welcome to lookup all the military dictatorships that have ended in the past 100 years. Here's a list.
Yes, I copied from Wikipedia. I don't care.

How many were overthrown by peaceniks? Juntas either give up power voluntarily when some leader comes forward who believes in law and order, or a new junta replaces them.

Are you sure you've studied counterinsurgency?

If you don't believe me show the evidence that argues against me. Say the Iraqi Sunni insurgents.... Oh wait, we moved in with dollars and used the them to hire our former enemies to root out a common foe. This gave all those men employment and a purpose.

For now.

Until now is more accurate with no signs of changing.

I'll be sure to alert Dr. Zawahiri that he's dead.

He has very little power to affect events.

And yet a large number of the jihadis are Saudi. Hmmmmmmmm

Not anymore, towards the end, AQI was recruiting from North African countries.

Oh wait, I forgot -- they're dead. Nevermind.

And that makes you a fool.

It makes me a student of history.

And that makes it ok.

The final judge of something is whether or not it works. From a Jewish perspective, they have zero reason to give a rats ass about anyone else since no one bothered to give a rats ass about them. Israel's only reason for being is Israel.

And up until that point, their armies had always been well fed and well equipped.

No but they had enough, and they had hope. Grant and Sherman crushed the latter when they crushed the former.

[ASparr]

astralis is right and I'll do my part by ignoring your first two replies.

How many were overthrown by peaceniks? Juntas either give up power voluntarily when some leader comes forward who believes in law and order, or a new junta replaces them.

If you think the current political dissatisfaction will never blow up violently, you might have a good shot at being hired by the Iranian regime.

If you don't believe me show the evidence that argues against me. Say the Iraqi Sunni insurgents.... Oh wait, we moved in with dollars and used the them to hire our former enemies to root out a common foe. This gave all those men employment and a purpose.

You're looking at one facet of one particular insurgency. As you know as well as I do that insurgencies are so variable comparing the Iraqi one to a likely Iranian one is an exercise in futility. Bottom line: You don't get the loyalty of the population by feeding them. You get it by protecting them and providing them with opportunities.

Until now is more accurate with no signs of changing.

China is so opaque and hard to read that this is in essence meaningless.

He has very little power to affect events.

The head of al-Qaeda has very little power? Wow.

Not anymore, towards the end, AQI was recruiting from North African countries.

Towards the end of one of al-Qaedas offshoots, they used North African recruits. Convincing.

It makes me a student of history.

How's this? Egypt has been dealing with violent Islamists since the early 20th century and has tried little else but killing and capturing them. How has that worked out?

The final judge of something is whether or not it works. From a Jewish perspective, they have zero reason to give a rats ass about anyone else since no one bothered to give a rats ass about them. Israel's only reason for being is Israel.

Really? So the final judge about the Holocaust was whether or not it worked to exterminate the Jews? It's intent and means don't matter, just whether or not it achieved its goals?

No but they had enough, and they had hope. Grant and Sherman crushed the latter when they crushed the former.

Plenty of rebel soldiers were hungry, poorly equipped and trained throughout the course of the war. Yet they still kept fighting. And this is really belaboring a single example.

[zraver]

If you think the current political dissatisfaction will never blow up violently, you might have a good shot at being hired by the Iranian regime.

There are two armed groups in Iran- the Guards who are in power and the army. The army is staying out of it, and unless that changes or a faction of the guards splinters off million student marches won't be much use.

You're looking at one facet of one particular insurgency. As you know as well as I do that insurgencies are so variable comparing the Iraqi one to a likely Iranian one is an exercise in futility. Bottom line: You don't get the loyalty of the population by feeding them. You get it by protecting them and providing them with opportunities.

food security is protection, so is employment as is hope. You win an insurgency by cutting it off from the population. You doi this by 1 or 2 means- wall the population off or become more attractive to the population than the insurgents. Like I said there is no such thing as a starving nationalist, there is also no such thing as a major insurgency in a region with nearly full employment of the areas 16-40yo male population.

China is so opaque and hard to read that this is in essence meaningless.

That is wishful thinking, China is Iran's patron.

The head of al-Qaeda has very little power? Wow.

Don't be ontuse, Al Queda is on the run, almost all of its top leadership is dead or in our hands, the bulk of its fighters are dead.

Towards the end of one of al-Qaedas offshoots, they used North African recruits. Convincing.

It means the AQI message lost its appeal.

How's this? Egypt has been dealing with violent Islamists since the early 20th century and has tried little else but killing and capturing them. How has that worked out?

Egypt hasn't followed through, force gives you the time and space to affect a reality shift, but if you don't use the time and space the problem pops back up.

Really? So the final judge about the Holocaust was whether or not it worked to exterminate the Jews? It's intent and means don't matter, just whether or not it achieved its goals?

No its intents and means don't matter. If the Nazi regime had cared about such in moralistic terms they would not have done it. We judge their actions post facto from our POV. Israel's POV is protect Jews, and if the world allows another Holocaust then Fvck'em and they can share in the pain. Its very rational. Whats irrational is you thinking nation built on the bones of a genocide has to sit back and take it a second time.

Plenty of rebel soldiers were hungry, poorly equipped and trained throughout the course of the war. Yet they still kept fighting. And this is really belaboring a single example.

They kept fighting until they lost hope. The US broke their will.

[ASparr]

Whats irrational is you thinking nation built on the bones of a genocide has to sit back and take it a second time.

Your complete inability, whether through choice or ignorance, to grasp my point and your constant misrepresentations of my position have finally convinced me that a debate with you is literally not worth the half a calorie I spend moving my fingers to type. Good day.

[zraver]

Your complete inability, whether through choice or ignorance, to grasp my point and your constant misrepresentations of my position have finally convinced me that a debate with you is literally not worth the half a calorie I spend moving my fingers to type. Good day.

I have misrepresented nothing.


I said,

Israel however is tiny and under the gun with a history of other people trying to exterminate them. They can't take that risk.

You said,

They can't but they have to. The other options are so unpalatable and the actual risks of a nuclear exchange are so small that to go with the 100% certainty of the havoc caused by your course and the 5% chance of an actual nuclear exchange is blind, reactionary folly.

You don't seem to grasp that they don't have to. Israel has 1 reason for being- protect Jews.

A nuclear armed Iran makes that mission almost impossible. Iran would be able to put Israel under a nuclear threat and thereby give Syria a freehand, Iran could slip a bomb to (nuke or dirty) Hezzbollah or Hamas, step up funding and push for more wars like 2006/07 etc. Since Iran will not behave rationally the only choices left is who suffers most and who throws the first punch.

Striking first lets the US keep real live nuclear weapons out of play. Israel has proven that if we do act they won't. They are willing to let us do the dirty work, but if we won't they will. Except lacking a massive strategic air force and navy they have far fewer tools. F-15I's armed with nuclear cruise missiles. Popeyes with nuclear cruise missiles and a few Jericho ballistic missiles with nuke warheads is about all they have.

Striking first Lets us hit the boat sheds, barracks and sub pens Iran depends on to block the Strait of Hormuz. It also lets us take down the radars that the bulk of Iranian AshM need for mid course correction data as well as pasting their airfields when a convoy sails into or out of the Gulf.

Striking first lets us take down more of the communication grid and leadership (c4SRi) before they have a handle on the situation. This means the chances of Iran successfully salvoing enough missiles at one time (ballsitic or otherwise) to swamp our defenses is greatly reduced.

Striking first lets us start with assets as close to optimal as possible instead of a sudden scramble. It also means we can get the big fat juicy targets out of the gulf and alert our allies to prepare their mine warfare ships for a dash to the Persian Gulf.

Plus a whole lot more reasons. If Israel or Iran throws the first blow, we face the same problems but from a much worse footing. We may end up with a carrier trapped in the Gulf with the Strait of Hormuz mined and the Iranians fully mobilized and dispersed for war.

But hey what do I know..... run along.

[JAD_333]

Who said anything about occupation?

JAD did, I believe.

nope, not me.

Since you rang my bell. Let's talk oil. One of your arguments for not taking military action against iran now is that oil supplies would be cut and prices would skyrocket. Wouldn't that be the case no matter when military action is taken?

While iran is the fifth largest oil exporter at 2.5 million bbls a day, there are 26 exporting nations producing between 500k and 8.9 million bbls a day. Even the us exports 1.4 million bbls a day. Sure, cutting iran's exports would have an effect on prices and supplies, but a temporary increase in output by other exporters could easily make up the shortfall.

We are not talking about bombing their oil fields or their civilian infrastructure, rather facilities crucial to making nukes. The question boils down to what is worse: A nuclear-armed iran or a temporary shortage of oil?

If you wish to argue against striking iran that's fine, but your case is not helped by pointing out the inconveniences which always accompany military action.

Probabilities also don't make a case. You said a few posts ago that we can live with 5% probability that iran would use nukes it they possessed them. I would say the probability of their using them in a first strike is closer to zero, but what concerns us more is the regional dominance iran would gain by possessing nukes and the deterrent effect they would have against any country in the region that seeks to resist iran's encroachments. Iran's chest beating and its religious centric government are not to be taken lightly.

[JAD_333]

Having now caught up on the last three pages of posts, some of them quite insulting but amusing, it appears we are all in agreement that should Iran persist in building nukes, we must stop her, if necessary by military action. Where we differ is on the timing. Tomorrow? Or, after more dickering and sanctions? Or somewhere in between? I don't know the answer. Tomorrow seems too soon. What is the drop dead point?

[Kilo 2-3]

Having now caught up on the last three pages of posts, some of them quite insulting but amusing, it appears we are all in agreement that should Iran persist in building nukes, we must stop her, if necessary by military action. Where we differ is on the timing. Tomorrow? Or, after more dickering and sanctions? Or somewhere in between? I don't know the answer. Tomorrow seems too soon. What is the drop dead point?

I think that it would largely be contingent on what Iran does. A pre-emptive strike by the US doesn't seem likely at this point, however, should Iran declare itself nuclear-armed, test a weapon, and begin to back up its current rhetoric with with aggressive actions in the region, be it naval actions in the Persian Gulf or air or ground buildups threatening US-aligned neighbors.

I'd say this timeframe would fit best in the next 2-10 years, if it were to occur at all.

Were the events to occur, my guess would be that the US response would not be a full-scale invasion, but rather retaliatory air- and missile strikes from US Navy ships in the Gulf and from USAF bombers operating from Gulf area bases, Great Britain, CONUS, Diego Garcia, and possibly Turkey.

[zraver]

I think that it would largely be contingent on what Iran does. A pre-emptive strike by the US doesn't seem likely at this point, however, should Iran declare itself nuclear-armed, test a weapon, and begin to back up its current rhetoric with with aggressive actions in the region, be it naval actions in the Persian Gulf or air or ground buildups threatening US-aligned neighbors.

if you take the secret sites, the pursuit of bomb plans, and the move to make HEU at face value then Iran already has already done all those things but test a weapon.

I'd say this timeframe would fit best in the next 2-10 years, if it were to occur at all.

We have 2-3 months max before the main reactor goes hot. Once its hot, Iran can use the site to do what ever it wants under its protective cloud of possible fallout if we strike. Iran is also building more boghammers, mines and ballsitic missiles each month. The recent launch of a satellite means iran is on the cusp of ICBM technology as well. At what point do we pull our collective heads out of the sand?

[JAD_333]

Z:

What is our drop dead point? Sounds like you're saying 3 months.

That may not be enough time for Obama to intellectualize how we should act. We know from the Afgan example that it takes him at least that long to make a decision. Or, has a decision been made? Bunker busters to Diego being the overt signal that we've started the clock?

What else have we got? Seems to me the hope that an internal political upset will change Iran's course is a pipe dream. The government plans to execute 6 Iranians charged with leading illegal demonstrations. This is not the act of a government on the ropes.

Will the French, etal, go in with us? Will countries in the region give us tacit approval? Will China cause problems for us for messing with their oil sources? (I doubt it. They're pragmatic. We mean more to them than Iran.) What will Russia do? (Huff and puff). Can we afford the cost of an attack and the aftermath given the state of the economy?

The Obama and the dems say about health care legislation, "just do it, because it' the right thing to do." I'm wondering if they'll say the same about cutting Iran off at the pass.

[JAD_333]

I think that it would largely be contingent on what Iran does.

It has done and is doing what is moving us toward military action. They refuse to comply with the NPT and show no inclination to observe it. What else do you think they can do to convince us they are not sincere?

A pre-emptive strike by the US doesn't seem likely at this point, however, should Iran declare itself nuclear-armed, test a weapon, and begin to back up its current rhetoric with with aggressive actions in the region, be it naval actions in the Persian Gulf or air or ground buildups threatening US-aligned neighbors.

As the old saying goes, it doesn't do any good to close the barn door after the horse has gotten free.

I'd say this timeframe would fit best in the next 2-10 years, if it were to occur at all.

2 years already sounds like too long.

Were the events to occur, my guess would be that the US response would not be a full-scale invasion, but rather retaliatory air- and missile strikes from US Navy ships in the Gulf and from USAF bombers operating from Gulf area bases, Great Britain, CONUS, Diego Garcia, and possibly Turkey.

Yes, the Israeli model. Quick strikes on nuke facilities. And then?

[zraver]

Z:

What is our drop dead point? Sounds like you're saying 3 months.

3 is the outside, once those fuel rods are shipped from Russia the game changes.

That may not be enough time for Obama to intellectualize how we should act. We know from the Afgan example that it takes him at least that long to make a decision. Or, has a decision been made? Bunker busters to Diego being the overt signal that we've started the clock?

I hope the shipment of bombs was a signal that the time is up. 2000lb bombs are not really big enough to go after the nuke plants, but they can play hell with Iran's C4SRI that she would need to organize an effective response.

What else have we got? Seems to me the hope that an internal political upset will change Iran's course is a pipe dream. The government plans to execute 6 Iranians charged with leading illegal demonstrations. This is not the act of a government on the ropes.

I agree the government is not going to suddenly topple. This means the only tool left is force. If we decide to use it, the goal, the only goal is to blow the Iranians back away from the Straits of Hormuz. There is a very narrow strip where their missiles are at peak capability. (after the destruction or seizure of several small islands and floating platforms used to provide target correction data.) Deny them this area and heavily protected convoys can get into and out of the Gulf

Will the French, etal, go in with us? Will countries in the region give us tacit approval? Will China cause problems for us for messing with their oil sources? (I doubt it. They're pragmatic. We mean more to them than Iran.) What will Russia do? (Huff and puff). Can we afford the cost of an attack and the aftermath given the state of the economy?

NATO might not jump in day 1, but they will have their mine warfare assets enroute shortly, after all their economies need the oil. Russia will huff and puff and suck up the redirected petrodollars. China will huff and puff but not do much else.

As for our economy. If we strike hard enough and get enough of the critical Iranian assets early and keep Iran's ability to respond suppressed to manageable levels the oil will flow. You'll see a major spike, but it won't last. Expect Recession V2.0 but that is still better than global thermonuclear war.

Also if Iran strikes first- global depression. They can block the straits and keep them blocked for weeks until an international coalition is built up and arrives to force the issue. This will also hurt Iran, but if they feel they are in a use it or lose it situation it won't matter how much it hurts if they can do hurt to the enemy.

[Mihais]

I agree the government is not going to suddenly topple. This means the only tool left is force. If we decide to use it, the goal, the only goal is to blow the Iranians back away from the Straits of Hormuz. There is a very narrow strip where their missiles are at peak capability. (after the destruction or seizure of several small islands and floating platforms used to provide target correction data.) Deny them this area and heavily protected convoys can get into and out of the Gulf

Do you think you can do it by a mix of SOF and firepower,or do you consider that landing 1-2 Div's,in the old fashion way will be needed?In either case,preventing the Iranians from returning will be paramount,which will result in permanent occupation of the Iranian shore.And somehow,I don't see American military playing defense with their backs to the sea.About the efficiency of bombings of everything of value in Iran,I would be a bit more cautious.They might not be the Serbs,but it would also be a mistake to underestimate them.
You can do a good deal of damage.The idea of bombing a nation into submission is dear to you,but unless you're ready from the start to go in with ground forces,Iran will always find a way to hide important stuff.Air campaign only doesn't work.Never has and I don't see any particular reason why it should work now.
This whole ''we'll bomb Iran into Stone Age'' makes me remember again about Kosovo.In the end Milosevici backed off because Russia withdrew it's support.If Iran will prove to be of sterner stuff,who will demand Iran to give up?

[Aryajet]

Z,

We have 2-3 months max before the main reactor goes hot. Once its hot, Iran can use the site to do what ever it wants under its protective cloud of possible fallout if we strike. Iran is also building more boghammers, mines and ballsitic missiles each month. The recent launch of a satellite means iran is on the cusp of ICBM technology as well. At what point do we pull our collective heads out of the sand?

I presume you are referring to Bushehr reactor getting hot in 2-3 month (which has been delayed again and again). Isn't Bushehr a light water reactor all under Russian control?
AFAIK the fuel rods will be supplied and waste carried away by Russians. If that is true then what sort of military (weaponization) purposes IRI can achieve with it?
thanx,

[zraver]

[QUOTE=Mihais;724738]Do you think you can do it by a mix of SOF and firepower,or do you consider that landing 1-2 Div's,in the old fashion way will be needed?

sheer fire, the threat is Iran's ability to fire large amounts of missiles and mine the straits. The idea is to knock them back so they can't mount a coordinated massive response but respond piecemeal so we can manage the threat.

In either case,preventing the Iranians from returning will be paramount,which will result in permanent occupation of the Iranian shore.And somehow,I don't see American military playing defense with their backs to the sea.

Not permament. Iran is an import/export dependent country. Stage 1 blow back the threat to the oil, stage 2 cripple the mil-ind and scientific sites that suport the regime and its nuke plans, stage 3 blockade until they cry uncle.


About the efficiency of bombings of everything of value in Iran,I would be a bit more cautious.They might not be the Serbs,but it would also be a mistake to underestimate them.
You can do a good deal of damage.The idea of bombing a nation into submission is dear to you,but unless you're ready from the start to go in with ground forces,Iran will always find a way to hide important stuff.Air campaign only doesn't work.Never has and I don't see any particular reason why it should work now.
This whole ''we'll bomb Iran into Stone Age'' makes me remember again about Kosovo.In the end Milosevici backed off because Russia withdrew it's support.If Iran will prove to be of sterner stuff,who will demand Iran to give up?