Should Iran Be Allowed To Enrich Uranium? ...POLL...

[Iceman]

Just a crazy... Kapitain...."no offense intended really"....type poll. :)

What do you guys think of what Iran is doing in regards to it's nuclear ideas or intents.I believe a country should be able to do what it wants and don't really understand where the world came up with it's ideas of "Who" exactly really should posses them...Doesn't seem like "Any' of us are responsible enough to posses them anyways either...I.E. 3 mile isle and Cherynobyl is a pretty lame azz track record for the Two biggest players in the world.....

I don't know if I feel any safer with North Korea having em...but has the world just accepted this now?...but seems like Iran having a guy who seems very hostile twords Isreal...I don't know what really to think about this...seeming like he is very clear about his intentions....I dont know if the world should sit back and wait to see what he is going to do....I don't think Isreal will either....Seems like she, "Isreal", can claim the same as the US did in a pre-emptive strike and be justified in doing so...

I know this may be a can- o- worms and don't want to make anyone mad really, but believe it or not I really value all the different opinions here being we are all from the planet just living in a different place on it. :)

Vote in the poll but your written opinions are worth more than any poll can say.Thank you in advance for your time.

[Happy Times]

Yeah , let them have it, they are nice people.. It seems no one is going to stop them. Like to see Finland starting a program if this becomes a trend. :-j Seriously, if no one is going to stop them, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is as good as dead. And i see no reason why any country , including my own, wouldnt have the right to protect itself.

[Kapitan]

diesel submarine in littoral water is a bad thing but a nuke :o

iran is not what we call a democracy and thier latest threat about wipeing isreal off the face of the earth is anything to go by then no they shouldnt be allowed to enrich uranium.

U.N america should stop them but there to busy pulling thier plonkers debating how many more politicaly correct things to add so we dont offend the muslim minority in the west.

disgusting

[Konovalov]

Answer to the question. NO.

[August]

I.E. 3 mile isle and Cherynobyl is a pretty lame azz track record for the Two biggest players in the world.....

Dunno about the Russians but 3MI hardly consititutes a lame ass track record.

Should Iran have the bomb? No way.

[Hitman]

It all depends upon you point of view: USA and western democracies consider that their ideas are right, and that they have the right to prevent other countries from doing what they want. Iran and other muslim states think that it's the USA and his allies who is wrong, that they do not understand the true faith and that they are being opressed. In fact, the question is only which side can force through the use of military disuasion the other to follow his point of view, and currently that's USA and western allies. It can't be really argued that the US and the NATO have the right to have nuclear weapons and Iran not. The argument of Iran using evetually those weapons to attack the US and NATO force them to accept their ideas is just exactly what the US and western democracies are doing today: Force others to accept their ideas thanks to nuclear and military menace.

My answer to the question is thus not represented here, so I voted yes under UN control. My idea is that any country has the right to use nuclear power for peaceful deveoplement of civil energy to improve the living conditions of his citizens. So as long as Iran accepts any control measures and inspections the UN demands to ensure that the use of nucelar is peacufl, my vote is YES :smug:

Don't misunderstand me, if one or the other idea with no justification has to be forced with military strenght, I prefer it to be the USA instead of Iran who determines who and when does what, ;) , I just wanted to highlight that there is no rational justification for one idea being imposed to others.

[TteFAboB]

No.

Chernobyl was a primitive plant, built on a rush with structural failures on the project, below the high ethical standards of the Soviet Union, supervised by a political agent who was not an expert in nuclear energy, and to say the least, wasn't the brightest of the Soviet agents.

We need a nuclear arsenal to fire on Asteroids in the event of an emergency and we need to keep them balanced, but we don't need nuclear weapons in the hands of people who, if they could, would wipe out an entire nation, its people and their religion, now I don't actually believe Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would nuke Israel, because without Israel he becomes irrelevant, disposable, unnecessary, he needs Israel alive, healthy and active, but I'm sure there are other presidential candidates who wouldn't mind taking the idea forward.

The Iranian president can have his nuclear energy if he build his plant out of the most transparent glass (figure of speech).

[Onkel Neal]

I think maybe we should give up on the non-profil goal and issue every nation 10 nukes plus delivery systems. That way, everyone is equal.

[tycho102]

I have absolutely no problem with Iran having full nuclear-fuel-cycle capability.

But the Muslims are going to stand together against the Jews, they might as well fall together, too.

[Ducimus]

personally i think the idea of nuclear capabilties in a nation that threatens/promotes genocide is very disturbing.

[porphy]

I think nukes are disturbing whoever has them... :yep:


Cheers Porphy

[Abraham]

I think maybe we should give up on the non-profil goal and issue every nation 10 nukes plus delivery systems. That way, everyone is equal.
Sure, the International Atomic Energy Agency can be closed down (savers money) and Condy Rice would deliver the nukes on a goodwill trip around the Axis of Evil, which could then be called the IAEA, the International Atomic Evel Axis...

But I think mini-states like Andorra, Liechtenstein, Monaco etc. should only get five nukes & delivery systems.
And the Palestineans get only nukes if they swear that Hamas will never have the opportunity to fire them.
:rotfl:

[TLAM Strike]

I think maybe we should give up on the non-profil goal and issue every nation 10 nukes plus delivery systems. That way, everyone is equal.
Sure, the International Atomic Energy Agency can be closed down (savers money) and Condy Rice would deliver the nukes on a goodwill trip around the Axis of Evil, which could then be called the IAEA, the International Atomic Evel Axis...

But I think mini-states like Andorra, Liechtenstein, Monaco etc. should only get five nukes & delivery systems.
And the Palestineans get only nukes if they swear that Hamas will never have the opportunity to fire them.
:rotfl: And most importantly 'Hans Island' should be given nukes! :D

[Abraham]

I have absolutely no problem with Iran having full nuclear-fuel-cycle capability. As long as:



1. The United States of America has a SSBN in the Indian Ocean, 365 days out of the year.

2. Within 30 minutes of the first nuke detected in Israel, that SSBN will nuke:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e. Tehran
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.


If the Muslims are going to stand together against the Jews, they might as well fall together, too.
@ tycho102:
As a moderator I have a problem with your posting.
I think it could trigger a nasty discussion that might lead to editing measures.

I understand that you find the thought of Iran having a military nuclear capacity very disturbing, as many people do, just as you can envisage a nuclear threat to Israel, as many people do.

But people with a different sense of humor may take offense of you advising the US to retaliate for a nuclear attack on Israel by more or less nuking the complete Middle East - including Muslim holy places - without discretion. And remember we have Muslin participants in our forum, who might even be more than a little disturbed by your less than measured response...

Could you live with limiting your target list to target # e?

Abraham
(with moderator cap on)

[U-552Erich-Topp]

:) It's up to Iran. It's their country..........but I wonder if one day the Middle East will become one big sheet of glass??????

[tycho102]

Could you live with limiting your target list to target # e?

Abraham
(with moderator cap on)

Heck, I'll do better than that. But since you quoted me, you'll have to edit your post, as well.

[Happy Times]

What if i said that if Iran gets nukes and gets attacked it should wipe out Bethlehem, Nazareth, Vatican City, Santiago de Compostela, Santo Toribio de Liébana, Caravaca de la Cruz, Assisi, Echmiadzin, Mount Athos, Kiev, Sergiyev Posad, Mtskheta, Canterbury, Wittenberg and Geneva. Would that disturbe the Christian members?
:)

[Ducimus]

I think maybe we should give up on the non-profil goal and issue every nation 10 nukes plus delivery systems. That way, everyone is equal.

Mutually Assured Destruction for the win!

:) It's up to Iran. It's their country..........

Ordinarly i follow the same line of thought myself. (you mind your buisness, ill mind mine kind of thing) But i think the reality of the world is quite different. Iran is a country of hatred. People there are born and raised to hate the western world (espeially the US), its a nation where their leader promotes genocide. If you ignore this country, and allow it to become a nuclear power, innocent civillians will die, possibly by the thousands or hundreds of thousands. If left to do its own thing, it would only a matter of time before it occured, becoming a nuclear powderkeg waiting to explode. They simply can't be trusted.

While butting ones nose into another's buisness isnt exactly an applaudable act (diplomatic or otherwise), whats the alternative in this case given Irans fervor?

[TLAM Strike]

What if i said that if Iran gets nukes and gets attacked it should wipe out Bethlehem, Nazareth, Vatican City, Santiago de Compostela, Santo Toribio de Liébana, Caravaca de la Cruz, Assisi, Echmiadzin, Mount Athos, Kiev, Sergiyev Posad, Mtskheta, Canterbury, Wittenberg and Geneva. Would that disturbe the Christian members?
:) Is it bad that someone as smart as me reconizes only 9 out of those 15 places? :hmm: (I reconized just about every other place mentioned in this thread...)

[Happy Times]

What if i said that if Iran gets nukes and gets attacked it should wipe out Bethlehem, Nazareth, Vatican City, Santiago de Compostela, Santo Toribio de Liébana, Caravaca de la Cruz, Assisi, Echmiadzin, Mount Athos, Kiev, Sergiyev Posad, Mtskheta, Canterbury, Wittenberg and Geneva. Would that disturbe the Christian members?
:) Is it bad that someone as smart as me reconizes only 9 out of those 15 places? :hmm: (I reconized just about every other place mentioned in this thread...) LOL, i guess not. I just counted and i would have also gotten 9 if asked. I did a google on christian holy places :lol:

[Oberon]

What if i said that if Iran gets nukes and gets attacked it should wipe out Bethlehem, Nazareth, Vatican City, Santiago de Compostela, Santo Toribio de Liébana, Caravaca de la Cruz, Assisi, Echmiadzin, Mount Athos, Kiev, Sergiyev Posad, Mtskheta, Canterbury, Wittenberg and Geneva. Would that disturbe the Christian members?
:)

Would anyone in Canterbury notice?
Short of blowing massive holes in Iran, there's no way of stopping their nuke program, they're determined to make nukes and we're determined they shouldn't.
Somethings gotta give, and methinks it'll be Tehrans nuclear ideas. :doh:

[sonar732]

I don't like the thought of Iran having a nuc program just as much as the other person...however, if a coalition of countries monitored them...NOT the IAEA...countries with some weight that could stop anything illegal instead of "threatening" a security council vote.

[August]

I don't like the thought of Iran having a nuc program just as much as the other person...however, if a coalition of countries monitored them...NOT the IAEA...countries with some weight that could stop anything illegal instead of "threatening" a security council vote.

How would these weighty countries monitor Irans nuclear program?

[retired1212]

(((((((YES))))))))

Nukes for everybody, or for nobody :rock:

[Abraham]

What if i said that if Iran gets nukes and gets attacked it should wipe out Bethlehem, Nazareth, Vatican City, Santiago de Compostela, Santo Toribio de Liébana, Caravaca de la Cruz, Assisi, Echmiadzin, Mount Athos, Kiev, Sergiyev Posad, Mtskheta, Canterbury, Wittenberg and Geneva. Would that disturbe the Christian members?
:) Is it bad that someone as smart as me reconizes only 9 out of those 15 places? :hmm: (I reconized just about every other place mentioned in this thread...)You're not bad at all, because without Googling I knew only 10 out of the 15 places. :D
I missed Jerusalem in the list though.

Chernobyl was a primitive plant, built on a rush with structural failures on the project, below the high ethical standards of the Soviet Union, supervised by a political agent who was not an expert in nuclear energy, and to say the least, wasn't the brightest of the Soviet agents.
Oh my... Please, don't speak about the things you TOTALLY misunderstand, ok?

We need a nuclear arsenal to fire on Asteroids in the event of an emergency
:rotfl: Too much Hollywood. Movies are not the best source of political views ant tech info.

Anyway, it's extremely dangerous to give a nuke into the hans of people who clearly promise to doom any nation.
But:
Any country that has Nukes now, has it as a shield, not as a sword. Any Nuke fired will be answered with many nukes. And Tehran understands it very well. Our fathers and grandfathers understood this long ago - and because of it, Cold War never became a Hot one. There can no be winners in full-scale nuclear war.
So, when other leader declare Iran as a part of Axis of Evil (it just the same words Ahmadinezhad used), and declares that Iran's political system must be changed with a force - Iran has the full right to defend itself. The most effective shield - is nuclear one.
Any Nukes that Iran can create now - will have very limited attack capabilities. And never be used in advance - because of reasons I wrote. But it can become a good cold shower for those hotheads who want to kindle a new war in the Middle East.

[Happy Times]

What if i said that if Iran gets nukes and gets attacked it should wipe out Bethlehem, Nazareth, Vatican City, Santiago de Compostela, Santo Toribio de Liébana, Caravaca de la Cruz, Assisi, Echmiadzin, Mount Athos, Kiev, Sergiyev Posad, Mtskheta, Canterbury, Wittenberg and Geneva. Would that disturbe the Christian members?
:) Is it bad that someone as smart as me reconizes only 9 out of those 15 places? :hmm: (I reconized just about every other place mentioned in this thread...)You're not bad at all, because without Googling I knew only 10 out of the 15 places. :D
I missed Jerusalem in the list though. I thought it would be strange to level something that they are after. :hmm:

[Hitman]

But it can become a good cold shower for those hotheads who want to kindle a new war in the Middle East.


I would also sleep better if I knew that noone can sell a "War on terror" for what is really a "War on oil" ;) , but anyway since Iran has now a strategic alliance with China (Iran will fuel china with oil for the next decades) they probably don't need that "nuclear shield" anymore.

Of course I concede that if Irak had had a nuclear shield then the US would not have invaded it, with or without a UN resolution ... :doh:

[Happy Times]

Well US dont have the resources to attack Iran. Neither does NATO, Europeans are weak militarily. You probably cant take out the program by an air campaign, you would need men on the ground. Now we have Iran and North Korea openly developing these weapons. I see that UN is dead and US and NATO dont have the muscle they would like people to believe. The bubble broke with Irak, well for me it was allready in Kosovo. The only way in the future is general concription of males. And still these populous countries in the East can field bigger armies. This HiTech we dont stand casualties war, isnt going to cut it, you have to get serious. I cant see how you western males are ready to vote for some war but not ready to fight it. Especially anyone living in a republic.

[Hitman]

Well US dont have the resources to attack Iran

Emmmm.....I think that the US have the resources to start & probably win (Unlike Germany, who failed two times in the attempt) a 3rd world war all by themselves if needed. You are basically looking at the current status of the US presidential marines. But the marines are NOT the US army (Common misconception) but instead a single elite corps of the army under presidential control. Exactly that presidential control is what made them grow in peacetime to monster proportions, because the US president is way much more free to allocate the marines and set them in engagement than what he can do with the army. The real US army is today a sleeping giant, who wakes up only in important wars. I have often heard saying (Original from Napoleon) "Do not wake up China, let them sleep or the world will be shaken", but I say: Let the US Army sleep in peace...if it wakes up you will see the most terrible destruction machine ever created, backed up by the most powerful industrial nation in the world.

Believe me, the USA in a real "state of war" situation would raise in 24 hours the most terrible army the world has ever seen. A different matter is if the americans will be willing to do so, but do not think they are not capable of it :|\

[Happy Times]

Well US dont have the resources to attack Iran

Emmmm.....I think that the US have the resources to start & probably win (Unlike Germany, who failed two times in the attempt) a 3rd world war all by themselves if needed. You are basically looking at the current status of the US presidential marines. But the marines are NOT the US army (Common misconception) but instead a single elite corps of the army under presidential control. Exactly that presidential control is what made them grow in peacetime to monster proportions, because the US president is way much more free to allocate the marines and set them in engagement than what he can do with the army. The real US army is today a sleeping giant, who wakes up only in important wars. I have often heard saying (Original from Napoleon) "Do not wake up China, let them sleep or the world will be shaken", but I say: Let the US Army sleep in peace...if it wakes up you will see the most terrible destruction machine ever created, backed up by the most powerful industrial nation in the world.

Believe me, the USA in a real "state of war" situation would raise in 24 hours the most terrible army the world has ever seen. A different matter is if the americans will be willing to do so, but do not think they are not capable of it :|\ Are you serious??? :o In 24h!! If you exclude nukes, they havent got the power to fight everyone.. And no , im not speaking only about the Marines. And i wouldnt call Marines monster in size.. And i think they have waken up every thing they have for Iraq, Army reserves and National Guard. Do they have some secret troops we dont know about? All services combined (and reserves) they have max little over 2.000000 men. Offcourse they have big potential but so does EU, in theory. Reality is that they would have to start conscriptions to get the extra men. And public opinion doesnt support that. US is such a mix cultures and ideas that the unity isnt there. It isnt as homogenous society as it was in ww2. Even then they needed Pearl Harbor to sell the war to the people. Thinking back to New Orleans, they could even have a nother civil war someday. They are going to have serious difficulties with their economy, everyone knows it. http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182 Many countries are going to institute back concription. It must be a handicap for a country of size and interests like Britain to have less men trained for war than Finland. It limits your politics for sure. When the conflict comes you need to start building it up again, and it doesnt happen in 24h.

[August]

I don't consider a few months of conscript training to be "trained for war". That might have worked pre-WW2 but the weapons, equipment and tactics used these days are far more complicated.

[Hitman]

Are you serious??? In 24h!! If you exclude nukes, they havent got the power to fight everyone.. And no , im not speaking only about the Marines. And i wouldnt call Marines monster in size.. And i think they have waken up every thing they have for Iraq, Army reserves and National Guard. Do they have some secret troops we dont know about? All services combined (and reserves) they have max little over 2.000000 men. Offcourse they have big potential but so does EU, in theory. Reality is that they would have to start conscriptions to get the extra men. And public opinion doesnt support that. US is such a mix cultures and ideas that the unity isnt there. It isnt as homogenous society as it was in ww2. Even then they needed Pearl Harbor to sell the war to the people. Thinking back to New Orleans, they could even have a nother civil war someday. They are going to have serious difficulties with their economy, everyone knows it. http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182 Many countries are going to institute back concription. It must be a handicap for a country of size and interests like Britain to have less men trained for war than Finland. It limits your politics for sure. When the conflict comes you need to start building it up again, and it doesnt happen in 24h.


Yes logically I was speaking in figurative terms, it's obvious that in 24 hours they would do nothing essential :lol:

But the point of the example is that like in WW2 US started with a relative small army and then by 1945 they had a massive army that could crush almost any other in the world.

True modern warfare needs a special training and true the US public opinion would not see with good eyes to engage in a war for futile reasons, but if and when the US decides to commit 100% to a war, I would certainly not want to be in his enemy's skin :hmm:

[Happy Times]

I don't consider a few months of conscript training to be "trained for war". That might have worked pre-WW2 but the weapons, equipment and tactics used these days are far more complicated. Well lets think were the professionals come, in US and UK they are mostly from lower a socio- economic backround that is less educated. In exsample Finland everybody has to serve. They are tested and trained were they are best suited. I was in a recon unit as a FO and i have all the skills and condition to do that job well. I like to hunt and go running and backpacking. My service buddys had a backround in orienteering, skiing, biathlon and crosscountry running in national level. My friend was in ELINT/ECM, he is studying a related area in university. Other one studying logistics served in artillery logistics. The later civilian career also effects were you are placed. And you have to attend training during reserve. Finns in Bosnia and Kosovo have been just as good or better in excercises as the professional armys. ,most of the Finns there are reservists or straight out of conscript service. My friend there told that an US officer had wondered how it was possible that finnish troops can master so many skills that were not part of their official job there.

[August]

Well lets think were the professionals come, in US and UK they are mostly from lower a socio- economic backround that is less educated.

That's not at all true HT:

The U.S. military is not a "poor man's force." The data shows the force is more educated than the population at large. More servicemembers have some college than the typical 18- to 24-year-olds. On the socioeconomic side, the military is strongly middle class.

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joiningthemilitary/

As for conscript armies. We tried it for many years and found an all volunteer force is far more motivated and prepared for combat than an army made up primarily of conscripts.

[TLAM Strike]

You are basically looking at the current status of the US presidential marines. But the marines are NOT the US army (Common misconception) but instead a single elite corps of the army under presidential control. Actually the USMC is an elite unit of the US Navy not the US Army. :yep:

[Ducimus]

The real US army is today a sleeping giant, who wakes up only in important wars. I have often heard saying (Original from Napoleon) "Do not wake up China, let them sleep or the world will be shaken", but I say: Let the US Army sleep in peace...if it wakes up you will see the most terrible destruction machine ever created, backed up by the most powerful industrial nation in the world.

As for US military manpower reserves, heres how it works if im not mistaken, from top of the barrel to the bottom of the barrel:

-Active duty

-Active Reserves (weekend warrior aka "citizen soldier" )

- National guard (same as above really, both maintain some sort of training program so their people keep up to date.)

- Individual Ready Reserve (aka IRR, or Inactive reserve. These are the guys who did their active duty commitment, but are subject to being oncall for 4 years after their discharge from active, they are for all intents and purposes, veterans who show up once a year for a physical, and see how much weight they've gained. No training program is kept here, theyre OUT, and DISCHARGED, but yet on call, go figure.)

- Draft. Once you tap in to the IRR the only other place to go to get warm bodies is the general populace.

The U.S. military is not a "poor man's force." The data shows the force is more educated than the population at large. More servicemembers have some college than the typical 18- to 24-year-olds. On the socioeconomic side, the military is strongly middle class.

This is becoming questionable as their letting in the "dull lightbulbs" these days: http://www.slate.com/id/2133908/



Actually the USMC is an elite unit of the US Navy not the US Army. :yep:

Not quite accurate. They are a branch of the military that is in the department of the US Navy, however they are not the US Navy, nor are they in the US Navy.

[TLAM Strike]

Actually the USMC is an elite unit of the US Navy not the US Army. :yep:

Not quite accurate. They are a branch of the military that is in the department of the US Navy, however they are not the US Navy, nor are they in the US Navy. Yes technically they are a separate branch but they report to the SECNAV. My point was they are not part of the US Army.

[Ducimus]

Thats true.

Anyway ive had a couple buddies who were in the USMC, and they were always quick to point out two things to me:

USMC means "YoU Signed a Mother***ing Contract"

and

USMC is NOT the navy. It was always amusing to make navy references and see how huffy they got :D

[August]

TUSMC is NOT the navy. It was always amusing to make navy references and see how huffy they got :D

They have admirals in their chain of command and their budget is controlled by the Navy department. They are therefore pw0ned by the Navy regardless of what they claim.

[TLAM Strike]

I aways like telling Jarheads that their paycheck says 'Department of the Navy' on it. :D

EDIT: I just noticed I broke 4,000 post not that long ago, SWEET!!

[Ducimus]

I aways like telling Jarheads that their paycheck says 'Department of the Navy' on it. :D



I really think they HATE that. I heard some rumor awhile aback taht some of their brass was trying, or at least someone suggested the idea of making a formalized seperation from the department of the navy. Pure rumor i think.

Emmmm.....I think that the US have the resources to start & probably win <...> a 3rd world war all by themselves if needed
To win WW3? Bwa-ha-ha! :lol: Remember, what Einstein said? ;)

[Abraham]

I agree with Hitman that the US could take on Iran while continuing it's presence in Iraq, but I think it would take a high price, a price the US currently is not willing to pay.
That price would be:
1. political: an attack upon Iran without the solid backing of the Security Council (and even with) would do political damage to the image of the US;
2. military: it would take a lot of extra men, it would drain the National Guard and it would cost enourmous amounts of weapons and equipment (munitions);
3. humanitairy: it is clear that a lot of human suffering would result.

I could imagine a moment i time that the US would react towards the Iranian nuclear threat, but that moment will be months if not years down the road. At this time there is not yet a 'clear and present danger'.
Talking about the possibility of military action is putting some pressure upon the regime, but the most important thing is to deal with Iran as a unified international community. That unification takes more and more shape, no doubt helped by the completely irresponsable remarks with regards of Israel by premier Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

I've heard recently an interesting opinion - those Tehran moves have a goal to draw USA into a new war - to undermine economics, social and military potential. I really don't know if it's true and if it can be effective enough...

[Abraham]

Weird theory.

We may think that the US is in a nightmare situation in Irak, but the reality is that they won the war at a tremendous speed and an incredably low casualty number.
In an open fight against Iran things would hardly be different. The US military is not just a bunch of high trained professionals but has the intelligence, the mobility and the logistic capacity to outsmart and outmanoevre any troops they might encounter in the field. We don't even have to start talking about air force and maritime superiority.

The US might well lose the peace, but that won't do the current Iranian leadership much good, just as Saddam Hussein will probably be hanged or shot wile there's still unrest in the Sunni triangle.

Whenever a country fights the US the outcome of the war will be: the US wins and the opponent loses. That will be the result for years to come.
The difficult thing will be the situation after a fullblown war against Iran ends, the anarchy, the political infighting etc. But the nuclear threat will be removed and at a certain point in time that might be worth it.

[Happy Times]

I just think that the Iranians know that US cant fight a new war right now. It lacks the resources. This time they would have Iraq and Afganistan to launch the attack. But it would take months again to build the invasion force. This is months to get prepared for the other side. And i wouldn look too much on the Iraqi invasion, they didnt really fight back. Divisions surrendered when Generals were bribed and there was poor morale generally. I bet that the Iranians have more will to fight back and are better equipped/trained than Iraqis. . This would cause a lot bigger casualties and that would brake the US back morally not militarily. They won the battles in Vietnam but lost the war.

[Hitman]

TLAM I think you are partially right, but not 100%. It is true that Marines are under operational control of the US Navy, but only because of being transported and responsable for operations on ships. Americans have followed the tradition of the UK here, where the marine infantry was present aboard the ships to guarantee no rebellions or mutinys, as well as to fight the enemy and disembark. When in the ship, the head officer of the Marines was always lower in rank and subordinated to the captain of the ship, but just that. The marines are a branch of the army, specifically of the infantry, who serves aboard ships because their speciality is to disembark and take control of enemy beaches (That was originally, nowadays they do many more things). Since the sailors do not have the capabilities to do that, and it would mean exiting their ship (Whic is illogical to the navy), the Marines as specialized infantry in disembarkments where added to the ships. But unless I'm wrong the ranks of the marines match the ones of the army, not the ones of the Navy (No Lietenant Commaders, Frigate Captains, Corvette Captains, etc.), they wear green duty uniform etc.

Correct me if I'm wrong :-?

To win WW3? Bwa-ha-ha! Remember, what Einstein said?


Nah, Einstein talked about WW4 and the weapons that would be used :D

[August]

...someone suggested the idea of making a formalized seperation from the department of the navy. Pure rumor i think.

Yep. The whole reason for the USMCs existance is to give the Navy a landing force to secure coastlines and to provide ship security.

Take them out of the Navy and you might as well just roll them into the Army.

[TLAM Strike]

TLAM I think you are partially right, but not 100%. It is true that Marines are under operational control of the US Navy, but only because of being transported and responsable for operations on ships. Americans have followed the tradition of the UK here, where the marine infantry was present aboard the ships to guarantee no rebellions or mutinys, as well as to fight the enemy and disembark. When in the ship, the head officer of the Marines was always lower in rank and subordinated to the captain of the ship, but just that. The marines are a branch of the army, specifically of the infantry, who serves aboard ships because their speciality is to disembark and take control of enemy beaches (That was originally, nowadays they do many more things). Since the sailors do not have the capabilities to do that, and it would mean exiting their ship (Whic is illogical to the navy), the Marines as specialized infantry in disembarkments where added to the ships. But unless I'm wrong the ranks of the marines match the ones of the army, not the ones of the Navy (No Lietenant Commaders, Frigate Captains, Corvette Captains, etc.), they wear green duty uniform etc.

Correct me if I'm wrong :-? The ranking system isn't the Navy's one but the Marines ranking is different than the US Army as is there uniforms.
USMC Ranks:
General 0-10
LT. General 0-9
Major General 0-8
Brigadier General 0-7
Colonel 0-6
LT Colonel 0-5
Major 0-4
Captain 0-3
1st Lt 0-2
2nc Lt 0-1
Chief Warrant Officer 5 W-5
Chief Warrant Officer 4 W-4
Chief Warrant Officer 3 W-3
Chief Warrant Officer 2 W-2
Chief Warrant Officer W-1
Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps E-9
Sergeant Major E-9
Master Gunnery Sergeant E-9
First Sergeant E-8
Master Sergeant E-8
Gunnery Sergeant E-7
Staff Sergeant E-6
Sergeant E-5
Corporal E-4
Lance Corporal E-3
Private 1st Class E-2
Private E-1

US Army Ranks:
General of the Army OF-10
General OF-9
Lt General OF-8
Major General OF-7
Brigadier General OF-6
Colonel OF-5
Lt Colonel OF-4
Major OF-3
Captain OF-2
1st Lt. OF-1
2nc Lt. OF-1
Chief Warrant Officer 5 CW-5
Chief Warrant Officer 4 CW-4
Chief Warrant Officer 3 CW-3
Chief Warrant Officer 2 CW-2
Chief Warrant Officer 1 CW-1
Sergeant Major of the Army OR-9
Command Sergeant Major OR-9
Sergeant Major OR-9
First Sergeant OR-8
Master Sergeant OR-8
Sergeant 1st Class OR-7
Staff Sergeant OR-6
Sergeant OR-5
Corporal OR-4
Specialist OR-4
Private 1st Class OR-3
Private E2 OR-2
Private E1 OR-1

The Uniforms are also different, here is a quote from wikipidia:
Differences in the utility uniform between U.S. Army soldiers and Marines tend to be very subtle. These differences include: The cover (hat) of the utility uniform is constructed differently, Marine covers have eight sides and corners, and are generally worn "blocked"-- creased and peaked, while the headgear of soldiers is left in its "natural" state. Marines wear cotton olive green-colored "skivvie" undershirts with their utility uniform, even in the desert (though brown "skivvie" shirts are now becomeing more common due to the lengthy deployment in Iraq). Soldiers wear brown undershirts with BDUs/DCUs and pale undershirts with the ACU. Soldiers roll up the sleeves of their utility uniform so the camouflage is facing out. Marines tightly fold their sleeves so that the lighter-colored underside faces out (known as "white-side out").

Marines "blouse" their boots. That is, they roll the cuffs of their trousers back inside and tighten them over the boots with an elasitc cord or or spring known as a boot band. Soldiers either blouse their boots or tuck their trousers directly into their boots. The blousing of boots tends to be an issue of military distinction, since some US Army units, particularly Airborne forces, blouse their boots even when wearing dress uniforms. Marines do not wear any rank insignia or other device on the utility cover. The front of the utility cover has instead the Marine Corps Eagle, Globe, and Anchor emblem, and since the introduction of the MARPAT pattern, this insignia has been embroidered directly on the front--not ironed on as on previous covers.

On their utility uniforms, Marine officers typically wear their rank insignia on both collars, while Army officers, since the introduction of the new Army Combat Uniform, wear their rank insignia on a flap located on the front of the ACU shirt. In garrison, Marine officers typically wear collar insignia made of shiny metal, as opposed to the "subdued" stitched-on insignia worn by Army officers. In combat, Marine officers generally eschew subdued insignia, preferring to wear the shiny metal insignia. Generally, these officers obscure the shine of the insignia with camouflage paint. Marines wear a colored belt, often referred to as a "rigger's belt", that is color coded to represent their specific qualification under the Marine Corps Martial Arts Program. Marines used to wear black combat boots with the utility uniform, as do the Army and Air Force. But in 2002, light-brown "rough-side out" suede combat boots were introduced along with a new type of camouflage, the "MARPAT" uniform. (See photo.) Effective 1 October 2004, black combat boots were declared obsolete and no longer authorized for general wear by Marines. Exception is made for black safety boots worn for certain tasks, such as parachuting.

As of 1 October 2006, the old-style camouflage utility uniform, also worn by the Army and Air Force, will be declared obsolete. The only utility uniform authorized for Marines will be the woodland and desert MARPAT uniform. As of 2004, both the Army and the Air Force have announced plans to replace their old-style "pickle suit" camouflage utility uniforms with newer designs similar to the Marine Corps digital "MARPAT" pattern. The Navy has started experimentations on the replacement of their "dungaree" and Officer/Chief Petty Officer uniforms with a variation of the "MARPAT" pattern.
One thing it doesn’t mention I think is that the Army now uses black Berets in place of hats.

The Marines are totally separate from the army. They are infantry like the Army but their chain of command is different and they have assets denied to the Army for example fixed wing combat aircraft (the Army relies on the Air Force and sometimes Navy for that) and the Army has Artillery and Anti-Aircraft Vehicles while the Marines don’t.

They are an army in the sense they fight on the ground with guns (infact they are larger than most nation's armies) but they are not part of the US Army in anyway.

[Happy Times]

http://sill-www.army.mil/usmc/DetHQ/Reg_Links.htm ,

[Ducimus]

I just think that the Iranians know that US cant fight a new war right now. It lacks the resources. This time they would have Iraq and Afganistan to launch the attack. But it would take months again to build the invasion force.


Given Iran's latest saber rattling, i that may be part of it, but i really think irans taken lessons in Brinksmanship from north Korea and are now, very subtly, trying it out. It's more or less worked for the DPRK.

[bradclark1]

If U.N. doesn't do anything (probable) and they actually try to go nuke my money is on Israel taking care of the issue with a little black help from the U.S.

[Ishmael]

Let me add my contribution to this thread. having served in the US Navy for 6 years specializing in Anti-submarine weapons systems up to and including "Special Weapons" and having actually visited Iran(Bandar Abbas 1974) I have followed this part of the world for some 30 years.

First of all, the Iranians have learned the lessons of Iraq and North Korea. Iraq had no nuclear weapons and was attacked, North Korea had nuclear weapons and delivery systems and was not attacked. That said, Ahmedinejad is also doing this for domestic consumption. recent polls suggest that 70% of the Iranian population does not support their government. By making these inflammatory statements and going ahead with their program, he is trying to rally domestic support for his government. At the same time, they have consistently frustrated and confounded reformers like Khatami from having any chance of effecting change to that government. For me the most telling thing about Ahmedinejad's victory over Rafsanjani was by tagging Rafsanjani as a "Liberal" who would corrupt the moral values of the Islamic revolution. I asked myself if Karl Rove was his political adviser too.

Also we must look at the differences between Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan. Both Afghanistan and Iraq are a lot less populous than Iran. Iraq has some 16 million people, and Afghanistan maybe 10 million. Both populations made up from various ethnic groups and tribal minorities. Iran, on the other hand, has a population of some 68 million according to CIA estimates. At the same time, Iraq and Afghanistan's populations are also religiously diverse divided among Sunni and Shi'ite sects. 89% of Iranians are Shi'ite with 51% of the population ethinc Persians. A much harder nut to crack from a military standpoint. When you also consider the amount of manpower and money Iran has poured into the Shi'ite south of Iraq in the years since the invasion, they could make a lot more trouble than they have already.

You can't discount the role China is playing in all of this. With their weapons and technology transfers to Iran as well as the A.Q.Khan connection, they have been responsible for the bulk of nuclear and missle technology transfers not only to Iran, but Pakistan and India as well. Their goal is to secure oil supplies for themselves and to check US influence whenever they can.

Any preemptive military action by the US against Iran would only unite the Iranians behind the hardliners. It would also feed the jihadist's arguments that the west is waging a war on the muslim world and further inflame Muslim anti-western feelings from Rabat to Djakarta. We must also recognize that the US has the largest arsenal of nuclear weapons in the world, enough to totally obliterate Iran 100 times over. If any country actually staged a nuclear attack on the US, that country would be totally destroyed in a matter of hours.

My idea would be this, the US would inform Iran, Syria and North Korea that any WMD attack on US soil would be seen as a declaration of war by those 3 countries and invite an overwhelming and devastating response to all 3 countries. At the same time, I would stage pro-jihadist demonstrations by all major gay organsations in the west and beam images of those to Al-Jazeera and the muslim world. I would also be looking at ways to provide covert support to reformist elements inside Iran to effect peaceful change inside Iran. The importance of including North Korea would be to allay suspicions that this is merely a war on Islam.

The logistical problems of a war with Iran would certainly require reinstatement of the draft and many months time needed to train, equip and preposition sufficient forces in Iraq and Afghanistan to make an effective invasion. That time would be used by Iran to make preemptive strikes against US forces by either Iranian militias or proxy forces.

[TLAM Strike]

Why do we need to invade Iran? Annihilate every piece of its military and industrial infrastructure with air and sea power and leave their nation a smoldering ruin that will take a few decades to rebuild. Sun Tzu said:

2. When you engage in actual fighting, if victory is long in coming, then men's weapons will grow dull and their ardor will be damped. If you lay siege to a town, you will exhaust your strength.
3. Again, if the campaign is protracted, the resources of the State will not be equal to the strain.
4. Now, when your weapons are dulled, your ardor damped, your strength exhausted and your treasure spent, other chieftains will spring up to take advantage of your extremity. Then no man, however wise, will be able to avert the consequences that must ensue.
5. Thus, though we have heard of stupid haste in war, cleverness has never been seen associated with long delays.
6. There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare.
7. It is only one who is thoroughly acquainted with the evils of war that can thoroughly understand the profitable way of carrying it on.
…
19. In war, then, let your great object be victory, not lengthy campaigns.
^ The Art of War: Chapter II. Waging War

[Iceman]

Thank you all so far for great input into this touchy subject.I was wondering if anyone had thought about the Isreali view/stance on this issue and I have noticed Avon Lady has abstained from this thread.I hope it is not because of any perceived response.I my self think like I had said in my first post that Isreal has "Alot" to worry about from a country such as this after making such statements even if it is just Hot air.I don't think they can afford to gamble on the hopes that it is....Brad and Ishmael intresting comments.

I mean you can do a couple of things...wait...let them enrich ...make a bomb and fire it off and then deal with it....

or they submit and cease in thier efforts.

I do understand the "Brinkmanship" tactics here and Iran is gambling on the US or whomever not doing anything but I wonder if they really have thought the Isreali response thru...I do not know Isreal's current nuclear capability but I would almost have to think if they went the route of Nuclear response they would seem to have to commit to total anahilation of the muslim world all together.

Thank you again for your thoughts on this...

[Hitman]

@TLAM Thanks for the clarification about the Marines :up: I was probably confused because of the spanish scheme.

@Ishmael: Great diagnostic!!! I agree completely in that Iran has more an intention of being free of USA influence rather than willing to attack US or Israel. The danger however stands in that Iran could eventually give min-nuclear bombs to suicide terrorists to commit attacks on Israel.

Isn't it amazing that both Iran and Iraq, former Persia and Babylon/Assyria/Summeria were thousands of years ago the most developed civilization and now they are some of the most retrograde countries in the world?? :hmm: As a devoted student of history and ancient cultures this never ceases to amaze me....

Latest press-conference of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iranian President:

We believe if the world is to achieve lasting peace and security, this cannot be achieved except on the basis of justice and morality. Peace imposed by the use of sword and nuclear and chemical weapons cannot last. Peace through plundering the wealth of other nations and on the basis of discrimination cannot last.

Hmm, something new for him :hmm: :D

[Oberon]

Latest press-conference of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iranian President:

We believe if the world is to achieve lasting peace and security, this cannot be achieved except on the basis of justice and morality. Peace imposed by the use of sword and nuclear and chemical weapons cannot last. Peace through plundering the wealth of other nations and on the basis of discrimination cannot last.

Hmm, something new for him :hmm: :D

Hmmm, perhaps someone slipped him the wrong script.

[Skybird]

No.

But that No doesn't matter, because there is no realistic option but a multiple nuclear strike to stop them. As I understood the facilities for the most are out of reach by conventional means, and many already have backups.

[Abraham]

@ Skybird:
There are enough conventional means to bomb the underground nuclear facilities.
What is needed is extremely accurate intelligence.
But since we still have some time to spare - I remember a discussion with you in which you stated 10 to 15 years - it's better to first try to destabilize the current regime and try to support some form of democratic movement under the condition that they adhere to the Nuclear Non-pofiferation Treaty.

[Takeda Shingen]

It comes down to:

1. Should Iran be permitted to develop nuclear weapons?

--Yes. Israel has them. (They may have as many as 400.) The MAD theory states that an opposing regional power is needed to assure non-use.

2. Do I want Iran to develop nuclear weapons?

--No.

[Skybird]

@ Skybird:
There are enough conventional means to bomb the underground nuclear facilities.
What is needed is extremely accurate intelligence.
But since we still have some time to spare - I remember a discussion with you in which you stated 10 to 15 years - it's better to first try to destabilize the current regime and try to support some form of democratic movement under the condition that they adhere to the Nuclear Non-pofiferation Treaty.

yeah, tunnel busters, cave-vaccum-explosives, giant mega-bombs and whatever there is, I remember those reports we had during Afghanistan war and before Iraq 2003.

I did not mean to say to nuke them now. I just meant that it is the only theoretical option if you REALLY want to stop them. But now there have been repeatedly reports in TV and newspaper medias that are suggesting, that critical installations already have backups, and that the sensitive sites are far too deep below surface level, or inside mountains. Some of these infos were pretty much convincing that a good ammpunt of these sites and facitlities are beyond reach of conventional bombs, no matter how specialised the weapon is. One can do some damage, without doubt, but stopping the program by conventional air raids alone - I am very doubtful on that.

Infiltration on the ground and destroy them from within I can imagine to be great entertainment in a Hollywood movie, but in reality: unrealistic, I think.

I remember that 10-15-years-discussion, too :) But that was under a different government, with Ahmadinejadh far below the horizon, and so was the support he obviously is given by the young males in Iran society. He is a man of the Revolutionary Guards, but his support comes from a far bigger basis then I, or the West, initially realized. From his craving ego and his islamic and political visions, and from the young, male social basis supporting him, a dynamic component is given to Iran's craving for becoming an independent major player, that could redistribute ressources and energies and form the will to maybe fulfill the task of an Iranian bomb in lesser time than I initially imagined (und different conditions back then). Again, demographics are wokring against the West here.

Unfortunately I had to change several former opinions of mine about Iran in recent weeks and months. Sometimes i wonder if I maybe allowed myself to fall victim to a huge deception only when having been there. :-j I see my impressions and experiences there in different lights, at least a great ammount of these memories. Mark this day in you calender, Abraham, it doesn't happen too often that I admit that I need to change and readjust former opinions of mine to such a huge and substantial degree! :D

I already have a headache with the bomb for Pakistan, due to it'S enormous instability and the influence of the religious hardliners on the streets. I also have a problem with a bomb for Iran for the same reason. I have a problem with nuclear bombs in Muslim states in general. Too much ideological tunnel view, too much religion.

[Abraham]

... Mark this day in you calender, Abraham, it doesn't happen too often that I admit that I need to change and readjust former opinions of mine to such a huge and substantial degree! :D
One out of three possibilities:

1) I convinced you;
2) You saw the light all by yourself (which means there is hope for Iceman);
3) You are an opportunist and only changed your mind because I am a moderator now...

:D
Should we make a poll out of this?

[Skybird]

As a matter of fact the environment in which my further assumptions were taken seems to have lost part of it's validity.

"If someone offers you three options - choose option four." (from: Confessions of a Skybirdian Aquarius)

[Skybird]

because I am a moderator now...

That's a real handicap for you. You are no longer as free as before to pick your words to your liking. If Neal would have invited me, I would have rejected.

"Was ein Häkchen werden will, krümmt sich beizeiten." :lol:

[Abraham]

because I am a moderator now...
That's a real handicap for you. You are no longer as free as before to pick your words to your liking.So you found out?!?!?
If Neal would have invited me, I would have rejected.You think Neal invites you to become a moderator? This is the Navy, mister; we all have to follow our orders!

:D

[Onkel Neal]

because I am a moderator now...

That's a real handicap for you. You are no longer as free as before to pick your words to your liking. If Neal would have invited me, I would have rejected.

"Was ein Häkchen werden will, krümmt sich beizeiten." :lol:

Well, now that you're back, don't forget about that Steel Beasts Pro review you promised :ping: I had to get Network Solutions to add a DNS switch for you!

[Skybird]

Well, now that you're back, don't forget about that Steel Beasts Pro review you promised :ping: I had to get Network Solutions to add a DNS switch for you!
Not forgotten, Neal, forget the email I sent you on that. Now that I can access subsim.com again you will be the first one I offer it, as promised. Good ammount of text already is written as a first draft layout, on things that are not directly related to the sim's details. Of course it needs to be finetuned, depending on what the final realease will look like.

Be warned, it will be a very comprehensive work.

Ooh, and thanks for the thing you added. Don't know what it is, but I appreciate your effort. Thanks. ;)