War with Iran?

[Bill Nichols]

"There's only one thing worse than the United States exercising the military option; that's a nuclear-armed Iran. The military option is the last option but cannot be taken off the table."

. - Senator John McCain

[Skybird]

Never have seen Bill Nichols starting a political thread in all my years here. :o

[Bort]

I would say, that regardless of how bad the Iran situation gets, the US will probably not go to war with the islamic republic, at least not in a full scale fashion (involving ground forces). I might see the U.S. pumping some tomahawks into Iran's nuclear research facilities if things got worse, but the US appears to be in no condition to handle a full scale war in Persia. Anyone could've beaten Iraq, whose military was already ground into a pulp by the Gulf War and sanctions, but I think that Iran would be a much tougher fight. First off there's all the nice stuff that we sold them prior to the revolution like the 89 Tomcats we sold them along with Phoenix missiles, and other equipment like F-4's. Plus the Iranians have been doing buisiness with the Russians for a long time, buying MiG-29's as well as a handful of kilos. Add to that the fact that our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan are not set up to repel an invasion from Iran (A possible response to airstrikes). Bush has already played his best cards in Iraq and Afghanistan, who knows if he has enough left to take on the Ayatollahs? I say no, plus he still has to worry about North Korea and China (Although I don't think he worrys enough about them). If anyone ever deserved to be attacked its North Korea and Iran, but Bushy just had to invade Iraq...
http://www.iiaf.net/archive/aircraft/images/f14atomcat1_jpg.jpg

[TLAM Strike]

All the stuff we got in Iraq is army gear and ACs for close air support and surveillance. We got plenty of Warships and Fighter Jets to handle Iran as long as we don't plan on occupying the place.

[Deathblow]

Never have seen Bill Nichols starting a political thread in all my years here. :o

This makes me afraid..... :dead:

*goes and turns on the news*

[Konovalov]

Never have seen Bill Nichols starting a political thread in all my years here. :o

I was thinking the exact same thing. :up:

I think that Senator J McCain is definately shaping up to run as President in 2008. He would get my vote. :up:

[CCIP]

I don't think that's an intelligent outlook, but I suppose you know where I'm coming from politically.

You're still in Iraq, folks. And Iran looks exponentially scarier than that. Mr. McCain is sure eager for someone with his wartime experience.

Personally, I don't think it's worth it and I think the cost of it would be horrific. On the other hand, if it were to happen, I think it'd trim the bald eagle's feathers at last. Like Vietnam, which Mr. McCain is so eager not to learn from, did 30 years ago.

[Skybird]

http://www.welt.de/data/2006/01/11/829567.html
Sorry, German language.
.
-----
.
Having just finished reading the war memories by Kuhn, and Swofford, what they went through before, during, and after the 91 war, I also cannot avoid to remember the other side of the coin. And that is no abstract political strategy games and bluffs, but real faces and real souls beeing mutilated and distorted by real horror and real violance.

It's always the same kind of poisenous, egocentric idiots getting others into suffering. Loud voice replaces mind, missionizing spirit replaces heart, they say "soul" and mean "ego".

God, give us trust, but save us from faith. (Aldous Huxley)

[Bill Nichols]

Never have seen Bill Nichols starting a political thread in all my years here. :o

This makes me afraid..... :dead:

*goes and turns on the news*

Hey, I'm just starting my Masters degree in Defense and Strategic Studies. Everyone should be VERY afraid! :lol:

[Torplexed]

Master's Degree? Awesome! :know: :know: :know: :know:

[CCIP]

Never have seen Bill Nichols starting a political thread in all my years here. :o

This makes me afraid..... :dead:

*goes and turns on the news*

Hey, I'm just starting my Masters degree in Defense and Strategic Studies. Everyone should be VERY afraid! :lol:

Bill Nichols, Master of Defense.

That certainly does have a scary ring to it :lol:

[Ducimus]

>>War with Iran?


Damn i hope not.

Honestly, i don't think even Jr is THAT stupid given the US's current situation regarding its armed forces being spread a little thin.

I do think Iran is just a little piece of the overall picture with that part of the world. An ugly picture it is.

[TLAM Strike]

Never have seen Bill Nichols starting a political thread in all my years here. :o

This makes me afraid..... :dead:

*goes and turns on the news*

Hey, I'm just starting my Masters degree in Defense and Strategic Studies. Everyone should be VERY afraid! :lol:

Bill Nichols, Master of Defense.

That certainly does have a scary ring to it :lol: I think we have a replacement for his 'Deep Blue Warrior' title! :up:

[MadMike]

Here's some links of interest...

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iran/facility/index.html

http://www.scramble.nl/ir.htm

http://www.tau.ac.il/jcss/balance/Iran.pdf

Yours, Mike

Can't believe that Skybird had a one sentence post. Hey Sky, am hitting a German restaurant tomorrow night, will let ya know how the jagerschnitzel is...

[Bill Nichols]

Never have seen Bill Nichols starting a political thread in all my years here. :o

This makes me afraid..... :dead:

*goes and turns on the news*

Hey, I'm just starting my Masters degree in Defense and Strategic Studies. Everyone should be VERY afraid! :lol:

Bill Nichols, Master of Defense.

That certainly does have a scary ring to it :lol: I think we have a replacement for his 'Deep Blue Warrior' title! :up:

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

You'll have to talk to Neal about that!

[TLAM Strike]

You laugh now but you might just end up being known as ‘Bill Nichols, Fluffy Bunny Man’, you know I am that devious, and Neal has a talent for avatars… :D

[Happy Times]

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iran/facility/index.html :o Pretty large program, and hard to destroy all off it from air. Those mountains are probably carved hollow. They have past the point of no return, i have to say that an Israeli response can come at any time. If Americans werent in Iraq they would have attacked allready. :yep:

[TLAM Strike]

:ping:
That’s only 48 targets not counting the mines (those don't pose an immediate threat an can be dealt with at our leisure).

Lets assume it takes 30 Cruise Missiles to take out each site that’s 1440 bombs. Lets say the US plans on using just B-52s armed with AGM-86 missiles, 20 per plane so that’s 72 flights needed, there are 44 combat coded in the air force so that requires just over 1 and a half missions per plane.

In reality we wouldn’t just use B-52 but you get the point, the US has a lot of firepower at its disposal. A mass attack against fixed installations like this is what the US Military has been waiting for since WWII!

[TteFAboB]

Let Iran strike first, as CCIP said: There is no other way to form a coalition to fight a war against Iran, if Ahmadinejad is not a bluff, let him show himself to the world.

[Abraham]

Never have seen Bill Nichols starting a political thread in all my years here. :o

This makes me afraid..... :dead:

*goes and turns on the news*

Hey, I'm just starting my Masters degree in Defense and Strategic Studies. Everyone should be VERY afraid! :lol:

Bill Nichols, Master of Defense.
Not just Defense...
Don't forget the Strategic Studies.

Should make you a regular on this forum!
:D

[Bill Nichols]

You laugh now but you might just end up being known as ‘Bill Nichols, Fluffy Bunny Man’, you know I am that devious, and Neal has a talent for avatars… :D

How did you know that's what my wife calls me?

:rotfl:

[Abraham]

Here's some links of interest...

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iran/facility/index.html

http://www.scramble.nl/ir.htm

http://www.tau.ac.il/jcss/balance/Iran.pdf

Yours, Mike...
Nice sites, MadMike, I bookmarked them.
:up:

[Konovalov]

It's always the same kind of poisenous, egocentric idiots getting others into suffering. Loud voice replaces mind, missionizing spirit replaces heart, they say "soul" and mean "ego".


It reminds me of characters working behind the scenes that unknown to most play a significant part in formulating policy direction such as in the lead up to the Iraq War. Laurie Mylroie springs immediately to mind with her questionable (big understatement) theories.

[Skybird]

http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/1/7/120534.shtml

:dead:

[Konovalov]

http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/1/7/120534.shtml

:dead:

Yikes! :o If this were to be true then it would have to rank as one of the most monumental intelligence stuffups ever with the aid of that Russian scientist. :nope:

[Skybird]

Yesterday, by chance, I also stumbled over the following quote by Tukydides on the Peloponesian war (as always, my attempt to translate from German). It is advise valid for both sides in this conflict, I think, and a perspective by which both peoples should judge their leaders and imagined intentions of theirs:

German:
Nach Bedarf ändern sie die Bedeutung der Wörter. Dumme Angriffslust gilt als mutige Aufopferung, vorausdenkendes Erwägen als Deckmantel der Feigheit. Wildes Draufgängertum hält man für Mannesart, wägendes Weiterberaten für schönklingenden Vorwand der Ablehnung. Wer schilt und tobt, ist bestimmt zuverlässig; wer widerspricht, verdächtig. Wer mit Überfall einem anderen, der vielleicht plant, zuvorkommt, erntet Lob – erst recht aber, wer einen anderen, der nichts Böses vorhat, dessen beschuldigt

English:
As required for their needs they are changing the meaning of words. Stupid aggressiveness is taken for courageous sacrifice, thinking ahead (and beyond) is taken as the covering of cowardness. Wild daring/recklessness they think is true male virtue, pondering thought and advice is nice-sounding excuse for rejection. The one who is scolding and raging for sure must be reliable/trustworthy, the one who contradicts, is suspicious. The one who is forestalling a feared attack his enemy maybe is planning, earns praise - even more so if he is accusing somebody else of something evil that this someone has no intention of doing.
.
-----
.
Use Google on operation Merlin. There are a couple of reports on it. the site I wanted to quote - I currently cannot access. The Guardian also had a bigger story on it some days ago (also a no-go for me, currently). It's pretty much old - and almost forgotten - news in Germany. Me tends to think it is a true story.

[Bill Nichols]

http://books.guardian.co.uk/extracts/story/0,6761,1678218,00.html

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10755448/site/newsweek/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/01/05/wcia05.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/01/05/ixworld.html

[Skybird]

Thanks Bill, you must have red my mind. These are exactly the two sites I had on my mind.

[Bill Nichols]

Try this on for size:

http://www.nationalreview.com/ledeen/ledeen200601060708.asp

[Konovalov]

I would suspect that morale within the CIA isn't very high right now.

[Skybird]

That interview in the nationalreview says in the last paragraph:
"A few days ago President Ahmadinejad said "we must prepare ourselves to rule the world." And he cheerfully commented on Sharon’s stroke, "The Butcher of Sabra and Shatila has joined his ancestors and others will soon follow suit."

Compare to this:

Some time ago the German newspaper "Die Welt" wrote in an essay:

German:
"Aufschlußreich ist ein Zitat des als "gemäßigt" geltenden Ayatollah Rafsandschani vor vier Jahren, zitiert von Michael Rubin vom "American Enterprise Institute": "Wenn eines Tages auch die islamische Welt über solche Waffen verfügt wie Israel, dann wird die Strategie der Imperialisten zum Stillstand kommen, denn die Kraft selbst einer Atombombe auf Israel würde (dort) alles zerstören. Es ist nicht irrational, eine solche Möglichkeit in Betracht zu ziehen."

English:
Revealing is a quote of Ayatollah Rafsanjani four years ago, who is regarded as a "moderate" (quote is given by Michael Rubin of the American Enterprise Institute): "If one day the Islamic world also possesses these weapons like Israel, then the strategy of the imperialists will come to a standstill, becasue even the power of only one such weapon would destroy all and everything there (in Israel). IT IS NOT IRRATIONAL TO TAKE SUCH A POSSEBILITY INTO ACCOUNT."


And I myself again point to the mission Islam itself is on: and that is securing undisputed ruling of the world and all man, and the overcoming of all infidels and everything that is not Islamic, because only if the total submitting to Islam is enforced, there will be peace. Why I see Islam that way I have explained indepth several weeks ago, I reject to dive deep into that again.

Bomb and Islam: a very explosive mixture. I wonder how things, with regard to global stability and security, would change if in Pakistan Perez Musharaf would get assassinated (what I expect to hear at every day) and the religious opposition would take over. Makes me nervous.

[Konovalov]

Bomb and Islam: a very explosive mixture. I wonder how things, with regard to global stability and security, would change if in Pakistan Perez Musharaf would get assassinated (what I expect to hear at every day) and the religious opposition would take over. Makes me nervous.

Pervez Musharraf is a muslim which kind of throws a spanner in the works slightly.

[Happy Times]

Best way would keep the Iraqi airspace open for Israelis to go do their thing. Its a nother game if they get the weapons. Israelis cant be excepted to live with threat hanging over them every day. Next the Iranians will go for ICBMs and were all threatened. Time to act is now.

[MadMike]

Risen's claims are BS.
Given the fact that A.Q. Khan readily provided Islamic countries design information (which is rumored to be a Pakistani bomb/warhead based on a Chinese design, which is a copy of an early Russian implosion weapon), the Iranians will have no problem manufacturing a nuke.

Yours, Mike

[Abraham]

That interview in the nationalreview says in the last paragraph:
"A few days ago President Ahmadinejad said "we must prepare ourselves to rule the world." And he cheerfully commented on Sharon’s stroke, "The Butcher of Sabra and Shatila has joined his ancestors and others will soon follow suit."
Compare to this:
Some time ago the German newspaper "Die Welt" wrote:...
Revealing is a quote of Ayatollah Rafsanjani four years ago, who is regarded as a "moderate" (quote is given by Michael Rubin of the American Enterprise Institute): "If one day the Islamic world also possesses these weapons like Israel, then the strategy of the imperialists will come to a standstill, becasue even the power of only one such weapon would destroy all and everything there (in Israel). IT IS NOT IRRATIONAL TO TAKE SUCH A POSSEBILITY INTO ACCOUNT."

And I myself again point to the mission Islam itself is on: and that is securing undisputed ruling of the world and all man, and the overcoming of all infidels and everything that is not Islamic, because only if the total submitting to Islam is enforced, there will be peace. Why I see Islam that way I have explained indepth several weeks ago, I reject to dive deep into that again.

Bomb and Islam: a very explosive mixture. I wonder how things, with regard to global stability and security, would change if in Pakistan Perez Musharaf would get assassinated (what I expect to hear at every day) and the religious opposition would take over. Makes me nervous.
@ Skybird:
Two questions:
1. Does this mean you would support an Israeli or US pre-emptive strike if Iran continues it's current nuclear program unchecked?
2. Could that attack in your opinion be a tactical nuclear strike if a conventional strike would do unsufficient damage?

[SmokinTep]

Stuff is in the works..............can't say much more.

[Abraham]

Stuff is in the works..............can't say much more.
Why do you reveal secrets???
You KNOW this kind of remarks draws unwanted NSA attention to Subsim.com!

[Happy Times]

If you really know something you should be ashamed :-? And you should ask Abe to edit it away..

[The Avon Lady]

Naw! He just means he's packing up to move to Tahiti.

[Happy Times]

LOL :lol: Or someone else is moving to the Gulf ;)

[Abraham]

LOL :lol: Or someone else is moving to the Gulf ;)
Is everybody starting to reveil confidential information here?
:-?

[TLAM Strike]

LOL :lol: Or someone else is moving to the Gulf ;)
Is everybody starting to reveil confidential information here?
:-?

New Top Secret Russian Sub!
http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/4189/newtopsecretrussiansub7im.jpg
Everyone remember this? :hmm: :lol: :ping:

[Abraham]

Naw! He just means he's packing up to move to Tahiti.
No, to Bikini, together with joea...
Bikini gooooooooooood.

[Type XXIII]

English:
Revealing is a quote of Ayatollah Rafsanjani four years ago, who is regarded as a "moderate" (quote is given by Michael Rubin of the American Enterprise Institute): "If one day the Islamic world also possesses these weapons like Israel, then the strategy of the imperialists will come to a standstill, becasue even the power of only one such weapon would destroy all and everything there (in Israel). IT IS NOT IRRATIONAL TO TAKE SUCH A POSSEBILITY INTO ACCOUNT."



Where is he intending to aim that nuke to "destroy all and everyone" in Israel? Jerusalem?

Somehow I find it unlikely that a Muslim country would nuke Islam's third holiest city and probably damage or destroy the Dome of the Rock. I can't deny the possibility, but it sounds a tad odd.

(PS. It would be most prudent to add "(emphasis mine)" to that translation.)

[Abraham]

@ Type XXIII:
You don't have to nuke Jerusalem to destroy Israel.
What about nuking Tel Aviv, the main business center, or Haifa, the main industrial center, or even the harbours of Ashdot and Ashkelon...
Nuking those cities - perhaps apart from Tel Aviv - won't really cause major destruction in Jerusalem, certainly not when a nuclear device is not exploded too high in the air.
I can imagine that the Israeli's are worried about developments in Iran.

By the way, the Israeli's decided to build a missile shield after the First Gulf War and a second strike capability through their own little triad: missiles, planes and submarines (that operate routinely in the Indian Ocean near the Arab peninsula).
They have to digest the lessons that history teach them fast and efficient.

[Happy Times]

LOL :lol: Or someone else is moving to the Gulf ;)
Is everybody starting to reveil confidential information here?
:-? Wel i dont have anything to reveil, i was referring to what SmokinTep might of ment in his comment.

[Abraham]

LOL :lol: Or someone else is moving to the Gulf ;)
Is everybody starting to reveil confidential information here?
:-? Wel i dont have anything to reveil, i was referring to what SmokinTep might of ment in his comment.
We are not scapegoating a fellow forum member, are we?
:o

[Happy Times]

LOL :lol: Or someone else is moving to the Gulf ;)
Is everybody starting to reveil confidential information here?
:-? Wel i dont have anything to reveil, i was referring to what SmokinTep might of ment in his comment.
We are not scapegoating a fellow forum member, are we?
:o LOL No.

[Happy Times]

"If there's one thing Hampton Roads is noted for, it is military might. The region's strategic East Coast location has helped it accumulate the world's largest concentration of naval operations. It also has bases representing every branch of the U.S. Armed Forces as well as the Armed Forces Staff College and the headquarters for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). The region also has Army, Air Force and Marine bases as well as major Coast Guard operations. Nearly a third of the region's workers earn a paycheck from the Department of Defense or a private defense contractor. It's only been a decade or so since 45 percent of all area paychecks came from the federal government" http://www.insiders.com/vabeach/main-overviews2.htm Norfolk has the world's largest Navy base.

Portsmouth is home to the world's biggest ship-repair yard.

Suffolk is the Peanut Capital of the world. Offcourse it could be that be that SmokingTep is speaking about peanuts :hmm: :rotfl:

[Skybird]

@ Skybird:
Two questions:
1. Does this mean you would support an Israeli or US pre-emptive strike if Iran continues it's current nuclear program unchecked?
2. Could that attack in your opinion be a tactical nuclear strike if a conventional strike would do unsufficient damage?

1. Not currently, not yet, with regard to the situation as I know it (and noone of us has the complete picture, right). And anyway, I said days ago, and still say, I doubt that a conventional strike could bring the results wanted.

2. No. The use of nukes in this scenario is a hypothetical option that I mentioned as the only way to stop the program IF ONE REALLY WANTS TO STOP IT, no matter what the cost would be. For me the price is too high until I am convinced that Ahmadinejadh is more than just a figure appearing and dissapearing. Would you be the one to decide the killing of some dozen million people, even if you don't like them, on the basis of assumptions about what the future will bring - maybe? It is uncomfortable, but I totally and completely reject for myself to even consider the option of a "preemptive nuclear strike". Before I make myself one of the biggest massmurderers in human history I demand more substantial and solid info about what the future would bring, could bring, maybe, likely, eventually, probably, whatever.

As a matter of fact, Iran is too important for almost all Westerneuropean nations (energy, export market), and it has a major importance for the US as well. The Iranians said some time ago "You need us more than we do need you." Unfortunately they are absolutely right. There will be no support from China and little or no support from Russia for a scenario West against Iran. For the time beeing we better prepare for living with a nuclear armed and thus unattackable Iran that by possession of nukes is capable to ignore the West to it's liking and deal with it's inner opposition more robust than in the past years without having to fear that the West would risk a substantial interference. This will affect negotiations on many other issues as well, economy, "culture exchange", more special rioghts for Islamic expansion in Europe. the whole thing is to the disadvantage of the West, and it also cuts away at American demand for hegemony, enforcing American values and undisputed global power. Iran already is due to it's economy, population size, relatively progressive education system, relatively good status for the young, modern females, and it'S military (yes, their military, compared to regional standards!) the dominating regional power that casts it's shadow over all it's neighbours and states at the gulf. they plan to expandt their current strength, and I expect them to be very successful in that.

I'm still not sure how much support Ahmadinejad has outside the revolutionary guards, military and intel community. If the young males in general of Iranian society will stay and rally behind him, that would be a dangerous thing, and then he would establish a tradition of hard determination in Iranian politics that would lead beyond his own term(s). If he is just an opportunist that comes out as looser of the next elections, things will settle down a bit. So far he is only a murderous little boy with a big ego, shouting loud because he earns applaus for behaving like the bully of the block. If he turns into a longer-lasting phenomenon or not is one of the deciding issues.

If there will be a military strike, I expect it to be coming from Israel, beeing faster than the US. I think the chance of Israel striking in the forseeable future currently is far higher than the chance that it will practice self-restraint. Since it will be a conventional strike, I assume, they will only cause some minor delay, but by far miss their objective of stopping the program for a long time. After that strike, they will pay the price. I expect to hear of that event taking place anyday within the next months or one or two years, at best.

These paragraphs decribe in short what I consider to be the most likely scenario, currently.


@Konovalov,

Musharaf does not qualify for an orthodox Muslim, doesn't he. He can'T be like that, because he willingly cooperates with the West which is impossible for traditional Islamic self-understanding as long as it is no deception allowd by Islam to gain advantages by that or hindering an enemy to exploit a current Islamic weaknes; and he fights against the orthodoxy inside Pakistan that repeatedly agitated against him on the streets. the Pakistani secret service spends quite some efforts to protect Musharaf from assassination, which already had been attempted repeatedly from inside and outside of Pakistan. There were riots, violance, and local fighting since the Afghanistan war. I want Musharaf in power for the same reason I think it is a folly to press Egypt to allow more democracy. Mubarak is a harmless dictator to the outside of his country, and keeps the religious fanatics under tight control with the only tool by which this can be acchieved: unforgiving force. When he gave in to American pressure and allowed more democracy, the last election immediately produced an ultra-right religious party to become the strongest legal opposition, plus gaining inlfuence for the Muslim Brotherhood. These groups in power or grabbing for power is not in our interest.

[Iceman]

Deleted out of sake of Subsimers....What a World we live in...

If anyone thinks that these riders are not riding high in the world they are mistaken I am afraid....

http://www.cyberallies.com/miscpics/horsemen.jpg

Drought and war create dire situation

Friday, January 6, 2006; Posted: 4:02 p.m. EST (21:02 GMT)

(AP) -- An estimated 11 million people in the Horn of Africa "are on the brink of starvation" because of severe drought and war, with some deaths already being reported in Kenya, the United Nations said Friday.

That horsemen with the balances in his hand I think is the worst plague of all...Famine. :(

It said more than $40 million in aid was needed to stave off starvation.

and the Irony that does make me cringe is Americas powerball has that covered sitting in a lottery...$ 87 Million
$ 43.1 Million Cash Value ....The next drawing will be Wednesday, January 18th, 2006...That right there is the condemnation that awaits...when those who have that kind of money in there back pockets have and don't give it up to save a life....

[The Avon Lady]

No. The use of nukes in this scenario is a hypothetical option that I mentioned as the only way to stop the program IF ONE REALLY WANTS TO STOP IT, no matter what the cost would be. For me the price is too high until I am convinced that Ahmadinejadh is more than just a figure appearing and dissapearing. Would you be the one to decide the killing of some dozen million people, even if you don't like them, on the basis of assumptions about what the future will bring - maybe? It is uncomfortable, but I totally and completely reject for myself to even consider the option of a "preemptive nuclear strike".
Some inspirational Winston Churchill quotes are in order:

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile - hoping it will eat him last."

"It is a mistake to try to look too far ahead. The chain of destiny can only be grasped one link at a time."

"One ought never to turn one's back on a threatened danger and try to run away from it. If you do that, you will double the danger. But if you meet it promptly and without flinching, you will reduce the danger by half."

"You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor and you will have war."

[SmokinTep]

We're loading peanuts on a 688 as I write this............... :yep:

[Skybird]

AL,
the quoted paragraph misses the closing sentence of mine:
Before I make myself one of the biggest massmurderers in human history I demand more substantial and solid info about what the future would bring, could bring, maybe, likely, eventually, probably, whatever.



The following is about the inner logic of the already decided Iran "operation", and the Iraq war. The author os professor for philosophy, his center of work is terrorism and pressure of collective systems to share their decisions. German language, unfortunately.

http://www.heise.de/bin/tp/issue/r4/dl-artikel2.cgi?artikelnr=21802&mode=print
http://www.heise.de/bin/tp/issue/r4/dl-artikel2.cgi?artikelnr=21801&mode=print

[The Avon Lady]

We're loading peanuts on a 688 as I write this............... :yep:
Surely you mean the SSN Jimmy Carter?! :-j

[The Avon Lady]

AL,
the quoted paragraph misses the closing sentence of mine:
Before I make myself one of the biggest massmurderers in human history I demand more substantial and solid info about what the future would bring, could bring, maybe, likely, eventually, probably, whatever.
Some of the quotes I posted relate to this as well.

Here's another relevant Churchill quote:

"I never worry about action, but only inaction."

And finally, let me spell it out for you with a quote from Douglas Adams, author of "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy":

"If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family anatidae on our hands."

Or a slight anonymous variation of the above:

"If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, talks like a duck, it probably needs a little more time in the microwave."

[SmokinTep]

We're loading peanuts on a 688 as I write this............... :yep:
Surely you mean the SSN Jimmy Carter?! :-j

Actually, next month I have to take my crew out to Bangor and assess her systems and train Puget Sound Naval Shipyard people on the 21 class since they have never seen or worked on one.

[The Avon Lady]

Skybird, I forgot to mention that I believe that there are numerous conventional weapons and some non-conventional ones that are not nuclear, that may also be used in massive, likely multiple, attacks to cripple Iran's nuclear facilities.

[Skybird]

Hm, sorry, I don't believe in moving whole mountains. But that's just my novice thoughts.

If it could be done conventionally, the better it would be. I think it is too early for such action, but I would not oppose it with all determination.

[Happy Times]

We're loading peanuts on a 688 as I write this............... :yep:
Surely you mean the SSN Jimmy Carter?! :-j Good one :rock:

[Bill Nichols]

From today's New York Times:

Why Not a Strike on Iran?

By DAVID E. SANGER

DIPLOMATS around the world keep repeating the mantra: There is no military option when it comes to slowing, much less stopping, Iran's presumed ambitions to get the Bomb. The Europeans say so. The Chinese, who need Iran's oil, and the Russians, who make billions supplying Iran's civilian nuclear business, say so emphatically.

Even the hawks in the Bush administration make no threats. When Vice President Dick Cheney was asked Thursday, in a television interview, if the United States might ever resort to force to stop Iran, he handled the question as if it, too, were radioactive.

"No president should ever take the military option off the table," he said, carefully avoiding the kind of language he once used to warn Saddam Hussein. "Let's leave it there."

Mr. Cheney, it seemed, was trying to sow just enough ambiguity to make Iran think twice. Which raises two questions. If diplomacy fails, does America have a military option? And what if it doesn't?

"It's a kind of nonsense statement to say there is no military solution to this," said W. Patrick Lang, the former head of Middle East intelligence at the Defense Intelligence Agency. "It may not be a desirable solution, but there is a military solution."

Mr. Lang was piercing to the heart of a conundrum the Bush administration recognizes: Iran could become a case study for pre-emptive military action against a gathering threat, under a policy Mr. Bush promulgated in 2002. But even if taking out Iran's facilities delay the day the country goes nuclear, it would alienate allies and probably make firm enemies out of many Iranians who have come to dislike their theocratic government. And Iran simply has too many ways of striking back, in the oil markets, in the Persian Gulf, through Hezbollah.

"Could we do it?" one administration official who was deeply involved in planning the Iraq invasion said recently. "Sure. Could we manage the aftermath? I doubt it."

Similar fears, he said, gave President Bill Clinton pause about launching a strike on North Korea in 1994. Later that year he reached an accord for a freeze on the North's nuclear production facilities. But in 2003 everything unfroze, and now the North, by C.I.A. estimates, has enough fuel for at least half a dozen bombs.

The Iranians took careful notes then, and here in Washington today the Korean experience underlies diplomacy-versus-force arguments that rarely take place on the record.

The problem is not that Washington lacks targets. Many of Iran's nuclear facilities, or at least those that American intelligence agencies know about, are in plain view or in underground sites whose construction was recorded by spy satellites. The problem is the global consequences of an attack to cripple them.

"The irony is that this is the opposite of Iraq," said John J. Hamre, a deputy defense secretary from 1997 to 1999. "We know a lot about what they have because the international inspectors have been there." Those inspection reports have helped Pentagon planners who, in imagining every contingency, have already mapped out Iran's most vulnerable facilities.

"Elimination of the nuclear program is not possible, but with the right strikes you could decisively set them back," said Ashton B. Carter, an expert at Harvard on proliferation problems.

In Iran's case, any attack would almost certainly start at Natanz, where Iran clipped off the International Atomic Energy Agency's seals a week ago and said it was preparing to reassemble a connected series of 164 centrifuges for purifying uranium.

Just beyond the research laboratories is a huge underground chamber, designed to hold as many as 50,000 centrifuges, yet unbuilt. Iran hid its existence for years.

Also on the target list, officials said, would be factories that manufacture the centrifuge components, and a plant at Isfahan where raw uranium is converted into a form that can be fed into the centrifuges.

Then there are research centers and military installations where the United States suspects - but cannot prove - that clandestine nuclear-related activity may be taking place. Given the track record in Iraq, however, there is always the risk that those facilities will turn out to be a watch factory, or, worse, a schoolhouse. (The Iranians hid one facility behind a false wall in a Tehran factory, but the I.A.E.A. found it.)

"You are talking about something in the neighborhood of a thousand strike sorties," said Mr. Lang. "And it would take all kinds of stuff - air, cruise missiles, multiple restrikes - to make sure you've got it all." Other former officials say fewer bombing runs would be needed.

The Israelis, who see Iran's nuclear program as a threat to their existence and have been far more outspoken about a military option, give a similar assessment. But they also say they lack the air power, or the reach, to do the job.

In any event, it is one thing to talk about such strikes in purely military terms, and another to consider the political cost.

"What you do with a bombing campaign is bring a whole country rallying around its radical leaders," said Mr. Hamre. "And that's the opposite of what we are trying to achieve in Iran," which is to convince a well-traveled, well-educated, and in some cases pro-American population to usher in a very different kind of leadership.

But if Iran knows the United States and its allies ultimately have no stomach to put military muscle behind their demands, what is its incentive to give up its weapons program? Efforts by the Europeans and Russia to come up with formulas that would provide Iran with nuclear material that cannot be used for weapons have been rejected, at least so far. And no one wants to threaten truly tough sanctions, for fear that by hurting ordinary Iranians they will only drive moderates into the camp of their leaders. Those leaders have been threatening retaliation, even to measures as weak as a letter of warning from the United Nations Security Council.

They have threatened to cut off oil exports and send the markets into a panic, though most experts said an embargo is not something Iran could execute for very long without damaging its own economy. Iran could also step up interference in Iraq and dispatch Hezbollah on terror missions. In addition, the Iranians often boast that their missiles can reach Israel.

Some of those threats may be inflated. And for now, at least, Iran's centrifuge program appears to have hit some technical hitches. I.A.E.A. inspectors are still in Iran, and the Iranians have not yet dared throw them out, as the North Koreans did three years ago. A senior European diplomat involved in the talks with Iran dismissed most of the country's threats last week as "bluster meant to buy them some time, and keep us paralyzed."

But, he added, "it may work."

Several American officials, when promised anonymity, said they thought that in 5 or 10 years, Iran will most likely have a weapon.

"They have read us pretty well," Mr. Hamre said. "They have skated right at the edge of controlled pugnaciousness."

The debate among the West, Russia and China is whether, together, they are willing to skate to the same edge in hopes that, in a repeat of the cold war, the other side blinks first.

[Abraham]

Interesting but scary...

[Kapitan]

four horse men of the appocolypse

[Abraham]

So the article says that President Clinton made a grave mistake not destroying the nuclear facilities of North Korea, starting negotiations and passing the hot potato to his successor.
Furthermore that this was seen by Iran as weakness from the US side and that the Iranians then decided to go nuclear themselves.

This means that they have already taken the strategic decision to become a nuclear power years ago and will not be stopped by angry EU or US presidents and prime-ministers.

The conclusion is almost that a change in US policy is needed, the sooner the better.

Again: scary...

[Happy Times]

Again, if this happens i think everyone should have the right to have them. I think we could have one in 5 years or sooner . :-?

[U-214]

It is scary indeed.The US could destroy from air the Iranian facilities,no doubt about that,but the question is,what will be the Iranian reaction ,specially this Ahmajinejad new President seems a bit too trigger happy than his predecessor.

[The Avon Lady]

It is scary indeed.The US could destroy from air the Iranian facilities,no doubt about that,but the question is,what will be the Iranian reaction ,specially this Ahmajinejad new President seems a bit too trigger happy than his predecessor.
http://www.sci.fi/~ivanoff/starwave.jpg

[Happy Times]

If theres going to be a big conflict the draft is certain to happen. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11009829/page/2/

[Abraham]

Well, the one thing that should be avoided at almost all costs is a big war with Iran. Quick, unexpected, one day surgical strikes on known nuclear facilities might cause enough havoc to stop the program in it's tracks and topple the regime... (I hope)

[Skybird]

Well, the one thing that should be avoided at almost all costs is a big war with Iran. Quick, unexpected, one day surgical strikes on known nuclear facilities might cause enough havoc to stop the program in it's tracks and topple the regime... (I hope)

No, it must be far more massive. This is not Osirak. Target lists vary from 30 to 350 listed target locations. Many important targets are deep (and I mean DEEP) inside mountains or under the earth. For many sites, precise coordinates for their most sensible components are even not known.

I am 66% sure that a certain ammount of socalled mini-nukes will be used along with conventional BBBs.

[Konovalov]

No, it must be far more massive.

I suspect by saying a "big war" Abraham implied not a ground invasion such as like Iraq but he can clarify on that.

I am 66% sure that a certain ammount of socalled mini-nukes will be used along with conventional BBBs.

How did you come to 66%? Why not 50% or 75%? :-j

Seriously though the use of mini-nukes would be seen as a break in the 'traditional' role of nuclear weapons as a deterrance. Would this then open up a new 'nuclear genie out of the bottle' situation whereby states other than the US with nuclear weapons then feel no obligation simply to use their nuclear arsenal in a deterrance role. For example hypothetically Russia may think that they are now free to use tactical battlefield nuclear weapons in Chechnya. IMO I think that it would be a dangerous precedent and a msitake for the US to use mini-nukes. What do you think Sky?

[Skybird]

Let's say 2:1.

Concerning your question I refer to the analysis by Chossudovsky that I copied completely in my essay http://www.subsim.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=47650 under 3.1.2. The use of such nukes is a turning point, yes, and a most dangerous ones. Nuclear war finally is considered to be practicable. It is considered to be a guarantee for stability and peace. If this is not a perversion of thinking. It needs this special type of man, these guys with the stone-like, always motionless faces and hard, lifeless eyes whom you happen to see whenever there is a news conference with politicians or highranking militaries, to allow such a deformation of reason and thinking. Psychopaths altogether. And this I mean word by word: psychopaths they are, all of them. They need to be locked in a high security psychiatry.

[Abraham]

No, it must be far more massive. I suspect by saying a "big war" Abraham implied not a ground invasion such as like Iraq but he can clarify on that.
Right. Perhaps with some special forces. on the ground, but no full scale invasion. It should be clear that the West - if not the world - has an issue with the Iranian nuclear program as it is executed and not with the Iranian people. Furthermore, I think that destroying only deeply covered or remote facilities would avoid "collateral damage" of innocent civilians and would be clear enough a message of the Wests intentions.
Ideal would be as this resulted in political upheaval and a regime change by the Iranian people itself (perhaps with a little bit of covered help).
It should also send a clear message to the numerous other nations who want to gain a nuclear capacity (and probably have signed the Non-Proliveration Treaty).

I am 66% sure that a certain ammount of socalled mini-nukes will be used along with conventional BBBs.
How did you come to 66%?...
I think Skybird just took 1% of 100 and multiplied it with 66...
:D

[sonar732]

Are y'all forgeting what happened the last time we sent SF's into Iran?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/5a/Desertone.jpg/300px-Desertone.jpg

Rejecting the Iranian demands, Carter approved an ill-conceived secret rescue mission: Operation Eagle Claw. On the night of April 24-25, 1980, as the first part of the operation, a number of C-130 transport airplanes rendezvoused with nine RH-53 helicopters at an airstrip in the Great Salt Desert of Eastern Iran, near Tabas. Two helicopters broke down in a sandstorm and a third one was damaged on landing. The mission was aborted, but as the aircraft took off again one helicopter clipped a C-130 and crashed, killing eight U.S. servicemen and injuring more than four.

[Abraham]

You can't compare...
At that time the morale of the US Army was low, the Special Forces were relatively inexperienced, there was little SF equipment and it was not tested under desert conditions and the logistical problems were emormous.
All that has changed by now.
I am sure that the US military can insert smal teams of SF to pinpoint targets with laser or give after battle damage reports.
Perhaps even bigger parties that could raid some of the targets, in order to make sure that they are part of the nuclear program and avoid civilian casualties.

[August]

The biggest problem with Carters Desert one is that the whole operation was put together on a shoestring. He bypassed most of the chain of command and put together units that had little or no practice in working with each other, using equipment that was not prepared for the environment they were going to be used in.