Israel...Have the stakes just increased?

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by JU_88

@Skybird and August
Well I hope for all our sakes you are both right. And I hope Iran does not get nuked! Anyone who does is one hell of a heartless bastard.

I reiterate again: we do not necessarily talk about the intentional targetting of Iranian cities and metropoles with nukes. This is only an option to be considered if key components of the weapon program are located right inside those cities.

As long as Iran does not have the option to attack foreign cities by nuclear missiles, we can most likely forget about intentionanly nukling Iranian cities. Once he has that option - then we are in trouble. We better strike before he gains that ability.

In a nuclear stike against their program, we need not to care much for their military infrastructure and air defence, as far as I understand - they do not have any anti-mininuke-capacity, or am I wrong? Last time I checked the maps - I admit, that is some time ago - the critical perimeters all were placed outside and far away from metropoles and major cities, often in quite some isolated, desolate places.

If, however, we start a conventional air campaign of several weeks, we would need to deal with their C3I infrastructure and air defence. Not before then you can run a continuing campaign against the real targets of the operation. But then we would need to attack into civilian areas indeed, often with a high density of population. Collateral damages likely would surpass those of nuking isolated key compounds in one strike that are distant to the cities.

But I think it will not happen. No politician alive in the West whom I have heared of has the guts to use mininukes in a preemptive strike. They all will prefer to start a more risky for their own troops air campaign, making a lot of loud sounds and bright lights with conventional bombs, will claim victory when they acchieved some delay, and leave it to that. That way, many civilians will get killed, a big ammount of damage will be done, just for having bought some years, and then Iran will be threatening to become a nuclear weapons power again.

In which case we can be sure there will be a massive nuclear arms race throughout the region, under much more instabile and irrational conditions than during the cold war, and under participation of quite some ammount of religious irrationality and centuries-old hate-arguments. Could we really afford to allow that? I think not.

And in case we go conventional, and leave it to some cosmetic changes, what then? Was it worth to walk half the way and then shy away, was it worth the deaths you caused that way while being scared to do it right?

If you start something as big as a military attack on a hostile country, then do it right and walk all the way, in full.

If you do not have the guts to do it, then stay at home and watch TV. Just do not waste lives, and do not risk your own troops' lives for nothing but political clownery.

Or to put it only more obvious: do not draw your sword blank as long as you are not determined to shed blood. I can't put the warning any clearer than this. One of the main things about Afghanistan and Iraq is how carelessly and irresponsibly the politicians have ordered their own troops to risk their health and lives all for nothing, for illusions, for follies, and political trench warfare at home. I dispise this behaviour so very much. It also illustrates why I am happy that I back then decided against a military career. Western policies, all in all, do not deserve me risking my life for them. Too treacherous, too illusive, too foolish, to much lies and betrayal. My life is too precious for this kind of politicis, politics of this kind do not deserve me, nor you, nor any Western soldier's well-being and life. And certainly not my or your cross on the voting ballot.

For the record, I stayed in Iran several months and learned the country quite a bit. I am aware of the diversity in people there, and the colonial influence. I must say, that of all middle-eastern countries I visited, I liked Iran the most. I do not like to talk about these things the grim way I do. Not at all.

Not one bit.

But it is an issue of priorities, and determination. Nukes in Iranian hands must be prevented, at all costs. I must not like either the first, nor the latter. But important priorities remain, so does the perspective reaching beyond the immediate interest of the Iranian civilian population.

One more reason to hate the nutheads bringing Iran to where it is.

Morally, it is a catch-22 if seen from peace-time conditions. But I never iudge war issues by the value system of peace time conditions. To me, it does not make sense to do so. War is war, and peace is peace. And I see no civilised quality in war, nor justice. The war in question either is necessary, then it needs to be done and one is right to do so, or it is not, then conducting it is a crime.