Iran and the bomb

[mapuc]

I do understand we have to see it from the Israels point-of-view.

With a country(Iran) Who is fighting Israel by proxy(sending weapons to Hizbollah and other fraction who fight the Israelis)I would understand if Israel conduct a type of strike in Iran or perhaps It's USA who's going to do it.

Markus

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by mapuc

I do understand we have to see it from the Israels point-of-view.

And Europe's. Its not just the Israelis.

Iran however is too big and far away for Israel, I think they cannot do this all by themselves. The key installations are all buried deep into mountains now, thanks to the West who has given them the time to do that. You probably need several air waves to clean an aprppach ally intot he tasrghet areas, to supress air defence and air forces, and then drop nuke after nuke onto thes emo8ntains unto, they are flattened, so to speak.

Or, with an even greater political fallout, you drop one dirty bomb per location, toxifying the places for tens of thousands of years - and then risk they send suicide teams taking surviving equipment and material away, like the workers at Chernobyl got sacrified as well. I think the second scenario has the far greater political fallout - with the first already being "not nice".

Air Cav or commando operations I see no chance to succeed. So, no ground forces except special forces marking targets.

[Catfish]

Or use the next iteration of stuxnet.

[mapuc]

My next question is:

Is it possible to prevent Iran from reaching their goal - to build nukes ?

If it's impossible to do so-

I try to imagine a middle east with a country like Iran with nukes.

Markus

[Skybird]

They tried to delay and prevent, by sabotage,k tartgeted assassination, cyber warfare. Since 20 years. And here we are now. See story in the first post.



Delay is not prevention. Time is ultimately running out.

[Jimbuna]

'Thinking further afield'

How would Putin react seeing one of his few allies being attacked?

Quite possibly, "We'd better strike now because we will be next"

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

'Thinking further afield'

How would Putin react seeing one of his few allies being attacked?

Quite possibly, "We'd better strike now because we will be next"

No, he knows that different to Iran Russia HAS nukes already.



Once Iran has nukes it is too late to do anything to them. Now still is time.



Once I have finished pointing my pistol at your head its too late for you. You have to take me out before I have completed that move.

[Skybird]

Its noteworthy in combination with what I said above that in Europe there is growing doubt that the US would indeed protect Europe with nuclear arms if the Russians would strike. Would the government in Washington really risk nuclear retaliation against L.A, San Francisco, New york, Chicago, to "defend" places in Europe?

Would Paris accept the annihilation of French cities if the Russians strike first against cities in other NATO countries? Would London?

Dont take it as an offence, but I answer all three question with No. And I have no doubt on that reply.

Nuclear deterrance is a tricky and surprisingly complex affair. In the Ukraine thread two months ago or so I linked to an essay that described how tricky and complex deterrance and escalation really are. Public opinion takes things for granted on this topic that are not true.

We do not need all those heating pumps for which we will not have enough electricity in the forseeable future anyway (the French already have problems again with droughts and low cooling water levels for their reactors...). We need more war production much more urgently. And desalination plants, it seems.


We are too many.