Israel...Have the stakes just increased?

[Ducimus]

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 don't hope Iran gets nuked. I just don't care if it does. I'm guessing that still qualifies as a heartless bastard.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Oberon

http://csis.org/files/media/csis/pub...strikeiran.pdf

Come across this interesting piece before and forgot to bookmark it....sorted, cheers

[JU_88]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

I don't hope Iran gets nuked. I just don't care if it does. I'm guessing that still qualifies as a heartless bastard.

I know your heartless sometiem Ducimus But really how can you not care about several million human beings including woman and children being incerated alive in a matter of seconds? what was their crime exactly, not have the same values and beliefs as our own?
Its genocide mate, its the same thing hitler did, there is no justification.
Our own lives and well being are no more or less valuable than theirs mate.

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by JU_88

I know your heartless sometiem Ducimus But really how can you not care about several million human beings including woman and children being incerated alive in a matter of seconds? what was their crime exactly, not have the same values and beliefs as our own?
Its genocide mate, its the same thing hitler did, there is no justification.
Our own lives and well being are no more or less valuable than theirs mate.

For me it's easy. Firstly, im very good at compartmentalizing emotions. I learned that in the military, and got very good at it. Secondly, Iran to me, is just some scathole thousands of miles away that I'll (thankfully) never see. As the saying goes, "Out of sight, out of mind". Thirdly, last i heard, Iran is the country where the national past time is to shout "Death to America", and use the US flag as a foot mat. Combine that with above two points, and i find myself a bit strained to care about the idea of a nuked Iran.

[JU_88]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

For me it's easy. Firstly, im very good at compartmentalizing emotions. I learned that in the military, and got very good at it. Secondly, Iran to me, is just some scathole thousands of miles away that I'll (thankfully) never see. As the saying goes, "Out of sight, out of mind". Thirdly, last i heard, Iran is the country where the national past time is to shout "Death to America", and use the US flag as a foot mat. Combine that with above two points, and i find myself a bit strained to care about the idea of a nuked Iran.

To say that I find that type of mentality both disturbing and slighlty ignorant is an understatment, but the fact is that half the planet (or maybe more) has the same mindset as your own.
But then again you probably think I am bleeding heart liberal hippy with no spine.
Who am I to tell you that my set of morals are superior to your own?
So on that note we can agree to disagree I guess

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by JU_88

To say that I find that type of mentality both disturbing and slighlty ignorant is an understatment,

You don't know my whole personal picture. Though I can understand if you find emotional compartmentalization disturbing. Ive questioned it myself many times.

but the fact is that half the planet (or maybe more) has the same mindset as your own.

That's people for you. An individual is smart, but People are dumb. That and in this day and age, i find myself only concerned about the well being and livelyhood of my own home, and not someone else's home. In this context, "home" meaning "Country." I live in the US, I don't live in Iran. Iranian problems are not, or should not be, my concern.

But then again you probably think I am bleeding heart liberal hippy with no spine.

Honestly, you strike me more as a benevolent humanist. There are some people in this world, who have not let malacious things in the world effect them or jade their spirits. I am not one of those types of people.

Who am I to tell you that my set of morals are superior to your own?

You have no idea how often ive pondered that subject. Nobody goes to war thinking their the bad guy. Not even the germans during WW2. Is there really a good guy? Is there really a bad guy? Who makes that determination, and by who's standards do they use to arrive at that determination? What makes those standards more correct then anothers?

I answered that dilemma for myself years ago. Right or as wrong it may be, ones country is ones home. Good or bad, for better for worse, its still home. You have to make a stand in this world somewhere, and home is always worth defending. Everything else is bunch of horsecrap.

[JU_88]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

You have no idea how often ive pondered that subject. Nobody goes to war thinking their the bad guy. Not even the germans during WW2. Is there really a good guy? Is there really a bad guy? Who makes that determination, and by who's standards do they use to arrive at that determination? What makes those standards more correct then anothers?

I answered that dilemma for myself years ago. Right or as wrong it may be, ones country is ones home. Good or bad, for better for worse, its still home. You have to make a stand in this world somewhere, and home is always worth defending. Everything else is bunch of horsecrap.

Very well said

[CCIP]

Can't condemn you for being pragmatic Ducimius. But - it does get a lot more difficult if you've ever known, worked with or became friends with actual people from Iran, as I have. They very often give me the same impression as the late Soviet era Eastern European intellectuals that I grew up among - no love for their regime, keenly aware of what's happening, and really, really good at passive resistance to a point where it doesn't put them or their families in jail (usually). However the regime is just too strong for them to get rid of - for now.
Their state may like yelling 'death to America', but there are many people who couldn't be any more opposed to the official stance. Just that their voices are easily silenced.

So if you know actual Persians/Iranians, it gets a lot more difficult to compartmentalize. Nor do I think it's fair to ignore the real human tragedy that'll happen as a result.

I think at this stage, it's not too late to avert the worst-case scenario anyway. Iran, like the Soviet system back in the 80s, may look strong on the outside but is in fact pretty rotten. Playing the right cards can - and should - result in its inevitable collapse. We're not at war yet. So it's not yet time to compartmentalize while we have time.

[mapuc]

Originally Posted by Oberon

http://csis.org/files/media/csis/pub...strikeiran.pdf

If the american would make a strike on Iran, they need:

watch page 45/114


Markus

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by mapuc

If the american would make a strike on Iran, they need:

watch page 45/114


Markus

Or this:

http://csis.org/files/media/csis/pub..._israelius.pdf

[_dgn_]

Here is the official pic :

[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.

[_dgn_]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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.

Who are these "we" ? The German Luftwaffe ?

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by _dgn_

Who are these "we" ? The German Luftwaffe ?

The Western military, no matter how it is set up.

If - and that means: >>if<< - I end up supporting the war that maybe is in the making, I feel and think about the American or British or Israeli soldiers and pilots the same way than if they would be German soldiers or pilots. The flag on their uniforms I do not really care for, nationality is not of any interest for me, nor of any emotional quality. If I end up supporting this war, I see the Western military carrying it out fighting on our and my behalf - and that is good enough for me to feel for the American GI the same way than I feel about a Bundeswehr grunt or an Israeli. I would support all of them without difference, since "we" are all the same team.

Hopefully.

In case of European governments, you cannot be sure of anything anymore when it comes to Palestinians and the Middle East. The German government has just warned the Israelis over their decision to form more houses in a part of Jerusalem that is in the West and that would be their part by any internationally recognised treaty draft anyway, and Israeli newspapers have reported that the Germans even should have threatened to stop the delivery of German Type 214 U-boats if the Israelis do not obey. At the same time the Germans have held talks with the Iranian trade minister, and said those talks were "lucrative" and "successful". As a German commentator laconically wrote: there is no word on the Germans having threatened the Iranians over their support for terrorist operation against Israel, their support for terror organisation Hamas, and the delivery of missiles into the gaza strip and Hezbollah-controlled Lebanon. Maybe those U-boats even end up in Iranian harbours, who knows? Then the US Navy would have a big problem in the gulf. A very, very big one.

[CaptainMattJ.]

thats the worst thing about being a human. You get to realize that no matter what you do, no matter how you act or think, there will ALWAYS be killing. There will ALWAYS be corruption, greed, war mongering, ect. And there will always be those with bigger sticks. And there will always be those who wish to unnecessarily do harm unto others. and there will always be a finger hovering on the trigger. And the ways to kill will only become more refined, more effective, and deadlier than ever.

Its a hard thing to embrace, but spending money on having a bigger stick means that there will be a less likely chance of war. In reality, there will be no kumbaya, happy sing along fests with all the peoples of the world holding hands and rejoicing. There will always be psychos that will eventually gain more and more power.

and above all, you must do what has to be done, always, to ensure the safety of the people of your lands. If the Taliban and other organizations simply use the civilian populace to use as meat shields for their psycho terrorist wars, then they will be destroyed too. Its us or them. And when you strip away the layers of impractical teachings, its kill or be killed.

Discipline is what determines how effective the soldier behind the trigger is. Shooting at everything that moves, and thinking twice about life/death situations simply means unnecessary casualties. There needs to be higher mental standards for those who are sent to fight. But other than that, casualties are casualties and cant be avoided, just like every other aspect of war.