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.

[_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.

[Oberon]

Well said MattJ.

When one looks at it from an outside point of view, humanity has changed very little from its initial existence. Sure, we've got better sticks now, and better animal hides, and we don't need slaves because we have machines to do it for us, but at the end of the day it boils down to who has the bigger stick, or who has the bigger pile of meat. Basic instincts, and you can see it in animals...we just put a fancy face on it and call it society, but it's not so dissimilar to those we call 'lower creatures'.

Hark at me...you can tell it's getting late...I'd best be off to bed.

[JU_88]

Originally Posted by CaptainMattJ.

Its us or them. And when you strip away the layers of impractical teachings, its kill or be killed.

You make sound like we fighting an enermy with equal capacity to attack us on the same scale as we can attack them. Not the case with islamic terrorists.
The threat that terrorists actuallly pose to you and me is next to nothing, even if you discount the last two wars - we are more likey to die of cancer, be hit be a car, or murdered by one of our fellow citizens (in that order)
The war on terror has little or nothing to do with terrorism, our governments did not invade iraq and afganistan to prevent a another 9/11
you think they would spent trillions of dollars and soldiers lives just for that? Its totally uneconomical.
You dont need me to tell you the real reasons.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by JU_88

You make sound like we fighting an enermy with equal capacity to attack us on the same scale as we can attack them. Not the case with islamic terrorists.
The threat that terrorists actuallly pose to you and me is next to nothing, even if you discount the last two wars - we are more likey to die of cancer, be hit be a car, or murdered by one of our fellow citizens (in that order)
The war on terror has little or nothing to do with terrorism, our governments did not invade iraq and afganistan to prevent a another 9/11
you think they would spent trillions of dollars and soldiers lives just for that? Its totally uneconomical.
You dont need me to tell you the real reasons.

The threat of a nuclear Iran is not them sending an ICBM to America or Europe, although they are gaining the technology to build such missiles.

The threat is prolifertion of a nuclear suitcase bomb to terrorist proxies of theirs. Or several.

The threat is Western nations being vulnerable to nuclear blackmailing.

The threat is that they realise their threat to wipe out the biggest hate object there is in Islam: Jews (=the Jewish state). They said so often enough. You have had a glimpse inside their heads convincing you that they do not mean what they say? Remember, you are talking not about rational, cold-blooded politics, but irrational religious ressentiments.

The threat is a nuclear arms race, since several players like Egypt, Turkey and Saudi Arabia will not sit still being intimidated by a nculear armed rival such as Sunni Persia. And such an arms race in that region full of animosities! Religious irrationalism! Centuries-old hate! Ovber one m illenia of (unsolved) internal civil war! You will crave to get back the cold war instead, by comparison.

If I would be in need of an enemy to overhwelm and to wipe out, I would love to have somebody like you. And that should make you think.

P.S. And one idea you can delete from your script: Israel is not about forming a bridgehead in the Gulf to secure control of Iranian oil!

[JU_88]

Originally Posted by Skybird

The threat of a nuclear Iran is not them sending an ICBM to America or Europe, although they are gaining the technology to build such missiles.

The threat is prolifertion of a nuclear suitcase bomb to terrorist proxies of theirs. Or several.

The threat is Western nations being vulnerable to nuclear blackmailing.

The threat is that they realise their threat to wipe out the biggest hate object there is in Islam: Jews (=the Jewish state). They said so often enough. You have had a glimpse inside their heads convincing you that they do not mean what they say? Remember, you are talking not about rational, cold-blooded politics, but irrational religious ressentiments.

The threat is a nuclear arms race, since several players like Egypt, Turkey and Saudi Arabia will not sit still being intimidated by a nculear armed rival such as Sunni Persia. And such an arms race in that region full of animosities! Religious irrationalism! Centuries-old hate! Ovber one m illenia of (unsolved) internal civil war! You will crave to get back the cold war instead, by comparison.

If I would be in need of an enemy to overhwelm and to wipe out, I would love to have somebody like you. And that should make you think.

Ah-ah hold your horses, Iran is a slightly different kettle of fish.
I was refering to war on terror up until this point in time.

Iran likes to push its luck and stir the pot - but then the same can be said Isreal, and we dance bloody circles around them!

[Skybird]

Ah, the old Bush-phrase, okay... that phrasing was utmost stupidity, yes.

[1480]

Iran likes to push its luck and stir the pot - but then the same can be said Isreal, and we dance bloody circles around them!

The lesser of all evils. Perhaps.... the most stable country in the region.