Is War With Iran Necessary?

[AntEater]

Skybirds posts are a perfect indication that moral people will always be the ones f....ed by the warmongers.
I simply don't buy the "just war" thing anymore, it has been done to death.

The "nuclear proliferation" is just an assumption, nothing more. Interestingly, Pakistan (directly or indirectly) sponsors pretty much every stupid terrorist there is, without ever giving them nuclear material sofar.
Why can't they simply revert to cold war logic? If somebody has nukes and launches them, he will be wiped out, it is as simple as that.
Regarding military options, there are a few problems:
If there is a limited strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, there is no 100% guarantee that every last facility will be destroyed.
With Israel, I doubt they can even pull this off, but with the US using B-2s and cruise missiles and a concerted air campaign from carriers and Iraqui bases, they could.
What would be the result? Ok, for now the threat is gone, but Iran could now officially announce they have the right to develop such weapons and publically announce that. The result would be some kind of perpetual semi-war against Iran, with airstrikes every now and then against selected targets.
Nobody could stop Iran from offensively expand terrorism in Lebanon and engage in small scale warfare in the straits of Hormuz. Keep in mind that even if the US navy wins control of the Straits of Hormuz, the oil price will still go through the roof, just because every tanker sailing there would be under the potential threat. Even if the US Navy has everything under control, the pressure on the markets would not subside.
Not to mention the costs of convoying them until the end of hostilities. And in such a quasi war, the hostilities might linger on for a decade or so. I wouldnt be suprised if the oil price would double in that chase, and this would simply crash the worldwide economy. Militarily it would be Gaza/West Bank on a scale of thousands of kilometers and quite one sided too, but economically, it could be fatal for the worldwide economy as it exists. Keep in mind our globalized free market is not made for international crises, as it always strives to operate at peak efficiency to keep shareholders happy, there just no leverage anyway to write off losses or cover dry spells. It is a fragile system, and the Iran situation might really make things go south economically.

In fact, the only war against Iran that would make any sense would be a full scale invasion. A land drive to Teheran with serveral divisions. Occupy the country, let the son of the Shah return and keep the Iranians under control again for the US. Such a war would take some time, cost casualties ranging in the thousands on the "coalition of the willing" side and maybe hundreds of thousands on Iranian side.
But I see neither the political will nor the actual capacity to launch such an offensive. Also the problem is that the starting point, Iraq, is not exactly the safest operational base either.
All said, such a war would be over some time, limiting the economic damage.

[PeriscopeDepth]

It just isn't possible to prevent every state we'd prefer not to obtain nuclear weapons from obtaining them. I don't worry so much about the states, I worry about the non state actors.

PD

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by PeriscopeDepth

It just isn't possible to prevent every state we'd prefer not to obtain nuclear weapons from obtaining them. I don't worry so much about the states, I worry about the non state actors.

PD

Exactly.

BTW, I have not voted. I'll keep all options open, and refuse to limit my possible decisions that early.

Not that my decision, or this poll, do matter anyway.

AntEater,

In fact, the only war against Iran that would make any sense would be a full scale invasion. A land drive to Teheran with serveral divisions. Occupy the country, let the son of the Shah return and keep the Iranians under control again for the US. Such a war would take some time, cost casualties ranging in the thousands on the "coalition of the willing" side and maybe hundreds of thousands on Iranian side.
But I see neither the political will nor the actual capacity to launch such an offensive. Also the problem is that the starting point, Iraq, is not exactly the safest operational base either.
All said, such a war would be over some time, limiting the economic damage.

you have queer images on your mind when calling invasion the only reasonable war - and expecting that one to be a short war and limited in damage. You have not looked close enough at Iraq then. I can tell you that Iran would be a hundred times more difficult then Iraq. It's the worst case scenario, lasting longer, costing more in lives and money - and cannot be won anyway. Your "only way" scenario is my worst case scenario and the reasosn why I would refuse to support such kind of a stupid war. Because it has no reasonable chance to succeed, and would cause killing and destruction all for nothing. I think your problem is that you mix up what you want to achieve with what can be achieved by a given way of going, or in other words: wishful thinking, and making hope a valid strategy. At the same time you shy away from the grim side of war, and trying to talk it nice and tidy. Please put your own life at risk for such goals, if you want. But stay away from putting other's lives at risk for that.

I have no doubt tjhat even the Pentagon does not plan for an invasion of Iran. I gues they have learned a lesson or two from the past two wars Rumsfeld has messed up for them.

[AntEater]

First of all, I don't want to go to war at all. You got me wrong on this one. I voted no.

Yes, but what can a limited bombing campaign accomplish?
- it cannot, by any guarantee, eliminate Iran's nuclear program entirely. Iran had years to prepare for this eventuality
- it cannot remove the existing regime, in fact it will most likely strenghten it
- it will give Iran a casus belli for creating all kinds of havoc like blocking the straits of Hormus, open support for shiites in south Iraq, maybe even a limited cross border guerilla campaign. When the bombs start falling, there is war and there's no reason for Iran to hold back and not do all the damage it can do. And as I said above, the world economy will start hyperventilating as soon as there's the slightest suspicion of any armed conflict around the straits.
- it will basically be open ended, for the fact that if no one can guarantee the total destruction of iranian WMDs, and because of the reasons 2 and 3 it will most likely be expanded to include targets like iranian naval facilities or facilities of the Pasdaran. There could be a "mission creep" where a limited campaign slowly slides into an all out air campain
Basically, you can bomb the crap out of Iran and when the rubble clears, all you have done is postponed the problem for 5-10 years, given the mullah regime a new lease of life and killed hundreds or thousands of Iranians, caused economic destruction that will cause mass unemployment and a ****load of other consequences. Not to mention the fact of turning around public opinion in Iran, which seems strangely pro US from what I heard and read into the government line.
And then after Iran has recovered, or even if it hasn't, who is keeping the mullahs from starting it all over again?
Then what? Another bombing campaign? Bomb Iran once or twice a year for decades whenever the US has suspicions of such activity?
Basically this whole scenario could drag on indefinitely and could close down for business the persian gulf and Kuwait and most of the gulf emirates for the time being.
If Milosevich himself had not given in, NATO could've bombed Serbia until it ran out of bombs, and Milosevich was a european head of government, not a mideastern head of a bunch of religious fanatics.
So if any US administration goes to war over Iran, it is basically in a lose-lose situation. It can wage an air campaign with the described consequences or it can wage a ground assault which will cost countless lives and, as you say might lead to another Iraq.
I don't have a patent solution, I don't like Iran becoming a nuclear power either. I suppose with both current administrations (plus with the current israeli non-administration) there's nothing to do but hope neither of them does anything stupid.
A new iranian president might be behind their nuclear program as well, but the west can better negotiate with someone who does not regularly threaten Israel.
But if the US decides it needs another war, in my opinion an invasion would be the better answer.

[baggygreen]

We keep speaking of the US waging war...

Fact of the matter is the first strike won't be by the US, or by Iran.

It'll be Israel.

Sure, they might be nice and let the US know about it in advance, but what can the US do? they've sworn to protect Israel from attacks, they can't back out of that. they can't shoot down the Israeli jets, no doubt that would be made public in minutes.

The key player here is Israel, don't forget that! they've done it before and will do it again.

[Tchocky]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...aq-860509.html

The Iraqi government's main allies are the US and Iran, whose governments openly detest each other. The Iraqi government may be militarily dependent on the 140,000 US troops in the country, but its Shia and Kurdish leaders have long been allied to Iran. Iraqi leaders have to continually perform a balancing act in which they seek to avoid alienating either country.
The balancing act has become more difficult for Iraq since George Bush successfully requested $400m (£200m) from Congress last year to fund covert operations aimed at destabilising the Iranian leadership. Some of these operations are likely to be launched from Iraqi territory with the help of Iranian militants opposed to Tehran.

Though the MEK is on the State Department's list of terrorist groups, the Pentagon and other US institutions have been periodically friendly to it. The US task force charged by Mr Bush with destabilising the Iranian government is likely to co-operate with it.



An embarrassing aspect of the American pin-***** war against Iran is that many of its instruments were previously on the payroll of Saddam Hussein. The MEK even played a role in 1991 in helping to crush the uprising against the Baathist regime at the end of the Gulf war.

[Iceman]

Originally Posted by Stealth Hunter

I think not. We can settle this diplomatically and peacefully, not in the traditional war-mongering manner that we gave Saddam and Iraq.

You act as if they are leaving "anyone" a choice...kinda reminds me of some other guy who kept snubbing UN investigators for years.....hum wonder where he is?

The attack will not come from the U.S. either but Israel if from anyone...the writing is on the wall...

War-mongering?...lol you crack me up....war is all humanity knows....and they/we are good at it.

Mark 13
[28] Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When her branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is near:
[29] So ye in like manner, when ye shall see these things come to pass, know that it is nigh, even at the doors.

and Ant-Eater...that cold war "MAD" strategy will only work on a guy who does not want to die...these ****ers....want to die in Jihad...you have serious trouble dealing with people with that mentality...so not to face reality your are setting your self up to get screwed hard.

What amazes me is America really hasn't learned the lessons of War from Sun Tzu and the Romans...by maintaing such drawn out campaigns without replenishing your funds and troops..IE conscripts...IE ...seizing and taking over the oil fields....kaos and despair is the only thing left....the world is seriously screwed...or at least America and anyone in it's path...

I voted yes not because I want it but because Inevitable was not a choice...

[Enigma]

What amazes me is America really hasn't learned the lessons of War from Sun Tzu and the Romans...by maintaing such drawn out campaigns without replenishing your funds and troops..IE conscripts...IE ...seizing and taking over the oil fields....kaos and despair is the only thing left....the world is seriously screwed...or at least America and anyone in it's path...

Clearly didn't learn **** from Vietnam, either.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by AntEater

First of all, I don't want to go to war at all. You got me wrong on this one. I voted no.

Yes, but what can a limited bombing campaign accomplish?
- it cannot, by any guarantee, eliminate Iran's nuclear program entirely. Iran had years to prepare for this eventuality

Agreed. Now you know why I say conventional bombs cannot reach the key installations of their program. 20m and more below the surface, or inside mountains, several meters of steel-conkrete walls and barriers, GPS locations unknown, entrance tunnels partially known (could be fakes). Bring on the MOAB, it does not matter - you do not even know where to aim exactly (intel status 1.5 years ago). If you want to destroy it, you need to obliterate the whole area. Here is where the nasty part begins.

- it cannot remove the existing regime, in fact it will most likely strenghten it

Such war/strike would not be about regime chnage. Wether it will be remain strong in the longer run, when the consequences of the destruction done would start to affect the country, remains to be seen.

- it will give Iran a casus belli for creating all kinds of havoc like blocking the straits of Hormus,

yes, that will be their first reaction in any kind of conlfict with them. It is military fact that needs to be dealt with.

open support for shiites in south Iraq,

already happening.

maybe even a limited cross border guerilla campaign.

What's new? Iranian commandoes can'T do more damage than Hezbollah in Lebanon, the assembled opposition in Iraq, or the Taleban in Afghanistan. A couple of hundred or thousand such fighters more or less - okay. Maybe it is a good idea to prepare for that in advance...?!

When the bombs start falling, there is war and there's no reason for Iran to hold back and not do all the damage it can do. And as I said above, the world economy will start hyperventilating as soon as there's the slightest suspicion of any armed conflict around the straits.

And what will the world economy do once the first terror group with Iranian support starts to blackmail the west by threatening to detonate a nuclear terror gadget?

it will basically be open ended, for the fact that if no one can guarantee the total destruction of iranian WMDs, and because of the reasons 2 and 3 it will most likely be expanded to include targets like iranian naval facilities or facilities of the Pasdaran.

The destruction can be turned into a fact when using nukes, even more so since the radioactive contaoimnation will prevent access to eventually survivng parts of nuked structures for a damn long time to come. I wonder if for that kind of strike any additnal military campaign is needed at all, but however, it probably would be conducted anyhow to cripple Iran'S offensive naval and airborne capacity. However, I see no reason to turn that into an ongoing, lasting military campaign.

There could be a "mission creep" where a limited campaign slowly slides into an all out air campain
Basically, you can bomb the crap out of Iran and when the rubble clears, all you have done is postponed the problem for 5-10 years, given the mullah regime a new lease of life and killed hundreds or thousands of Iranians, caused economic destruction that will cause mass unemployment and a ****load of other consequences.

the main problem that remains, is contamination. f you remeber the so far published satellite pictures, you see that the kea cnetres of the program are not situated inside or close to huge cities. I assume that intel efforts has been increased in the past two yars to get more precise target data, I doubt that they got all what they need, but improved the intel situation. the better your intel data (cordinates) is the fewer and smaller nukes you use. The more unprcise your info is, the bigger and more you need. anyhow, the major detonations must not affect close areas of dense settlement. Granted, even subterranean explosions will do contamination of ground water, soil and air. But hell, I am not talking about a picknick in the meadows. I refuse that this fate eventually will reach us becasue we are expected to save the perpetrator from this fate. I said that I take proliferation by Iran as a given, and I do not accept playing games about this scenario. If you - or them - want to evade the longterm contamination of their country, then come up with a reaosnable option of how to guarantee that they will not develope nuclear weapons, or technology knowledge able to be used by terrorist allies to build their own one.

caused economic destruction that will cause mass unemployment and a ****load of other consequences.

not our concern. At the time a strike is being carried out they would have had time enough to chnage their minds while there was time left.

Not to mention the fact of turning around public opinion in Iran, which seems strangely pro US from what I heard and read into the government line.

Huh? Have I missed something? I was several months in Iran, in 1996, that was during the "youth rebellion", so to speak. There is a fundamental misperception: even the iranian burgeosie and ntheb young at that time did not want an american model installed, and they did not want a democracy according to american example. They wanted a bit more freeedom to move, more options to choose their media from, the clerics being driven back A BIT. but the majority still wanted the Islamic state to stay, basing on Islamic principles, and sharia. and america was seen quite complex, nevertheless in 1996 there was already the feeling that it would let them down if they do not comply with it'S thoughts about how iran should be 100%ly - and that's what turned out to happen indeed. If you see any sign that their politicians or their clerics or the public have great sympathy for present america and it's role, then you are wrong. also, last but not least, only in a few countries I notiuced such strong feeling of national pride and patriotism, like in Iran. It rivals the ammount of american patriotism easily.

And then after Iran has recovered, or even if it hasn't, who is keeping the mullahs from starting it all over again?

After what I line out as a blueprint to do to Iran, there will be nothing like that for a very long time to come.

Then what? Another bombing campaign? Bomb Iran once or twice a year for decades whenever the US has suspicions of such activity?

That's what probably would be needed to do if one laves it to conventional weapons only in order to destroy the hearts of their program. That translates into a useless and tzhus: unneeded wa. And that is exactly what I want to avoid. You cannot succeed without nukes.

Basically this whole scenario could drag on indefinitely and could close down for business the persian gulf and Kuwait and most of the gulf emirates for the time being.

Okay, I accept that to happen, and see it as of secondary importance. We are heading into the post-oil era anyway. Primary impotance has to prevent nukes in the hands of terrorists, and nuclear blackmailing of wstern nations (even more so in the name of Islam). nothing of what you said until here I see as of equal importance. consider this: you meet me and raise a loaded weapon while shouting you now want to kill me. what do you expect me to do? Simply stand still and wait? I admit I am out of training since a very long time now, and so lack routine and practice. depending on chance and situation, I would try to overwhelm you, and since I am rusty and my skill to vary my combat means and adapt to yours has suffered, I would play it safe and would not play games at all. Which means I would immediately try to kill you. Who would dare to morally accuse me for that...???

If Milosevich himself had not given in, NATO could've bombed Serbia until it ran out of bombs, and Milosevich was a european head of government, not a mideastern head of a bunch of religious fanatics.

I was not aware that tactical nukes were used on Yugoslavia.

So if any US administration goes to war over Iran, it is basically in a lose-lose situation. It can wage an air campaign with the described consequences or it can wage a ground assault which will cost countless lives and, as you say might lead to another Iraq.

I agree. Starting to use the military card only makes sense when inclduing nukes. That'S why I would not support any of these two scenarios of yours. Remember the Lebanon war - I first supported it in the wrong belief that they were well-prepared and serious in their intention to do everything needed to destroy Hezbollah and to destroy every kind of infrastructure that would help Hezbullah to respond, and to survive, and to move and hold out. When it became clear that the Israelis were not prepared at all, shied away from doing what would have been needed, and their intel was bad, I immediately made a 180° turnaround and attacked Israel for having launched such a stupid, ill-prepared war. Today, I have not the smallest support for this way they had waged the war, and say it should never have been started. I have absolutely and uncompromisingly attacked the Iraq war from day one on, on the basis of bad preparation, political lies, different intentions then what was told to the public, and underestmating it and being counterproductive. I have bitterly criticised the stupid way in which afghanistan was forgotten and underestmated after the initial battle 2001/2002 - until the mess we deal with now started to rise it'S ugly head in 2004. On the Vietnam war I only say: it was waged for stupid, partly lying reasons, and it was waged in a stupid way, with too many restrictions cuased by political naivety. I fully support the second world war, and defend the need to fight it, and I think Chamberlain was an idiot who was sos cared of what was coming that he fleed into an illusive dream world instead. See what came from it.

I am no warmongering massmurderer-for-fun, AntEater. I do not like the scenario I line out a bit, and it horrifies me, like you. that'S why I refuse to attack Iran right now 8also since I know the place a bit, amongst all muslim countries that I stayed in, iran probably has been the most pleasant experience, despite the obvious two faces of it), although by my argument that they will press on anyway it could be justified to say it makes no difference wether to strike now, or later. I want to be sure that of all time there is they make use of - even if it is irrational. I accept to violate what cold logic is telling me. but different to you, I refuse most wars, but not all wars in principal. I am pacifist in that I do not use war in attack to gain economical or other selfish advantages, but I insist on my right for self defense when being threatened (that's why I do not believe in unarmed pacifism and support the idea of a strong army nevertheless), and I argue that a threat must be countered as long as it is building up. when it is fully established, it is too late. Regarding Iran and proliferation, I am determined not to accept warm-hearted good will and hopes and wishing they mean it well as a valid basis of our actions. It is foolish, and infantile, and potentially suicidal. To acdept that scenraio even the chance to turn out as real, is non-negotiable for me. Becasue on the side of those kinds of terrorists we talk of when mentioning Iran, we talk of religious zealots with a clear, hot.-shing hate on the West. and difefrent to you and me, these kind of people will every mean in order to overthrow what the West stands for, and kill infidels in as high numbers as possible. you may think you can negotiate with them, and trust what they say, and maybe you will to sell away more and more poarts of your own cultural idnetity and what the Wetsern history stands for in psoitives. But you walk alone from that point on - I, and many others, refuse to follow you there. If that means I have to kill, or accept a great war being done, so be it. I did not ask for it. Nobody of us has asked for it - but they keep pressing on. eventually they will only stop when they get what they ask for: the consequences of the West's right for self-defense. To accept a chance to become vulnerable to nuclear blackmails by irrational, hatefilled zealots, is unacceptable.

I don't have a patent solution, I don't like Iran becoming a nuclear power either. I suppose with both current administrations (plus with the current israeli non-administration) there's nothing to do but hope neither of them does anything stupid.

Hope...? Well, i hope in lottery, and I wish all people would turn into peaceful beings, and I pray for food and water and medicine for people on the globe.

Hope is not a strategy. I am neither an optimist nor a pessimist. I try to be realistic. Adressing a world that in the assumed format does not exist, makes no sense for me. the world as we want it to be, and the world as it really is - are to very different things.

A new iranian president might be behind their nuclear program as well, but the west can better negotiate with someone who does not regularly threaten Israel.
But if the US decides it needs another war, in my opinion an invasion would be the better answer.

You cling to irrationals here. The presidents before Ahmadinejadh - knew and willed the nuclear program. the country has not chnaged since then, Iran is not a more and not a less irrational country as before. They will negotiate until the sun falls down and the ocean floods the moon - if that buys them the time to compelte their program. they will tell you every lie youn want to hear in order to give them more time. Well, go on, negotiate. But don't say you had not been warned.

Paper with inks and stamps on it mean nothing here. the EU is not in a position to negotiate. If you think about it, you can negotiate only from a position of power, wether it be absolute power or be it something you have that the other wants desperately. Else you depend on the good willingness and friendliness of the other - and you better don't bet on that being realities. Regarding Iran, the EU is powerless - and Iran knows that.

[AntEater]

Sorry, but the very thought of using nukes for military purposes gives me the creeps.
I think the moment any nation, no matter wether the US, Russia, India or whoever decides that nukes are a weapon of war like Artillery or a Rifle the human race is doomed. Period.
And sorry, I don't think Iran is worth crossing that threshold. You stuff one specter back in the bottle and unleash another, greater one.
Ahmadinejad might be a shiite doomsday cultist, but not all of Iran is, and especially the clergy are people mainly interested in power. So I suppose even a conservative successor to Ahmadinejad will tune down the rhetoric and will try to obtain nukes as a classic deterrent.
You seem to be obsessed with the idea of proliferation. In a worst chase scenario, this could happen, but actually the Pakistanis have connections to a lot more terror groups and did not proliferate anything sofar. Al Quaida has nothing to do with Iran. Iran supports the Hezbollah in Lebanon and diverse Shia militants in souther Iraq. These are territorial groups.
While the Hezbollah might find a nuke useful, I suppose if they really had wanted, they could've allready dropped a dirty bomb on Israel. They have access to radioactive material via Iran and Syria.
The regular use of nuclear precision munition, even though not as "dirty" as the nukes of old, would slowly contaminate the planet. Not to mention the fact that even today some US planners toy with the idea of a disarming first strike on Russia.

And in regards to the EU being powerless, I don't see it that way.
The EU has nukes; the french ones, the british are de facto under US control as they rely on US targeting data. And Sarkozy has allready made clear that a nuclear attack on Europe will trigger a nuclear response from France.
It is very popular to portray the EU as a toothless tiger, but I suppose in a real crisis the US would have to rely on the Europeans (maybe not the germans as our politicians are simply too mentally blocked) in order to get enough boots on the ground and planes in the air.
The US military and the brits are simply too stretched to fight another war all by themselves and in a real shooting war with Iran, all those Estonians and Ukrainians that went into Iraq might not be the coalition the US really need.
The EU militaries represent an untapped reservoir of forces which another US administration might find useful if the need should arise.
I suppose in the constellation of a Pres. Barack Obama asking for german forces after an iranian attack on Israel, even our current politicians could not say no.

[nikimcbee]

Now, by war, do you mean invade or just drop some bombs?

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by AntEater

You seem to be obsessed with the idea of proliferation.

The only way to accurately handle it.

In a worst chase scenario, this could happen, but actually the Pakistanis have connections to a lot more terror groups and did not proliferate anything sofar. Al Quaida has nothing to do with Iran. Iran supports the Hezbollah in Lebanon and diverse Shia militants in souther Iraq. These are territorial groups.

Now that is complete and totally wrong. You nare not aware of the real diemnsion of the confloict between Shia Iran, and sunni arabs, and - of course, I must say - you are completely ignorrant to the inherent drive of Islam to chnage all world and make it a peaveful world - by dedicating it exclsuoiveoly to islam. I am used to westerners playing down the meaning of this, nevertheless that is the bitter trutzh I read from this ideology. It is anti-multi-cultural, and totalitarian, and it claims a right over all mankind and all countries, needing them to0 overcome and turning them islamic. We will not disagree on this, so lets leave out this part of the discussionl. but at leats you mujst5 learn to realise the true diomension of the clash between Iran, and Saudi-dominated Gulf states. Hezbollah in Lebanon is just a minor "stellvertreterkrieg" between Saudim Arabia, and Iran. Israel pratcically plays no role in it, and the Saudis tolerate it acting against Hezbollah, which makes them natural part-time allies in their struggle against Iran. Haven't you noticed how tame Sunni Arab nations reacted to the Lebanon war? does this tell you nothing? the Palestinian questions also gets massivelpy overestimated in imporance, especially in europe. you could solvbe the question completely - and would still face the same tensions and conflicts in the region., becasue the Palestinians are not the problem. Iran is the problem behind it all, and the centuries-old internal Islamic civil war that started over a thousand ysears ago.

While the Hezbollah might find a nuke useful, I suppose if they really had wanted, they could've allready dropped a dirty bomb on Israel. They have access to radioactive material via Iran and Syria.

I find it worrying and bewildering that this is no reason for concern to you - asusming for a monent that you are right.

In the end, Israel also is not my concern, it is a bastion build in a strategically most disadvantegous position, and it shouldn't have been done that waxy, but now it is there, we cannot helpt it, so make the best of it. My concern is europe and america, and being turned into tagets for nuclear terrorism, and blackmailing. and different to you I do not take any peace of mind from the fact that so far nobody has nuked us, concluding fromt hat it will also not happen in the future. your only argument is the principle of blin d hope. In other words: you have no argument at all regarding this.

The regular use of nuclear precision munition, even though not as "dirty" as the nukes of old, would slowly contaminate the planet. Not to mention the fact that even today some US planners toy with the idea of a disarming first strike on Russia.

In no way I currently sympathise with such plans. but lets leave that out of the discussion, it has no place here. The problem is nuclear terrorism in Islam's name, and wether or not simply hoping for the best can be considered a valid motion or not.

And in regards to the EU being powerless, I don't see it that way.
The EU has nukes; the french ones, the british are de facto under US control as they rely on US targeting data. And Sarkozy has allready made clear that a nuclear attack on Europe will trigger a nuclear response from France.

1. Sarko is a hysteric alker, I have stopped listening believing him anything anymore short after he was elcted. and 2.) and even more important, the EU is absoolutely weak in negotiations with Iran, becasue it has no the smallest influence, no valid threat, no unified front, it is in no position nwhatever to project inflkuence over Iran to step away from their program, it cannot do anything, it just can talk on and on and on and allowing the iranians the time to continue and get closer to the bomb that way. that'S how I meant it, and you knew that.

It is very popular to portray the EU as a toothless tiger, but I suppose in a real crisis the US would have to rely on the Europeans (maybe not the germans as our politicians are simply too mentally blocked) in order to get enough boots on the ground and planes in the air.

Don't make me laugh. Just look at Afghanistan. Even Britain would currently not follow the US blindly into another adventure so easily.

The US military and the brits are simply too stretched to fight another war all by themselves and in a real shooting war with Iran, all those Estonians and Ukrainians that went into Iraq might not be the coalition the US really need.

that is true. Action against Iran mst be prepared by getting rid of the archilles heel Irak is. either by masisvely boosting forces, or by öleaving it behind and guve the Iranians no tareget. the greatest mistake of the Us in the past 8 years has been to not finish Afghnaistan, and focus in Iran instead. very very bad strategic mistake, having led to0 two de facto lost and unwinnable wars. that is exactly the kind of suicidal, stupid war I do not wish to see.

The EU militaries represent an untapped reservoir of forces which another US administration might find useful if the need should arise.
I suppose in the constellation of a Pres. Barack Obama asking for german forces after an iranian attack on Israel, even our current politicians could not say no.

Iran will not directly attack Israel by nukes. simply that. They are not stupid. I said it repeatedly now, that is not my concern. they will reach out in the hidden, by supporting terror groups and claiming in public that they do not. RThi sis the problem with Iran, not an open nuclear strike against europe, america or israel. Obama will make germn polcies uncomfortable, yes, I repeatedly said in the other threads that Bush is a good escuse for europe just to stay back, that way the US should be happy to get rid of Bush - bush-bashing as an excuse to reist American wishes does nto work anymore, after the elections. Nevertheless, the Afghanistan operation, as reprted again by "Kontraste" yesterday on German TV (I know it from two BW guys personally, too), is incrtedibly underfunded, badly commanded, and ikl-equipped, whilew polticians still lie to themsleves and to the public about what the BW is facing in Afghanistan. The mission's current status is a total mess, and hopelessly underfunded. but the whole Bw is underfunded, and I do not see where you want to get the resosurces form the existing pool to launch even more intenrational commitments. Beyond that, I think you are hoeplessly over-optimistic wzhen saying that Europe stands ready to provide more boots on the ground when America is calling. Not with this Europe, and this EU. I do not think that eietehr McCain or Obama is stupid enough to seriously count on substantially higher contributions from the europeans. the most clever thing they can do is leave lost battles behind, disenage from wars where they do not have to win anything anymore (that includes afghanistan since I do not see anybody seriposuly considering to attack Pakistan (how to do that, btw.) and it's massive support for the Taleban), and to shorten their frontlines.

[moose1am]

War with Iran may come soon.

It will start out as a conventional war using plastic explosives not nuclear warheads.

But Iran and the world should remember this:

The USA was the first country to develop nuclear weapons and we (so far) have been the only country willing to use them on an enemy!

Iran should think about that long and hard before they attack any of our men in the Persian gulf region.

The western worlds will fight to maintain their standard of living and won't go down without a huge fight.

Many countries obtained the information on how to make a nuclear weapon thanks to many traitors in the US who passed that information onto the USSR back in the late 1940's.

Within 4 to 5 years the USSR had detonated it's first nuclear weapon. Britain has nukes as does France. Now Pakistan and N. Korea have nukes as well.

If Iran gets nukes and sits on them like everyone else then thing won't be much different than before. But Iran's leaders have declared that they want to destroy Israel. Israel is known for it's intelligence and for their first strike actions. The best defense is an aggressive offense perhaps.

Do any of you honestly think that if the USA or Israel used nuclear weapons on Iran that some other country may take exceptions to that action. I mean there is Russia and Pakistan sitting downwind from Iran and they will object to having radioactive dust falling on their county's land. Will they take out Israel with nukes in retaliation for our attack on Iran?

Two things are behind this entire problem. Oil and Israel. Will the US start WWIII over oil in the Persian Gulf and Middle East? Or will Obama sit down with the Iranian leaders and work something out? I think I know where McInsain will go. Imagine being held captive and helpless for years and then finally getting your hands on the button? What would you do after you have been beaten sensless and had your bones broken by an enemy. McCain has shown his temper more than once. Imagine what he will be like when he is President.

Think of Nero and the Roman Empire. Do you want an man that can go insane in the white house at this time in our world?

I think that it's time to build a new fall out shelter. I lived though the cuban missile crisis and I don't want to repeat that type of event ever again.

Perhaps it's time to go live up at the Poles until this all blows over. I would guess that there will be much less radiation fallout at the North and South Poles than in the middle Latitudes. Perhaps mankind can survive the fallout and the years of radiation poisoning if they can live in area with less radiaton falling out of the sky. But without resupply coming to give you more ammo and fuel and cloths you won't have much of a chance. You will have to live like our forefathers did in 10,000 years ago. Perhaps the summers up there will be milder due to the effects of global warming. But after the end of the world there won't be anymore CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere and it will cool down pretty fast at the poles.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[QUOTE=Skybird]Is War With Iran Necessary?

translates into:

Do I accept a nuclear armed Iran yes or no? Do I accept nuclear proliferation benefitting terror organisations?

[Skybird]

http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/m...564654,00.html

Als ob die internationalen Atom-Kontrolleure nicht schon genug Sorgen hätten, kommt nun die überall beschworene Renaissance des Atomstroms hinzu. Und die dürfte, sollte sie tatsächlich stattfinden, die Gefahr einer nuklearen Katastrophe noch verschärfen. Denn eine massive Ausweitung der Kernkraft-Nutzung würde bedeuten, dass eine große Zahl neuer Reaktoren nicht nur in demokratisch regierten Industriestaaten, sondern auch in Drittwelt- und Schwellenländern entstünde.

"Das setzt einen enormen Transfer von Material und Know-how voraus", sagt John Large, einer der führenden Atomenergie-Experten Großbritanniens, im Gespräch mit SPIEGEL ONLINE. "Dieses Wissen könnte später auch für ein mögliches Waffenprogramm genutzt werden."
Das Problem sei, dass man unmöglich wissen könne, wie sich die politische Lage in heutigen Schwellenländern entwickelt. "Jedes zivile Nuklearprogramm eignet sich per se dazu, ein Waffenprogramm zu verbergen", erklärt Large. "In vielen Bereichen ist die militärische von der zivilen Nutzung kaum zu unterscheiden." Spätestens seit dem Fall Khan gebe es einen internationalen Schwarzmarkt für Nukleartechnologie. "Zusammen mit der Verbreitung von Know-how ist das eine gefährliche Mischung."

Or in summary: you cannot separate the civilian and the military use of nuclear technology.

[PeriscopeDepth]

I know, I am a whore for this blog. But I think it's very well done.

Things aren't lookin' good :
http://informationdissemination.blog...r-part-ii.html

PD