Should Iran Be Allowed To Enrich Uranium? ...POLL...

[Abraham]

Weird theory.

We may think that the US is in a nightmare situation in Irak, but the reality is that they won the war at a tremendous speed and an incredably low casualty number.
In an open fight against Iran things would hardly be different. The US military is not just a bunch of high trained professionals but has the intelligence, the mobility and the logistic capacity to outsmart and outmanoevre any troops they might encounter in the field. We don't even have to start talking about air force and maritime superiority.

The US might well lose the peace, but that won't do the current Iranian leadership much good, just as Saddam Hussein will probably be hanged or shot wile there's still unrest in the Sunni triangle.

Whenever a country fights the US the outcome of the war will be: the US wins and the opponent loses. That will be the result for years to come.
The difficult thing will be the situation after a fullblown war against Iran ends, the anarchy, the political infighting etc. But the nuclear threat will be removed and at a certain point in time that might be worth it.

[Happy Times]

I just think that the Iranians know that US cant fight a new war right now. It lacks the resources. This time they would have Iraq and Afganistan to launch the attack. But it would take months again to build the invasion force. This is months to get prepared for the other side. And i wouldn look too much on the Iraqi invasion, they didnt really fight back. Divisions surrendered when Generals were bribed and there was poor morale generally. I bet that the Iranians have more will to fight back and are better equipped/trained than Iraqis. . This would cause a lot bigger casualties and that would brake the US back morally not militarily. They won the battles in Vietnam but lost the war.

[Hitman]

TLAM I think you are partially right, but not 100%. It is true that Marines are under operational control of the US Navy, but only because of being transported and responsable for operations on ships. Americans have followed the tradition of the UK here, where the marine infantry was present aboard the ships to guarantee no rebellions or mutinys, as well as to fight the enemy and disembark. When in the ship, the head officer of the Marines was always lower in rank and subordinated to the captain of the ship, but just that. The marines are a branch of the army, specifically of the infantry, who serves aboard ships because their speciality is to disembark and take control of enemy beaches (That was originally, nowadays they do many more things). Since the sailors do not have the capabilities to do that, and it would mean exiting their ship (Whic is illogical to the navy), the Marines as specialized infantry in disembarkments where added to the ships. But unless I'm wrong the ranks of the marines match the ones of the army, not the ones of the Navy (No Lietenant Commaders, Frigate Captains, Corvette Captains, etc.), they wear green duty uniform etc.

Correct me if I'm wrong

To win WW3? Bwa-ha-ha! Remember, what Einstein said?

Nah, Einstein talked about WW4 and the weapons that would be used

[August]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

...someone suggested the idea of making a formalized seperation from the department of the navy. Pure rumor i think.

Yep. The whole reason for the USMCs existance is to give the Navy a landing force to secure coastlines and to provide ship security.

Take them out of the Navy and you might as well just roll them into the Army.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Hitman

TLAM I think you are partially right, but not 100%. It is true that Marines are under operational control of the US Navy, but only because of being transported and responsable for operations on ships. Americans have followed the tradition of the UK here, where the marine infantry was present aboard the ships to guarantee no rebellions or mutinys, as well as to fight the enemy and disembark. When in the ship, the head officer of the Marines was always lower in rank and subordinated to the captain of the ship, but just that. The marines are a branch of the army, specifically of the infantry, who serves aboard ships because their speciality is to disembark and take control of enemy beaches (That was originally, nowadays they do many more things). Since the sailors do not have the capabilities to do that, and it would mean exiting their ship (Whic is illogical to the navy), the Marines as specialized infantry in disembarkments where added to the ships. But unless I'm wrong the ranks of the marines match the ones of the army, not the ones of the Navy (No Lietenant Commaders, Frigate Captains, Corvette Captains, etc.), they wear green duty uniform etc.

Correct me if I'm wrong

The ranking system isn't the Navy's one but the Marines ranking is different than the US Army as is there uniforms.
USMC Ranks:
General 0-10
LT. General 0-9
Major General 0-8
Brigadier General 0-7
Colonel 0-6
LT Colonel 0-5
Major 0-4
Captain 0-3
1st Lt 0-2
2nc Lt 0-1
Chief Warrant Officer 5 W-5
Chief Warrant Officer 4 W-4
Chief Warrant Officer 3 W-3
Chief Warrant Officer 2 W-2
Chief Warrant Officer W-1
Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps E-9
Sergeant Major E-9
Master Gunnery Sergeant E-9
First Sergeant E-8
Master Sergeant E-8
Gunnery Sergeant E-7
Staff Sergeant E-6
Sergeant E-5
Corporal E-4
Lance Corporal E-3
Private 1st Class E-2
Private E-1

US Army Ranks:
General of the Army OF-10
General OF-9
Lt General OF-8
Major General OF-7
Brigadier General OF-6
Colonel OF-5
Lt Colonel OF-4
Major OF-3
Captain OF-2
1st Lt. OF-1
2nc Lt. OF-1
Chief Warrant Officer 5 CW-5
Chief Warrant Officer 4 CW-4
Chief Warrant Officer 3 CW-3
Chief Warrant Officer 2 CW-2
Chief Warrant Officer 1 CW-1
Sergeant Major of the Army OR-9
Command Sergeant Major OR-9
Sergeant Major OR-9
First Sergeant OR-8
Master Sergeant OR-8
Sergeant 1st Class OR-7
Staff Sergeant OR-6
Sergeant OR-5
Corporal OR-4
Specialist OR-4
Private 1st Class OR-3
Private E2 OR-2
Private E1 OR-1

The Uniforms are also different, here is a quote from wikipidia:

Differences in the utility uniform between U.S. Army soldiers and Marines tend to be very subtle. These differences include: The cover (hat) of the utility uniform is constructed differently, Marine covers have eight sides and corners, and are generally worn "blocked"-- creased and peaked, while the headgear of soldiers is left in its "natural" state. Marines wear cotton olive green-colored "skivvie" undershirts with their utility uniform, even in the desert (though brown "skivvie" shirts are now becomeing more common due to the lengthy deployment in Iraq). Soldiers wear brown undershirts with BDUs/DCUs and pale undershirts with the ACU. Soldiers roll up the sleeves of their utility uniform so the camouflage is facing out. Marines tightly fold their sleeves so that the lighter-colored underside faces out (known as "white-side out").

Marines "blouse" their boots. That is, they roll the cuffs of their trousers back inside and tighten them over the boots with an elasitc cord or or spring known as a boot band. Soldiers either blouse their boots or tuck their trousers directly into their boots. The blousing of boots tends to be an issue of military distinction, since some US Army units, particularly Airborne forces, blouse their boots even when wearing dress uniforms. Marines do not wear any rank insignia or other device on the utility cover. The front of the utility cover has instead the Marine Corps Eagle, Globe, and Anchor emblem, and since the introduction of the MARPAT pattern, this insignia has been embroidered directly on the front--not ironed on as on previous covers.

On their utility uniforms, Marine officers typically wear their rank insignia on both collars, while Army officers, since the introduction of the new Army Combat Uniform, wear their rank insignia on a flap located on the front of the ACU shirt. In garrison, Marine officers typically wear collar insignia made of shiny metal, as opposed to the "subdued" stitched-on insignia worn by Army officers. In combat, Marine officers generally eschew subdued insignia, preferring to wear the shiny metal insignia. Generally, these officers obscure the shine of the insignia with camouflage paint. Marines wear a colored belt, often referred to as a "rigger's belt", that is color coded to represent their specific qualification under the Marine Corps Martial Arts Program. Marines used to wear black combat boots with the utility uniform, as do the Army and Air Force. But in 2002, light-brown "rough-side out" suede combat boots were introduced along with a new type of camouflage, the "MARPAT" uniform. (See photo.) Effective 1 October 2004, black combat boots were declared obsolete and no longer authorized for general wear by Marines. Exception is made for black safety boots worn for certain tasks, such as parachuting.

As of 1 October 2006, the old-style camouflage utility uniform, also worn by the Army and Air Force, will be declared obsolete. The only utility uniform authorized for Marines will be the woodland and desert MARPAT uniform. As of 2004, both the Army and the Air Force have announced plans to replace their old-style "pickle suit" camouflage utility uniforms with newer designs similar to the Marine Corps digital "MARPAT" pattern. The Navy has started experimentations on the replacement of their "dungaree" and Officer/Chief Petty Officer uniforms with a variation of the "MARPAT" pattern.

One thing it doesn’t mention I think is that the Army now uses black Berets in place of hats.

The Marines are totally separate from the army. They are infantry like the Army but their chain of command is different and they have assets denied to the Army for example fixed wing combat aircraft (the Army relies on the Air Force and sometimes Navy for that) and the Army has Artillery and Anti-Aircraft Vehicles while the Marines don’t.

They are an army in the sense they fight on the ground with guns (infact they are larger than most nation's armies) but they are not part of the US Army in anyway.

[Happy Times]

http://sill-www.army.mil/usmc/DetHQ/Reg_Links.htm ,

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by Happy Times

I just think that the Iranians know that US cant fight a new war right now. It lacks the resources. This time they would have Iraq and Afganistan to launch the attack. But it would take months again to build the invasion force.

Given Iran's latest saber rattling, i that may be part of it, but i really think irans taken lessons in Brinksmanship from north Korea and are now, very subtly, trying it out. It's more or less worked for the DPRK.

[bradclark1]

If U.N. doesn't do anything (probable) and they actually try to go nuke my money is on Israel taking care of the issue with a little black help from the U.S.

[Ishmael]

Let me add my contribution to this thread. having served in the US Navy for 6 years specializing in Anti-submarine weapons systems up to and including "Special Weapons" and having actually visited Iran(Bandar Abbas 1974) I have followed this part of the world for some 30 years.

First of all, the Iranians have learned the lessons of Iraq and North Korea. Iraq had no nuclear weapons and was attacked, North Korea had nuclear weapons and delivery systems and was not attacked. That said, Ahmedinejad is also doing this for domestic consumption. recent polls suggest that 70% of the Iranian population does not support their government. By making these inflammatory statements and going ahead with their program, he is trying to rally domestic support for his government. At the same time, they have consistently frustrated and confounded reformers like Khatami from having any chance of effecting change to that government. For me the most telling thing about Ahmedinejad's victory over Rafsanjani was by tagging Rafsanjani as a "Liberal" who would corrupt the moral values of the Islamic revolution. I asked myself if Karl Rove was his political adviser too.

Also we must look at the differences between Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan. Both Afghanistan and Iraq are a lot less populous than Iran. Iraq has some 16 million people, and Afghanistan maybe 10 million. Both populations made up from various ethnic groups and tribal minorities. Iran, on the other hand, has a population of some 68 million according to CIA estimates. At the same time, Iraq and Afghanistan's populations are also religiously diverse divided among Sunni and Shi'ite sects. 89% of Iranians are Shi'ite with 51% of the population ethinc Persians. A much harder nut to crack from a military standpoint. When you also consider the amount of manpower and money Iran has poured into the Shi'ite south of Iraq in the years since the invasion, they could make a lot more trouble than they have already.

You can't discount the role China is playing in all of this. With their weapons and technology transfers to Iran as well as the A.Q.Khan connection, they have been responsible for the bulk of nuclear and missle technology transfers not only to Iran, but Pakistan and India as well. Their goal is to secure oil supplies for themselves and to check US influence whenever they can.

Any preemptive military action by the US against Iran would only unite the Iranians behind the hardliners. It would also feed the jihadist's arguments that the west is waging a war on the muslim world and further inflame Muslim anti-western feelings from Rabat to Djakarta. We must also recognize that the US has the largest arsenal of nuclear weapons in the world, enough to totally obliterate Iran 100 times over. If any country actually staged a nuclear attack on the US, that country would be totally destroyed in a matter of hours.

My idea would be this, the US would inform Iran, Syria and North Korea that any WMD attack on US soil would be seen as a declaration of war by those 3 countries and invite an overwhelming and devastating response to all 3 countries. At the same time, I would stage pro-jihadist demonstrations by all major gay organsations in the west and beam images of those to Al-Jazeera and the muslim world. I would also be looking at ways to provide covert support to reformist elements inside Iran to effect peaceful change inside Iran. The importance of including North Korea would be to allay suspicions that this is merely a war on Islam.

The logistical problems of a war with Iran would certainly require reinstatement of the draft and many months time needed to train, equip and preposition sufficient forces in Iraq and Afghanistan to make an effective invasion. That time would be used by Iran to make preemptive strikes against US forces by either Iranian militias or proxy forces.

[TLAM Strike]

Why do we need to invade Iran? Annihilate every piece of its military and industrial infrastructure with air and sea power and leave their nation a smoldering ruin that will take a few decades to rebuild. Sun Tzu said:

2. When you engage in actual fighting, if victory is long in coming, then men's weapons will grow dull and their ardor will be damped. If you lay siege to a town, you will exhaust your strength.
3. Again, if the campaign is protracted, the resources of the State will not be equal to the strain.
4. Now, when your weapons are dulled, your ardor damped, your strength exhausted and your treasure spent, other chieftains will spring up to take advantage of your extremity. Then no man, however wise, will be able to avert the consequences that must ensue.
5. Thus, though we have heard of stupid haste in war, cleverness has never been seen associated with long delays.
6. There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare.
7. It is only one who is thoroughly acquainted with the evils of war that can thoroughly understand the profitable way of carrying it on.
…
19. In war, then, let your great object be victory, not lengthy campaigns.

^ The Art of War: Chapter II. Waging War

[Iceman]

Thank you all so far for great input into this touchy subject.I was wondering if anyone had thought about the Isreali view/stance on this issue and I have noticed Avon Lady has abstained from this thread.I hope it is not because of any perceived response.I my self think like I had said in my first post that Isreal has "Alot" to worry about from a country such as this after making such statements even if it is just Hot air.I don't think they can afford to gamble on the hopes that it is....Brad and Ishmael intresting comments.

I mean you can do a couple of things...wait...let them enrich ...make a bomb and fire it off and then deal with it....

or they submit and cease in thier efforts.

I do understand the "Brinkmanship" tactics here and Iran is gambling on the US or whomever not doing anything but I wonder if they really have thought the Isreali response thru...I do not know Isreal's current nuclear capability but I would almost have to think if they went the route of Nuclear response they would seem to have to commit to total anahilation of the muslim world all together.

Thank you again for your thoughts on this...

[Hitman]

@TLAM Thanks for the clarification about the Marines I was probably confused because of the spanish scheme.

@Ishmael: Great diagnostic!!! I agree completely in that Iran has more an intention of being free of USA influence rather than willing to attack US or Israel. The danger however stands in that Iran could eventually give min-nuclear bombs to suicide terrorists to commit attacks on Israel.

Isn't it amazing that both Iran and Iraq, former Persia and Babylon/Assyria/Summeria were thousands of years ago the most developed civilization and now they are some of the most retrograde countries in the world?? :hmm: As a devoted student of history and ancient cultures this never ceases to amaze me....

Latest press-conference of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iranian President:

Originally Posted by Mahmoud

We believe if the world is to achieve lasting peace and security, this cannot be achieved except on the basis of justice and morality. Peace imposed by the use of sword and nuclear and chemical weapons cannot last. Peace through plundering the wealth of other nations and on the basis of discrimination cannot last.

Hmm, something new for him :hmm:

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Negr

Latest press-conference of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iranian President:

Hmm, something new for him :hmm:

Hmmm, perhaps someone slipped him the wrong script.

[Skybird]

No.

But that No doesn't matter, because there is no realistic option but a multiple nuclear strike to stop them. As I understood the facilities for the most are out of reach by conventional means, and many already have backups.