I'm surprised the Israelis haven't launched a preemptive attack yet.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/20/iran-test-fires-missile-israel
Quote
Iran test fires missile capable of reaching US bases or Israel
* Julian Borger Diplomatic Editor
* guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 20 May 2009 19.09 BST
Iran test-fired a solid-fuel missile capable of reaching Israel or US bases in the Middle East today, drawing rebukes from western governments and forcing the abrupt cancellation of a diplomatic mission by Italy's foreign minister.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced the launch of the Sajjil-2 surface-to-surface missile in Semnan province, in northern Iran, claiming it landed "precisely on target". The defence minister, Mostafa Mohammad Najjar, said the missile was "equipped with a new navigation system as well as precise and sophisticated sensors".
Western officials confirmed the launch and said the Sajjil appeared to be a two-stage solid-fuel missile with a range of about 1,250 miles (2,000km). The Foreign Office said it "underlines profound concerns about Iran's intentions and sends exactly the wrong signal to the region and the world at a time the international community is trying to engage Iran".
The incident came two days after Barack Obama warned Iran had until the end of the year to respond to his diplomatic overtures and enter into serious, "good faith" negotiations over its nuclear programme. Iran insists the programme is for energy-generation purposes, but the UN security council has demanded Tehran suspend enrichment of uranium on the grounds that Iran has so far failed to convince the international community that its intentions are peaceful.
The launch led to the cancellation of a two-day visit to Iran by Italy's Franco Frattini, who was close to boarding a plane to Tehran when he heard that Ahmadinejad insisted on meeting him in Semnan, the site of the launch.
The minister called off the whole trip, fearing Ahmadinejad would use it as a propaganda coup ahead of presidential elections next month.
The president and three challengers were officially approved today to take part in the vote by the electoral watchdog, the Guardian Council, out of 475 hopefuls.
The planned Frattini visit had been the source of considerable tension within Europe. The British and French governments had urged him not to go, arguing that it would help Ahmadinejad electorally and show a lack of western unity.
An earlier version of the Sajjil was tested in November last year.The Sajjil-2 appears to have a slightly longer range than the prototype. Mark Fitzpatrick, an analyst at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, said the development of the Sajjil missile was significant because of the type of fuel it used, rather than its range.
"To be able to build a solid-fuel missile of medium range represents a significant technological breakthrough," Fitzpatrick said. "It is technically more difficult than a liquid-fuel missile, and militarily more significant because it is not as vulnerable to attack while being fuelled."
Why are you surprised they haven't attacked Iran yet?
Quote from: FunkMonk on May 20, 2009, 05:21:50 PM
Why are you surprised they haven't attacked Iran yet?
Because he's a moron?
Quote from: FunkMonk on May 20, 2009, 05:21:50 PM
Why are you surprised they haven't attacked Iran yet?
Once Iran gets the bomb, they're done for.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 20, 2009, 05:39:07 PM
Quote from: FunkMonk on May 20, 2009, 05:21:50 PM
Why are you surprised they haven't attacked Iran yet?
Once Iran gets the bomb, they're done for.
What do you think is the risk that Iran nukes Israel once they have enough warheads and delivery systems to do so thoroughly? Gimme a number.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 20, 2009, 05:39:07 PM
Quote from: FunkMonk on May 20, 2009, 05:21:50 PM
Why are you surprised they haven't attacked Iran yet?
Once Iran gets the bomb, they're done for.
I wish.
Truth is, nobody in either Israel or the US have the moral fortitud to do the right thing.
Iran will get nukes, and will use them, when they have enough to erase Israel from the map.
Only then, after countless millions are dead, action will be taken.
Nobody in the west is willing to destroy their political carreer to do the right thing.
Its easier to let millions die.
I suggest we kill three birds with 8 ICBMs.
Make Persia glow, fallout to Afganistan, and fallout to NW Pakistan. :w00t: :mmm:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 20, 2009, 05:39:07 PM
Quote from: FunkMonk on May 20, 2009, 05:21:50 PM
Why are you surprised they haven't attacked Iran yet?
Once Iran gets the bomb, they're done for.
Just how India was destroyed when Pakistan got the bomb.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 20, 2009, 09:01:28 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 20, 2009, 05:39:07 PM
Quote from: FunkMonk on May 20, 2009, 05:21:50 PM
Why are you surprised they haven't attacked Iran yet?
Once Iran gets the bomb, they're done for.
Just how India was destroyed when Pakistan got the bomb.
Pakistan isn't ruled by Islamic fanatics... yet.
Quote from: Habsburg on May 20, 2009, 07:47:48 PM
I suggest we kill three birds with 8 ICBMs.
Make Persia glow, fallout to Afganistan, and fallout to NW Pakistan. :w00t: :mmm:
MIRV's for teh win!
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 20, 2009, 09:02:41 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 20, 2009, 09:01:28 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 20, 2009, 05:39:07 PM
Quote from: FunkMonk on May 20, 2009, 05:21:50 PM
Why are you surprised they haven't attacked Iran yet?
Once Iran gets the bomb, they're done for.
Just how India was destroyed when Pakistan got the bomb.
Pakistan isn't ruled by Islamic fanatics... yet.
What would you call Muhammed Zir ul Haq?
Nuclear war isn't funny. The loss of Israel and Iran in a nuclear war would be a tragedy greater than all of the wars in recent history combined.
Quote from: Queequeg on May 20, 2009, 09:26:45 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 20, 2009, 09:02:41 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 20, 2009, 09:01:28 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 20, 2009, 05:39:07 PM
Quote from: FunkMonk on May 20, 2009, 05:21:50 PM
Why are you surprised they haven't attacked Iran yet?
Once Iran gets the bomb, they're done for.
Just how India was destroyed when Pakistan got the bomb.
Pakistan isn't ruled by Islamic fanatics... yet.
What would you call Muhammed Zir ul Haq?
Nuclear war isn't funny. The loss of Israel and Iran in a nuclear war would be a tragedy greater than all of the wars in recent history combined.
Did I say it was funny?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 20, 2009, 05:39:07 PM
Once Iran gets the bomb, they're done for.
Bullshit. Iran hasn't got the guts.
That is not to say we shouldn't stop them of course.
Quote from: Queequeg on May 20, 2009, 09:26:45 PM
What would you call Muhammed Zir ul Haq?
A caudillo.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 20, 2009, 09:33:11 PM
Did I say it was funny?
That bit was directed at Habs and Siege. Apologies.
Quote from: The Brain on May 20, 2009, 05:43:50 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 20, 2009, 05:39:07 PM
Quote from: FunkMonk on May 20, 2009, 05:21:50 PM
Why are you surprised they haven't attacked Iran yet?
Once Iran gets the bomb, they're done for.
What do you think is the risk that Iran nukes Israel once they have enough warheads and delivery systems to do so thoroughly? Gimme a number.
Thanks, but no thanks. Numbers are for science.
I would say the risk is indeed low, specially so since Israel has subs (German subs) with the capacity to retaliate and the Iranians probably aren't interested in wiping out themselves and Israel, leaving Jerusalem converted in a glass sheet, half the Middle East contaminated by fallout... and the Sunnies pretty much the only surviving Islam branch..
Still I think we should try to dissuade them, but IMHO a military solution won't work without a full scale invasion. Air strikes alone will delay the Iranians but won't stop them. An oil embargo _could_ work, tough, but only if Russia and China are 100% willing to participate.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 20, 2009, 09:02:41 PM
Pakistan isn't ruled by Islamic fanatics... yet.
Iran isn't really ruled by Islamic fanatics either, at least not on the international scene. If it were, they would have invaded Iraq already and threw themselves at American tanks. Iran wants to be a regional power and they are pretty methodical and rational in this.
Quote from: Martinus on May 21, 2009, 01:32:57 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 20, 2009, 09:02:41 PM
Pakistan isn't ruled by Islamic fanatics... yet.
Iran isn't really ruled by Islamic fanatics either, at least not on the international scene. If it were, they would have invaded Iraq already and threw themselves at American tanks. Iran wants to be a regional power and they are pretty methodical and rational in this.
Last time I checked it wasn't the Iranians setting up colonies in foreign countries to pacify ultra-right religious fanatics who think they have a right to another country's land. :Joos
I hope all Byzantine and Persian historians are nuked.
Quote from: Queequeg on May 20, 2009, 09:26:45 PM
The loss of Israel and Iran in a nuclear war would be a tragedy greater than all of the wars in recent history combined.
Not really. The only tragedy would be that no Chinese were killed.
Once again we hear the rational and reasonable arguments for why Iran would never ever do something like nuke another Israel - why that would not make any sense!
Just like there would never be a war in Europe in 1914, why that would not make any sense! And germany would never invade Russia, heck, they are their largest trade partner! Makes no sense!
A country run by a guy who stands up on the international stage a regularly swears that Israel should be "wiped from the map", nah, nothing to worry about there, give them some nukes.
What is really sad is that people seem to think the only negative to a nuclear Iran would be if they actually nuked Israel, rather than the real danger - the impunity they will feel when it comes to their own political interference. The enxt time they decide to close the straits, and threaten to go nuclear if anyone interferes, or threatens Iraq with a nuclear strike if they aren't allowed to de facto control Basra, or a long list of trouble they will make once they get nukes.
Iran becoming nuclear, which is probably inevitable given the current lack of balls in the west to do *anything* about it, is going to be a disaster.
Berkut is right.
Oh, please, save us the rant, Berk...
First of all, we are saying the risk is very low. Not nil, low.
Second, are you seriously saying that just because X was wrong in 1914, then Iran is going to attack Israel? Oddly enough, I seem to remember people saying the USSR wouldn't launch a massive nuclear attack on the West, even while some Nikita was shouting "We will bury you!". And guess what? They were completely wrong... not!
An third, the question is not about balls, but means. Just look to the cost of Iraq and Afghanistan in every sense of the word. Iran is bigger, has a lot more population, its territory is far more rugged, and its armed forces are in far better shape. Plus Iraq and Afghanistan can't be left devoid of troops.
Iran is IMHO developing nuclear weapons. Solid fuel long range rockets alone are serious evidence at the respect, but we are not having to choose between risk and security, that would be easy indeed. We are going to have two sets of risks, and invading Iran while occupied in Iraq and Afghanistan would be a risk quite high. For starters, successful occupation would probably require at least 500,000 soldiers in addition to those deployed in neighbouring countries... We are talking of a military effort far superior to the First Gulf War, Vietnam or Korea; the world hasn't seen anything like that since 1945.
Myself, I would prefer trying other ways, like an oil embargo, before going to a great war in the Middle East during a deep recession.
The leading general of the Iranian military forces has announced that they will need 11 days to destroy Israel. That is PLENTY of time to send a strongly worded resolution.
Quote from: Alatriste on May 21, 2009, 07:57:55 AM
Oh, please, save us the rant, Berk...
Way to go straight to the heart of the argument with the ad hom. A nice start to your position.
and then proceed to rant yourself, of course.
Quote
First of all, we are saying the risk is very low. Not nil, low.
How low? I think the risk of Iran using its status as a nuclear power to further its interests to the detriment of the West is actually somewhere around 100%. What would you rate it as?
Quote
Second, are you seriously saying that just because X was wrong in 1914, then Iran is going to attack Israel?
No, I am saying that arguments of the form "Y cannot possibly happen because country Z is much to rational to do such a thing!" have been made time and time again, and been wrong time and time again. I simply provided a couple of examples.
Quote
Oddly enough, I seem to remember people saying the USSR wouldn't launch a massive nuclear attack on the West, even while some Nikita was shouting "We will bury you!". And guess what? They were completely wrong... not!
Ahh, so as long as nobody has ever nuked anyone, then we can reasonaly not worry about anyone having a nuke, no matter how erratic and irrational they are? Your ONE example of the USSR not nuking anyone is sufficient data to risk giving a regime like Iran nuclear weapons?
Quote
An third, the question is not about balls, but means. Just look to the cost of Iraq and Afghanistan in every sense of the word. Iran is bigger, has a lot more population, its territory is far more rugged, and its armed forces are in far better shape. Plus Iraq and Afghanistan can't be left devoid of troops.
Yeah, balls. That is all it is. The West has none, and the fact that we don't have enough troops to deal with a couple regional skirmishes while handling a third rate power like Iran is pretty convincing evidence of just that. We have less than 100,000 combat troops in Iraq, and what, 40,000 in Afghanistan? The Europeans cannot muster up a force a quarter that size that can deploy and fight.
But you cannot have MY point. I said Iran will get the bomb, because the West lacks the balls to do anything about that. We do not lack that capability - we could easily expand our militaries to be able to credibly deal with a power like Iran, but that would mean the French might need to work more than 32 hours a week, or the Germans might have to quit feeling all verklempt about Nazis and the Americans would have to take a break from who will be the Next American Idol, etc., etc., etc.
So we will do nothing. We will bitch and moan and gnash our teeth and wring our hands and do nothing until some nuke goes off somewhere. Maybe it will be Israel, maybe Pakistan, maybe Syria, who knows? but it will happen, and then we will all sit back and come up with the reason why it was so obviously inevitable, and why didn't we see this coming?
Quote
Iran is IMHO developing nuclear weapons. Solid fuel long range rockets alone are serious evidence at the respect, but we are not having to choose between risk and security, that would be easy indeed. We are going to have two sets of risks, and invading Iran while occupied in Iraq and Afghanistan would be a risk quite high. For starters, successful occupation would probably require at least 500,000 soldiers in addition to those deployed in neighbouring countries... We are talking of a military effort far superior to the First Gulf War, Vietnam or Korea; the world hasn't seen anything like that since 1945.
Myself, I would prefer trying other ways, like an oil embargo, before going to a great war in the Middle East during a deep recession.
Meh, now you are debating capabilities. I don't think it is at all necessary to invade Iran to crush their nuclear ambitions.
Actually, I suspect all it would really take would be a real and honest threat to strike their infrastructure and capability to run their country (including their nuclear development program) and they would back down. But we lack that credible threat, because we all sit around telling each other how impotent we are, and we cannot possibly do anything anyway.
The West could shut down Iran in a week, without ever putting a single foot in the country.
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on May 21, 2009, 08:25:55 AM
The leading general of the Iranian military forces has announced that they will need 11 days to destroy Israel. That is PLENTY of time to send a strongly worded resolution.
I bet if the UN Security Council really worked hard, they might even be able to send one and have another one drafted in that time.
Of course Russia would veto them both, but still.
Quote from: Berkut on May 21, 2009, 07:42:17 AM
Iran becoming nuclear, which is probably inevitable given the current lack of balls in the west to do *anything* about it, is going to be a disaster.
How do you propose to stop Iran?
Quote from: Faeelin on May 21, 2009, 08:34:03 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 21, 2009, 07:42:17 AM
Iran becoming nuclear, which is probably inevitable given the current lack of balls in the west to do *anything* about it, is going to be a disaster.
How do you propose to stop Iran?
I have no proposal - they are clearly much too strong for us to do anything about, given current attitudes.
I don't think what Timmay meant with Israel being "done for" was increased Iranian power and influence in the region. No sane person would say that Iran won't flex its new muscles a bit if they get them. Of course they will.
The risk of Israel being nuked can be very low compared to certainty and still be unacceptable. This also is not hard to grasp. Say that the risk is 1%. Does that mean that Israel will be done for? Likely not, and shrill outbursts to that effect are a bit ridiculous. Does it mean that it's OK to allow Iran to get the bomb? Likely not. It's a sliding scale.
Quote from: Berkut on May 21, 2009, 08:31:18 AM
No, I am saying that arguments of the form "Y cannot possibly happen because country Z is much to rational to do such a thing!" have been made time and time again, and been wrong time and time again. I simply provided a couple of examples.
QFT.
Quote from: derspiess on May 21, 2009, 09:25:25 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 21, 2009, 08:31:18 AM
No, I am saying that arguments of the form "Y cannot possibly happen because country Z is much to rational to do such a thing!" have been made time and time again, and been wrong time and time again. I simply provided a couple of examples.
QFT.
But it has also been right time and time again. Just saying.
Quote from: The Brain on May 21, 2009, 09:05:36 AM
I don't think what Timmay meant with Israel being "done for" was increased Iranian power and influence in the region. No sane person would say that Iran won't flex its new muscles a bit if they get them. Of course they will.
The risk of Israel being nuked can be very low compared to certainty and still be unacceptable. This also is not hard to grasp. Say that the risk is 1%. Does that mean that Israel will be done for? Likely not, and shrill outbursts to that effect are a bit ridiculous. Does it mean that it's OK to allow Iran to get the bomb? Likely not. It's a sliding scale.
Your post needs more classic Brain one-liners :angry:
Quote from: derspiess on May 21, 2009, 09:26:19 AM
Quote from: The Brain on May 21, 2009, 09:05:36 AM
I don't think what Timmay meant with Israel being "done for" was increased Iranian power and influence in the region. No sane person would say that Iran won't flex its new muscles a bit if they get them. Of course they will.
The risk of Israel being nuked can be very low compared to certainty and still be unacceptable. This also is not hard to grasp. Say that the risk is 1%. Does that mean that Israel will be done for? Likely not, and shrill outbursts to that effect are a bit ridiculous. Does it mean that it's OK to allow Iran to get the bomb? Likely not. It's a sliding scale.
Your post needs more classic Brain one-liners :angry:
I'll go sit in the corner a bit. :Embarrass:
Quote from: Faeelin on May 21, 2009, 08:34:03 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 21, 2009, 07:42:17 AM
Iran becoming nuclear, which is probably inevitable given the current lack of balls in the west to do *anything* about it, is going to be a disaster.
How do you propose to stop Iran?
He already said how, strike their infrastructure.
Quote from: Valmy on May 21, 2009, 09:26:02 AM
Quote from: derspiess on May 21, 2009, 09:25:25 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 21, 2009, 08:31:18 AM
No, I am saying that arguments of the form "Y cannot possibly happen because country Z is much to rational to do such a thing!" have been made time and time again, and been wrong time and time again. I simply provided a couple of examples.
QFT.
But it has also been right time and time again. Just saying.
You only need 1 example to disprove the claim though.
Quote from: Berkut on May 21, 2009, 08:31:18 AM
Quote from: Alatriste on May 21, 2009, 07:57:55 AM
Oh, please, save us the rant, Berk...
Way to go straight to the heart of the argument with the ad hom. A nice start to your position.
That's not an ad hom, you fucking retard. It's like you don't even know how to debate.
I feel sorry for your children, even more than I feel sorry for Hortlund's children, although not as bad as I feel for the children that Siegebreaker has despoiled.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 21, 2009, 09:39:50 AM
Quote from: Faeelin on May 21, 2009, 08:34:03 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 21, 2009, 07:42:17 AM
Iran becoming nuclear, which is probably inevitable given the current lack of balls in the west to do *anything* about it, is going to be a disaster.
How do you propose to stop Iran?
He already said how, strike their infrastructure.
I am not sure if the global economy can handle shutting down the straits during the ensuing War, and I am not sure how much influence Iran still has in Basra. If neither of these are likely to pose problems, then sure, let us attack Iran in the hopes of stalling for time.
Quote from: Neil on May 21, 2009, 10:10:03 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 21, 2009, 08:31:18 AM
Quote from: Alatriste on May 21, 2009, 07:57:55 AM
Oh, please, save us the rant, Berk...
Way to go straight to the heart of the argument with the ad hom. A nice start to your position.
That's not an ad hom, you fucking retard.
:yawn:
You're boring Neil.
Quote from: Faeelin on May 21, 2009, 11:42:43 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 21, 2009, 09:39:50 AM
Quote from: Faeelin on May 21, 2009, 08:34:03 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 21, 2009, 07:42:17 AM
Iran becoming nuclear, which is probably inevitable given the current lack of balls in the west to do *anything* about it, is going to be a disaster.
How do you propose to stop Iran?
He already said how, strike their infrastructure.
I am not sure if the global economy can handle shutting down the straits during the ensuing War, and I am not sure how much influence Iran still has in Basra. If neither of these are likely to pose problems, then sure, let us attack Iran in the hopes of stalling for time.
Translation: We don't have the balls to do anything.
Quote from: derspiess on May 21, 2009, 09:26:19 AM
Quote from: The Brain on May 21, 2009, 09:05:36 AM
I don't think what Timmay meant with Israel being "done for" was increased Iranian power and influence in the region. No sane person would say that Iran won't flex its new muscles a bit if they get them. Of course they will.
The risk of Israel being nuked can be very low compared to certainty and still be unacceptable. This also is not hard to grasp. Say that the risk is 1%. Does that mean that Israel will be done for? Likely not, and shrill outbursts to that effect are a bit ridiculous. Does it mean that it's OK to allow Iran to get the bomb? Likely not. It's a sliding scale.
Your post needs more classic Brain one-liners :angry:
Indeed. It kinda' freaked me out to read a long and coherent post from The Brain.
Quote from: Berkut on May 21, 2009, 12:06:16 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 21, 2009, 10:10:03 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 21, 2009, 08:31:18 AM
Quote from: Alatriste on May 21, 2009, 07:57:55 AM
Oh, please, save us the rant, Berk...
Way to go straight to the heart of the argument with the ad hom. A nice start to your position.
That's not an ad hom, you fucking retard.
:yawn:
You're boring Neil.
Perhaps, but I know what an ad hominem is.
Quote from: Faeelin on May 21, 2009, 11:42:43 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 21, 2009, 09:39:50 AM
Quote from: Faeelin on May 21, 2009, 08:34:03 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 21, 2009, 07:42:17 AM
Iran becoming nuclear, which is probably inevitable given the current lack of balls in the west to do *anything* about it, is going to be a disaster.
How do you propose to stop Iran?
He already said how, strike their infrastructure.
I am not sure if the global economy can handle shutting down the straits during the ensuing War, and I am not sure how much influence Iran still has in Basra. If neither of these are likely to pose problems, then sure, let us attack Iran in the hopes of stalling for time.
Well, obviously you'd have to strike their military first to prevent them from having such capability.
Quote from: Berkut on May 21, 2009, 12:06:16 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 21, 2009, 10:10:03 AM
That's not an ad hom, you fucking retard.
:yawn:
You're boring Neil.
That's not an ad hom.
This is an ad hom.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 21, 2009, 09:39:50 AM
Quote from: Faeelin on May 21, 2009, 08:34:03 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 21, 2009, 07:42:17 AM
Iran becoming nuclear, which is probably inevitable given the current lack of balls in the west to do *anything* about it, is going to be a disaster.
How do you propose to stop Iran?
He already said how, strike their infrastructure.
That's not "how". That's an objective. You may just as well propose "beat Iran in a war" as a solution.
Quote from: Berkut on May 21, 2009, 12:06:40 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on May 21, 2009, 11:42:43 AM
I am not sure if the global economy can handle shutting down the straits during the ensuing War, and I am not sure how much influence Iran still has in Basra. If neither of these are likely to pose problems, then sure, let us attack Iran in the hopes of stalling for time.
Translation: We don't have the balls to do anything.
Pretty much, yes. Or do you think my statements were wrong?
Quote from: Martinus on May 21, 2009, 01:54:31 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 21, 2009, 09:39:50 AM
Quote from: Faeelin on May 21, 2009, 08:34:03 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 21, 2009, 07:42:17 AM
Iran becoming nuclear, which is probably inevitable given the current lack of balls in the west to do *anything* about it, is going to be a disaster.
How do you propose to stop Iran?
He already said how, strike their infrastructure.
That's not "how". That's an objective. You may just as well propose "beat Iran in a war" as a solution.
Do you want an order of battle and a target list?
Quote from: Queequeg on May 21, 2009, 02:26:09 AM
Last time I checked it wasn't the Iranians setting up colonies in foreign countries to pacify ultra-right religious fanatics who think they have a right to another country's land. :Joos
:bleeding:
Your idiocy removes your right to get upset with the Nation of Islam.
Quote from: Martinus on May 21, 2009, 01:54:31 PM
That's not "how". That's an objective. You may just as well propose "beat Iran in a war" as a solution.
Fuck up their infrastructure is an objective. Strike it is how.
Quote from: Martinus on May 21, 2009, 01:54:31 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 21, 2009, 09:39:50 AM
Quote from: Faeelin on May 21, 2009, 08:34:03 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 21, 2009, 07:42:17 AM
Iran becoming nuclear, which is probably inevitable given the current lack of balls in the west to do *anything* about it, is going to be a disaster.
How do you propose to stop Iran?
He already said how, strike their infrastructure.
That's not "how". That's an objective. You may just as well propose "beat Iran in a war" as a solution.
With death rays.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 21, 2009, 02:29:17 PM
Quote from: Martinus on May 21, 2009, 01:54:31 PM
That's not "how". That's an objective. You may just as well propose "beat Iran in a war" as a solution.
Fuck up their infrastructure is an objective. Strike it is how.
Not necessarily. What are you trying to accomplish by fucking up their infrastructure. At an operational level, fucking up their infrastructure might be an objective, but it could never be a strategic objective. It is at a strategic level that leaders must think.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 21, 2009, 01:58:34 PM
Do you want an order of battle and a target list?
Our military is stretched pretty thin as is, and if the last 10 years (Lebanon, Afghanistan, arguably Iraq) it is that air strikes don't win wars alone.
I don't think a full scale war with Iran is a smart move at this point, and I think the true can be said from the Iranian perspective, as their economy would collapse pretty quickly without oil exports. We can talk about balls and air strikes all we want, but this is far more suited to an internet forum than a battle field in Iran.
Probably the best argument to have is on the rationality of Iranian leadership, which is a very, very important argument to have. A full scale war would be retarded.
Quote from: Neil on May 21, 2009, 02:33:37 PM
fucking up their infrastructure might be an objective
:hug:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 21, 2009, 01:46:09 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on May 21, 2009, 11:42:43 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 21, 2009, 09:39:50 AM
Quote from: Faeelin on May 21, 2009, 08:34:03 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 21, 2009, 07:42:17 AM
Iran becoming nuclear, which is probably inevitable given the current lack of balls in the west to do *anything* about it, is going to be a disaster.
How do you propose to stop Iran?
He already said how, strike their infrastructure.
I am not sure if the global economy can handle shutting down the straits during the ensuing War, and I am not sure how much influence Iran still has in Basra. If neither of these are likely to pose problems, then sure, let us attack Iran in the hopes of stalling for time.
Well, obviously you'd have to strike their military first to prevent them from having such capability.
Really? That would work? Wouldn't a preventative strike just make every other nutball want nukes that much faster? Once you have them and can delier them or give them to the crazies you are kind of immune to attacks eh?
Quote from: Queequeg on May 21, 2009, 02:36:25 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 21, 2009, 01:58:34 PM
Do you want an order of battle and a target list?
Our military is stretched pretty thin as is, and if the last 10 years (Lebanon, Afghanistan, arguably Iraq) it is that air strikes don't win wars alone.
Depends on what the aim of the war is. If the aim is to destroy a targets capability to make nukes or cripple their economy, I think air power could do that.
Quote from: Queequeg on May 21, 2009, 02:36:25 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 21, 2009, 01:58:34 PM
Do you want an order of battle and a target list?
Our military is stretched pretty thin as is, and if the last 10 years (Lebanon, Afghanistan, arguably Iraq) it is that air strikes don't win wars alone.
Who said anything about winning a war?
Is someone trying to make the argument that the West (the US in particular) could not stop Iran from building a nuclear weapon through massive airpower applied against both their nuclear program *and* their political and economic infrastructure?
You can argue that perhaps it would not be worth it - a nuclear Iran is a better option than an Iran demolished by concentrated airstrikes at their economy and such. You can argue that the amount of damage this would inflict on Iran would be immoral.
I don't think you can argue that it would not work though. Of course it would. We could destroy their national economy and make them a lot more worried about how to keep the lights on than building nukes.
IMO, we don't even have to actually do it - we just have to be willing to do it if necessary, and Iran would back down. Of course, they know that we would never actually do this, so an empty threat is the worst possible thing to do, so it doesn't really matter. But that is my point - this is a lack of will, not a lack of capability.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on May 21, 2009, 02:38:55 PM
Really? That would work? Wouldn't a preventative strike just make every other nutball want nukes that much faster? Once you have them and can delier them or give them to the crazies you are kind of immune to attacks eh?
I can't think of any way to prevent nutballs from wanting nukes. Can you?
Quote from: Valmy on May 21, 2009, 02:01:05 PM
:bleeding:
Your idiocy removes your right to get upset with the Nation of Islam.
Both the Iranian and Israeli governments are far more religion based than the modern norm (by itself, not an evil by most means). The big difference is that Israel is far more civilized and downplays irrational things like the Palestinian settlements, while Iran hangs gay teenagers and talks about nuking sovereign nations while acting mostly rationally.
Obviously the Israeli government is superior, but I don't think we are dealing with polar opposites here. Give Siegebreaker a beard and an Iranian passport and he wouldn't be that much different in the Revolutionary Guard.
Quote from: Berkut on May 21, 2009, 02:41:47 PM
Is someone trying to make the argument that the West (the US in particular) could not stop Iran from building a nuclear weapon through massive airpower applied against both their nuclear program *and* their political and economic infrastructure?
In so doing we would demolish most of the Middle East. Insurgencies in Afghanistan and Iraq would spiral out of control as would Shi'ite minorities throughout the greater Middle East, from Pakistan to Saudi Arabia and Lebanon.
Videos of thousands of dead Iranian civilians would be everywhere, the Twelver cult of Martyrdom would go nuts, etc....
You are looking at this as an isolated incident. A prolonged bombing campaign against Iran wouldn't be. That's an impossibility. The western will to fight relatively unsupported insurgencies in Afghanistan and Iraq is waning thin as is, imagine if Iran put all their remaining manpower and weapons behind undermining our efforts in the Middle East?
Rampant speculation used to justify our own unwillingness to do anything about anything.
If we are so afraid that the crazies will go even more crazy if we oppose them, then I guess they have won. So sit back and enjoy the show.
I would argue that even if we are so afraid that taking action will result in some horrendous uprising of crazy muslims (I thought most of them were actually very moderate???), then it is going to happen anyway. It can happen now, or we can wait until they nuke something, and it will happen after we respond to that, which we will be forced to do.
We can (and will) wait until they force our hand I guess. I suppose you can even make an argument that perhaps that really is for the best - the West is scarily proficient at making war, perhaps we should be dragged to it kicking and screaming as the very last resort, to only be taken after something horrific enough that we cannot decline to act any longer?
Quote from: Berkut on May 21, 2009, 02:42:41 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on May 21, 2009, 02:38:55 PM
Really? That would work? Wouldn't a preventative strike just make every other nutball want nukes that much faster? Once you have them and can delier them or give them to the crazies you are kind of immune to attacks eh?
I can't think of any way to prevent nutballs from wanting nukes. Can you?
Not at all. That wasn't really my point. Devil's advocate here, so the US drops the hammer on some shithole for working towards a nuclear capacity, would you, as El Presidente de Craziville, walk away from a nuclear program or would you try harder to get it to have a bargaining ship?
Quote from: Berkut on May 21, 2009, 02:56:10 PM
Rampant speculation used to justify our own unwillingness to do anything about anything.
If we are so afraid that the crazies will go even more crazy if we oppose them, then I guess they have won. So sit back and enjoy the show.
I would argue that even if we are so afraid that taking action will result in some horrendous uprising of crazy muslims (I thought most of them were actually very moderate???), then it is going to happen anyway. It can happen now, or we can wait until they nuke something, and it will happen after we respond to that, which we will be forced to do.
We can (and will) wait until they force our hand I guess. I suppose you can even make an argument that perhaps that really is for the best - the West is scarily proficient at making war, perhaps we should be dragged to it kicking and screaming as the very last resort, to only be taken after something horrific enough that we cannot decline to act any longer?
That is one sure way of getting popular support for damn near any level of response. Fifty years down th e road our retaliation would be held up as a model of modern barbarism, but it would likely get results.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on May 21, 2009, 02:57:16 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 21, 2009, 02:42:41 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on May 21, 2009, 02:38:55 PM
Really? That would work? Wouldn't a preventative strike just make every other nutball want nukes that much faster? Once you have them and can delier them or give them to the crazies you are kind of immune to attacks eh?
I can't think of any way to prevent nutballs from wanting nukes. Can you?
Not at all. That wasn't really my point. Devil's advocate here, so the US drops the hammer on some shithole for working towards a nuclear capacity, would you, as El Presidente de Craziville, walk away from a nuclear program or would you try harder to get it to have a bargaining ship?
If the West had made it clear that it was actually willing to drop the hammer on shithole countries trying to get nukes, then I would certainly walk away, unless I was on the verge of getting them and though I could do so secretly.
Quote from: Berkut on May 21, 2009, 03:07:43 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on May 21, 2009, 02:57:16 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 21, 2009, 02:42:41 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on May 21, 2009, 02:38:55 PM
Really? That would work? Wouldn't a preventative strike just make every other nutball want nukes that much faster? Once you have them and can delier them or give them to the crazies you are kind of immune to attacks eh?
I can't think of any way to prevent nutballs from wanting nukes. Can you?
Not at all. That wasn't really my point. Devil's advocate here, so the US drops the hammer on some shithole for working towards a nuclear capacity, would you, as El Presidente de Craziville, walk away from a nuclear program or would you try harder to get it to have a bargaining ship?
If the West had made it clear that it was actually willing to drop the hammer on shithole countries trying to get nukes, then I would certainly walk away, unless I was on the verge of getting them and though I could do so secretly.
The West doesn't have the cobbles to do that, and the bad guys know it. This is all just pie in the sky. I know, I am being Captain Obvious in Valmy's place.
Quote from: Queequeg on May 21, 2009, 02:47:47 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 21, 2009, 02:41:47 PM
Is someone trying to make the argument that the West (the US in particular) could not stop Iran from building a nuclear weapon through massive airpower applied against both their nuclear program *and* their political and economic infrastructure?
In so doing we would demolish most of the Middle East. Insurgencies in Afghanistan and Iraq would spiral out of control as would Shi'ite minorities throughout the greater Middle East, from Pakistan to Saudi Arabia and Lebanon.
Videos of thousands of dead Iranian civilians would be everywhere, the Twelver cult of Martyrdom would go nuts, etc....
You are looking at this as an isolated incident. A prolonged bombing campaign against Iran wouldn't be. That's an impossibility. The western will to fight relatively unsupported insurgencies in Afghanistan and Iraq is waning thin as is, imagine if Iran put all their remaining manpower and weapons behind undermining our efforts in the Middle East?
Wasn't this the argument against invading Iraq?
Quote
I would argue that even if we are so afraid that taking action will result in some horrendous uprising of crazy muslims (I thought most of them were actually very moderate???), then it is going to happen anyway. It can happen now, or we can wait until they nuke something, and it will happen after we respond to that, which we will be forced to do.
Iran is, generally speaking, a rational player I think. The Mullahs have been in control for 30 years. They know what they are doing, and they are fat and accustomed to power. They have little to gain from seeing Tehran, Isfahan, Tabriz and all the rest nuked. That said, they have an invested interest in
appearing to be irrational so that their hypothetical nuke would seem a lot more dangerous. This would appear to be a paradox (that is, rational players acting irrational for rational reasons), but in reality it isn't. Ronald Reagen (PBUH) did something similar with the Soviets; nukes and the threat of war really only mean anything when the opponent thinks you are crazy enough to use it, even though you really aren't.
That said, this is a good debate; I am not totally sure if the Iranian government is fundamentally rational. I can think as much, but you are just as entitled to your opinion here. This is the legitimate debate, what we were doing before was basically fantasizing. If we posit that Iran is fundamentally irrational, I think drastic measures (full naval blockade, limited strikes) would make sense, though I think some kind of aerial flattening of Iran is insane. If they are rational, then we should treat them as such, despite their belligerence.
Quote from: Neil on May 21, 2009, 03:29:40 PM
Wasn't this the argument against invading Iraq?
How would Iraq've flooded Afghanistan with weapons? And I think we can all (with the exception of Hans, obviously) agree that the Iraq invasion was retarded in retrospect.
Quote from: Queequeg on May 21, 2009, 03:36:39 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 21, 2009, 03:29:40 PM
Wasn't this the argument against invading Iraq?
How would Iraq've flooded Afghanistan with weapons? And I think we can all (with the exception of Hans, obviously) agree that the Iraq invasion was retarded in retrospect.
Really? I think it was pretty much a wash. It just didn't matter very much.
People were arguing that invading the Middle East would cause all Muslims to unite and destroy the West.
Quote from: Neil on May 21, 2009, 03:40:20 PM
Really? I think it was pretty much a wash. It just didn't matter very much.
People were arguing that invading the Middle East would cause all Muslims to unite and destroy the West.
The Arabs haven't won a meaningful battle by themselves in hundreds of years. I certainly wasn't arguing that.
Quote from: Queequeg on May 21, 2009, 03:36:39 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 21, 2009, 03:29:40 PM
Wasn't this the argument against invading Iraq?
How would Iraq've flooded Afghanistan with weapons? And I think we can all (with the exception of Hans, obviously) agree that the Iraq invasion was retarded in retrospect.
Afghanistan is already flooded with weapons, what kind of weapons are you talking about? Anti-aircraft weapons?
If we actually went through with a strike like Berkut's proposing, the bridges and roads going through the mountain passes leading to Afghanistan would be struck.
Quote from: Queequeg on May 21, 2009, 03:43:00 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 21, 2009, 03:40:20 PM
Really? I think it was pretty much a wash. It just didn't matter very much.
People were arguing that invading the Middle East would cause all Muslims to unite and destroy the West.
The Arabs haven't won a meaningful battle by themselves in hundreds of years. I certainly wasn't arguing that.
Of course you were. You'll always argue against standing up to the enemies of civilization.
Besides, the Arabs have only had states for less than a hundred years, and have never participated in a major war.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 21, 2009, 03:47:10 PM
Afghanistan is already flooded with weapons, what kind of weapons are you talking about? Anti-aircraft weapons?
If we actually went through with a strike like Berkut's proposing, the bridges and roads going through the mountain passes leading to Afghanistan would be struck.
Right now the peaceful part of Afghanistan is near the Iranian border and is populated with ethnic Persians. And I'd think that one of the few things we've learned about Afghanistan in the last 30 years is that the borders all around are porous; the Soviets couldn't stop it, how could we?
And I doubt they have an infinite supply of weapons other than Mosin-Nagants that predate the conception of my grandfather and cheap AK-47 knockoffs.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 20, 2009, 05:39:07 PM
Quote from: FunkMonk on May 20, 2009, 05:21:50 PM
Why are you surprised they haven't attacked Iran yet?
Once Iran gets the bomb, they're done for.
I doubt it.
Quote from: Berkut on May 21, 2009, 02:56:10 PM
Rampant speculation used to justify our own unwillingness to do anything about anything.
If we are so afraid that the crazies will go even more crazy if we oppose them, then I guess they have won. So sit back and enjoy the show.
I would argue that even if we are so afraid that taking action will result in some horrendous uprising of crazy muslims (I thought most of them were actually very moderate???), then it is going to happen anyway. It can happen now, or we can wait until they nuke something, and it will happen after we respond to that, which we will be forced to do.
How is it crazy to respond to a declaration of war (which is what bombing Iran would be) with acts of war?
Quote from: Faeelin on May 21, 2009, 03:58:11 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 21, 2009, 02:56:10 PM
Rampant speculation used to justify our own unwillingness to do anything about anything.
If we are so afraid that the crazies will go even more crazy if we oppose them, then I guess they have won. So sit back and enjoy the show.
I would argue that even if we are so afraid that taking action will result in some horrendous uprising of crazy muslims (I thought most of them were actually very moderate???), then it is going to happen anyway. It can happen now, or we can wait until they nuke something, and it will happen after we respond to that, which we will be forced to do.
How is it crazy to respond to a declaration of war (which is what bombing Iran would be) with acts of war?
Actually, only a declaration of war is a declaration of war. Bombing someone is not a declaration of war.
The west have grown weak, and the iranians are betting on this.
Quote from: Faeelin on May 21, 2009, 03:58:11 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 21, 2009, 02:56:10 PM
Rampant speculation used to justify our own unwillingness to do anything about anything.
If we are so afraid that the crazies will go even more crazy if we oppose them, then I guess they have won. So sit back and enjoy the show.
I would argue that even if we are so afraid that taking action will result in some horrendous uprising of crazy muslims (I thought most of them were actually very moderate???), then it is going to happen anyway. It can happen now, or we can wait until they nuke something, and it will happen after we respond to that, which we will be forced to do.
How is it crazy to respond to a declaration of war (which is what bombing Iran would be) with acts of war?
The Iranians responding wouldn't be crazy, random Muslims in unrelated countries would be.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 21, 2009, 04:16:37 PM
The Iranians responding wouldn't be crazy, random Muslims in unrelated countries would be.
Shi'ite Muslims and Persian speakers in Afghanistan? Really? That's crazy? When they share a border and a tongue or a faith? Really?
Bottom line is muslims are nothing more than an angry powerless mob.
We shouldn't be afraid of them.
Like dogs, they can smell our fear.
Berkut pwns everyone in this thread, frankly.
Quote from: Queequeg on May 21, 2009, 03:34:46 PM
That said, this is a good debate; I am not totally sure if the Iranian government is fundamentally rational.
I would phrase the question somewhat differently. I am not totally sure Iran has a "government" - at least in the sense that term is commonly understood in the West: a coherent state entity with clear lines of authority and a monopoly on legitimate use of force. It seems to me that there are multiple (and sometimes competing) sources of authority in Iran which makes assessment of rationality rather difficult. One can guess about the rationality of certain individuals, but inidividual human beings are prone to erratic behavior from time to time. It's not clear to me that there exist a viable institutional framework though which the rationality of the state system can reliably trump the vagaries of individual human behavior.
Is any government fundementally rational?
Quote from: Razgovory on May 21, 2009, 05:53:25 PM
Is any government fundementally rational?
At least in the formal Weberian sense, yes. That is a limited form of rationality, but I am not sure the Iranian system even has that.
I am not sure if we can use weberian rationality in such an either / or mode.
Btw, Minsky, there was a somewhat recent translation of a book by one professor here in Montréal on Keynes: Gilles Dostaler, Keynes and his Battles. I haven't had the time to read it, but thought it might interest you.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 21, 2009, 05:24:28 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on May 21, 2009, 03:34:46 PM
That said, this is a good debate; I am not totally sure if the Iranian government is fundamentally rational.
I would phrase the question somewhat differently. I am not totally sure Iran has a "government" - at least in the sense that term is commonly understood in the West: a coherent state entity with clear lines of authority and a monopoly on legitimate use of force. It seems to me that there are multiple (and sometimes competing) sources of authority in Iran which makes assessment of rationality rather difficult. One can guess about the rationality of certain individuals, but inidividual human beings are prone to erratic behavior from time to time. It's not clear to me that there exist a viable institutional framework though which the rationality of the state system can reliably trump the vagaries of individual human behavior.
Bingo.
The only way the arabs can win a war with the west is by unconventional means (read: suicide bombers en masse) and remind me again why we are letting them seed our entire civilization with fifth columns?
YOU WERE WARNED.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 21, 2009, 05:24:28 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on May 21, 2009, 03:34:46 PM
That said, this is a good debate; I am not totally sure if the Iranian government is fundamentally rational.
It's not clear to me that there exist a viable institutional framework though which the rationality of the state system can reliably trump the vagaries of individual human behavior.
I think it is reasonably clear that there is some political balance of forces within the Iranian "government", and that there are moderating forces and extremists. While I agree that the Iranian government is too incoherent to be called rational, I don't think any single faction ever has enough power to do anything holly irrational (like, say, nuking Israel), at least not right now. Ahmedincompetenijad is too unpopular, and the upcoming elections too close.
The fact that Iran's undemocratic element of government are more confused than is average for an authoritarian regime (saying something by itself), it also seems fair to say that the entire pseudo-Democracy element complicates things even further, but the fact that the different factions tend to balance eachother out means that I don't think Iran is prey to the "vagaries of individual human behavior" as you described.
Quote from: Berkut on May 21, 2009, 11:12:27 PM
Bingo.
:lol:
That's a pretty subtle argument, Berk. I very seriously doubt that Minsk is arguing that we should go Dresden on all of Iran.
Who is Ender?
Quote from: Queequeg on May 21, 2009, 11:39:58 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 21, 2009, 11:12:27 PM
Bingo.
:lol:
That's a pretty subtle argument, Berk. I very seriously doubt that Minsk is arguing that we should go Dresden on all of Iran.
Who said he was? I was agreeing with him that we should not necessarily treat Iran as a rational actor.
The real problem with what he said is that the same thing that makes it hard to trust Iran, also makes it hard to negotiate in good faith with Iran.
Quote from: Ender on May 21, 2009, 04:19:37 PM
Bottom line is muslims are nothing more than an angry powerless mob.
We shouldn't be afraid of them.
Like dogs, they can smell our fear.
And, like stray dogs, they should be given a lethal injection.
Some comments,
- We are here partially because Saddam Hussein didn't have nukes and ended up hanging from a rope, but North Korea built them and Kim lived happily ever after making life miserable for his neighbours. The moral of this story seems already quite evident, and should we attack another country because it's building nukes but keep respecting the 'No Trespassing' signs on the DMZ every petty tyrant and rogue regime is going to learn useful lessons about the value and danger of nukes... some of them very dangerous.
- It's true that the inner workings of the Iranian government are puzzling, but 30 years of experience with the 'Islamic Republic' show no evidence whatsoever of a taste for big foreign military adventures. Rethoric can be thunderous, and some money and material support seem to have been sent abroad, but comparations with Wilhelmine Germany or the French revolutionaries seem quite misplaced. Actually the regime seems remarkably inner looking, to the point of having ignored or tacitly approved US intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq.
- I would discount the fears of the Middle East burning in flames, Arab masses rebelling, etc, etc, but "colonial" entanglements have a nasty tendency to linger on, and on, and on... the present unpleasantness does already affect Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan (in fact the Taliban always had a leg on each side of the border) Adding Iran to the count seems quite rash... and will probably drive Russia and China to take some measures; they surely can't smile and cheer seeing hundreds of thousands of US troops deployed on their vicinity and on top of all those oil wells year after year.
- Air strikes alone won't do. It's one thing to destroy a nuclear reactor in construction, quite another thousands of centrifuges that probably are in dispersed locations. And the stock of uranium can't be destroyed... a sustained, massive air campaign targeting power stations and the like probably would delay the Iranians at the price of bringing the whole country back to the - literally - Dark Ages and alienating the population (that surely wouldn't apreciate being left without electricity indefinitely) but won't stop them if the strikes aren't repeated each time the stations get working again.
- It would be terribly hard to keep the war limited to air combats when Iraq and Iran have thousands of kilometers of borders... and I quite doubt the capacity of US and Iraqui forces to guard them. Of course I don't fear Iranian armoured columns running towards Baghdad and Basorah, but they could easily ignite a guerilla war all over the region.
- Even if we conclude that we can't accept a nuclear Iran, why is the blockade option not even considered, and the options reduced to 'war' and 'doing nothing'? Iran is very vulnerable to a blockade, and ironically very dependent from imported fuel (its refineries can cover only roughly 50% of the demand)
Quote from: Alatriste on May 22, 2009, 07:46:32 AM
Some comments,
- We are here partially because Saddam Hussein didn't have nukes and ended up hanging from a rope, but North Korea built them and Kim lived happily ever after making life miserable for his neighbours. The moral of this story seems already quite evident, and should we attack another country because it's building nukes but keep respecting the 'No Trespassing' signs on the DMZ every petty tyrant and rogue regime is going to learn useful lessons about the value and danger of nukes... some of them very dangerous.
Can the North Koreans really deliver a working nuclear weapon on target? I don't think so. The fact that they can destroy Seoul through conventional means is what stays our hands.
You know, its not like we were all poised to invade North Korea and then they got a nuke and we were all like "Damn, bummer, we were totally going to invade them! I guess not now!"
North Koreas nuke(s) are not protecting them from invasion - the fact that they are rather nicely contained and made largely irrelevant did that.
QuoteI would discount the fears of the Middle East burning in flames, Arab masses rebelling, etc, etc, but "colonial" entanglements have a nasty tendency to linger on, and on, and on... the present unpleasantness does already affect Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan (in fact the Taliban always had a leg on each side of the border) Adding Iran to the count seems quite rash... and will probably drive Russia and China to take some measures; they surely can't smile and cheer seeing hundreds of thousands of US troops deployed on their vicinity and on top of all those oil wells year after year.
Don't make me laugh hysterically. The Arabs did nothing about us invading an Arab state but if we suddenly invade a Persian one that will push them over the edge? Please.
That was supposed to happen when we invaded Iraq IIRC, the Arabs were all supposed to overthrow their governments and put Theocratic Terrorist states in their place. What a joke.
Any more bogeymen we should be scared of? Maybe Aliens might land?
Quote from: Valmy on May 22, 2009, 08:38:27 AM
QuoteI would discount the fears of the Middle East burning in flames, Arab masses rebelling, etc, etc, but "colonial" entanglements have a nasty tendency to linger on, and on, and on... the present unpleasantness does already affect Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan (in fact the Taliban always had a leg on each side of the border) Adding Iran to the count seems quite rash... and will probably drive Russia and China to take some measures; they surely can't smile and cheer seeing hundreds of thousands of US troops deployed on their vicinity and on top of all those oil wells year after year.
Don't make me laugh hysterically. The Arabs did nothing about us invading an Arab state but if we suddenly invade a Persian one that will push them over the edge? Please.
That was supposed to happen when we invaded Iraq IIRC, the Arabs were all supposed to overthrow their governments and put Theocratic Terrorist states in their place. What a joke.
Any more bogeymen we should be scared of? Maybe Aliens might land?
I don't follow. Please explain.
Quote from: The Brain on May 22, 2009, 08:42:43 AM
I don't follow. Please explain.
People always warn us to kiss up to the Arabs for fear they will finally get REALLY mad and do something REALLY bad and try to get us all terrified of some sort of mighty Arab coup that will...I don't know...restore the invincible Kalifate or something.
But it is always a bunch of hot air. Sort of like being afraid the Chinese will give a shit or the Russians being relevent besides bluster. If we stop Iran from getting Nuclear weapons I hardly think the Arabs, Russians and Chinese will be furious and take drastic actions demanding that as many of their neighbors are armed with Nuclear arms as possible.
But you probably were mocking me somehow. :blush:
Quote from: Valmy on May 22, 2009, 08:50:29 AM
Quote from: The Brain on May 22, 2009, 08:42:43 AM
I don't follow. Please explain.
People always warn us to kiss up to the Arabs for fear they will finally get REALLY mad and do something REALLY bad and try to get us all terrified of some sort of mighty Arab coup that will...I don't know...restore the invincible Kalifate or something.
But it is always a bunch of hot air. Sort of like being afraid the Chinese will give a shit or the Russians being relevent besides bluster. If we stop Iran from getting Nuclear weapons I hardly think the Arabs, Russians and Chinese will be furious and take drastic actions demanding that as many of their neighbors are armed with Nuclear arms as possible.
But you probably were mocking me somehow. :blush:
I would never mock an American. In this instance I just read what Ala wrote a bit differently. My understanding is that he doesn't think that the Arab response will be dangerous.
Quote from: The Brain on May 22, 2009, 08:56:48 AM
I would never mock an American. In this instance I just read what Ala wrote a bit differently. My understanding is that he doesn't think that the Arab response will be dangerous.
Oops I saw 'I would discount' and thought he said 'I wouldn't discount'
Nevermind.
At least you're not fat. :hug:
Quote from: Valmy on May 22, 2009, 08:50:29 AM
Quote from: The Brain on May 22, 2009, 08:42:43 AM
I don't follow. Please explain.
People always warn us to kiss up to the Arabs for fear they will finally get REALLY mad and do something REALLY bad and try to get us all terrified of some sort of mighty Arab coup that will...I don't know...restore the invincible Kalifate or something.
I actually can't think of a substantive way in which the US has kissed up to the middle east in the past, oh, 8 years. But I'm sure somebody will be along to tell me.
Quote from: Faeelin on May 22, 2009, 09:02:32 AM
I actually can't think of a substantive way in which the US has kissed up to the middle east in the past, oh, 8 years. But I'm sure somebody will be along to tell me.
We haven't and we shouldn't to the Arabs who are the sort people think might revolt.
But we kiss up pretty well to the Arabs we should be kissing up to.
Quote from: The Brain on May 22, 2009, 09:02:06 AM
At least you're not fat. :hug:
Hey. You just said no mocking Americans.
Quote from: Queequeg on May 21, 2009, 11:35:57 PM
I think it is reasonably clear that there is some political balance of forces within the Iranian "government", and that there are moderating forces and extremists. While I agree that the Iranian government is too incoherent to be called rational, I don't think any single faction ever has enough power to do anything holly irrational (like, say, nuking Israel), at least not right now.
I don't think so either but I don't really know, and more troubling, I don't really know how to assess the question in any reliable way. Factional balance of power tends to instability (as the Roman republic found out to name only one example). If there were clear institutional mechanisms in place that could regulate behavior or check extremist impulses, i would be more reassured by such claims. But these don't exist, in the same way they do even in authoritarian regimes like China or Russia or even Pakistan.
Quote from: Alatriste on May 22, 2009, 07:46:32 AM
- It's true that the inner workings of the Iranian government are puzzling, but 30 years of experience with the 'Islamic Republic' show no evidence whatsoever of a taste for big foreign military adventures. Rethoric can be thunderous, and some money and material support seem to have been sent abroad, but comparations with Wilhelmine Germany or the French revolutionaries seem quite misplaced. Actually the regime seems remarkably inner looking, to the point of having ignored or tacitly approved US intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq.
That is definitely not true - they are quite expansionary - their hands are all over Syria and Lebanon (not to mention post-Saddam Iraq!), their proxy militia Hezbollah has become a significant regional power in its own right, they even appear now to have some connection and lines of communication with Hamas.
I agree that the prospect of them launching first use nuclear missile strikes against Israel or US interests seems remote, but a more serious concern is the possibility they would arrange for one of their regional proxies to get a hold of a small weapon and detonate it under conditions that give Iran some plausible deniability (or at least what some nutter there thinks is plausible deniability).
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 22, 2009, 09:47:35 AM
I agree that the prospect of them launching first use nuclear missile strikes against Israel or US interests seems remote, but a more serious concern is the possibility they would arrange for one of their regional proxies to get a hold of a small weapon and detonate it under conditions that give Iran some plausible deniability (or at least what some nutter there thinks is plausible deniability).
wouldn't matter, the whole world would know who it was and the bombed victim, in thise case Israel, would retaliate at the master as well as the executo of the plan. Iran would go up in nuclear fire regardless of how the nuke was delivered.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on May 22, 2009, 11:52:54 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 22, 2009, 09:47:35 AM
I agree that the prospect of them launching first use nuclear missile strikes against Israel or US interests seems remote, but a more serious concern is the possibility they would arrange for one of their regional proxies to get a hold of a small weapon and detonate it under conditions that give Iran some plausible deniability (or at least what some nutter there thinks is plausible deniability).
wouldn't matter, the whole world would know who it was and the bombed victim, in thise case Israel, would retaliate at the master as well as the executo of the plan. Iran would go up in nuclear fire regardless of how the nuke was delivered.
How would the whole world know?
Maybe it came from NK. Maybe Pakistan. Who knows with enough surety to be willing to incinerate millions in response?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 22, 2009, 09:47:35 AM
Quote from: Alatriste on May 22, 2009, 07:46:32 AM
- It's true that the inner workings of the Iranian government are puzzling, but 30 years of experience with the 'Islamic Republic' show no evidence whatsoever of a taste for big foreign military adventures. Rethoric can be thunderous, and some money and material support seem to have been sent abroad, but comparations with Wilhelmine Germany or the French revolutionaries seem quite misplaced. Actually the regime seems remarkably inner looking, to the point of having ignored or tacitly approved US intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq.
That is definitely not true - they are quite expansionary - their hands are all over Syria and Lebanon (not to mention post-Saddam Iraq!), their proxy militia Hezbollah has become a significant regional power in its own right, they even appear now to have some connection and lines of communication with Hamas.
I agree that the prospect of them launching first use nuclear missile strikes against Israel or US interests seems remote, but a more serious concern is the possibility they would arrange for one of their regional proxies to get a hold of a small weapon and detonate it under conditions that give Iran some plausible deniability (or at least what some nutter there thinks is plausible deniability).
What he said... Iran puts fear into other regional nations, for these and other reasons over regional aspirations.
As for nukes, wouldn't it be very difficult for a nuke to be used by a proxy or third party and not be tracked down? Don't these weapons leave traces of residue, other clues, or what ever, which give some indication of where/how it might have been built?
Quote from: Berkut on May 22, 2009, 11:58:05 AM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on May 22, 2009, 11:52:54 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 22, 2009, 09:47:35 AM
I agree that the prospect of them launching first use nuclear missile strikes against Israel or US interests seems remote, but a more serious concern is the possibility they would arrange for one of their regional proxies to get a hold of a small weapon and detonate it under conditions that give Iran some plausible deniability (or at least what some nutter there thinks is plausible deniability).
wouldn't matter, the whole world would know who it was and the bombed victim, in thise case Israel, would retaliate at the master as well as the executo of the plan. Iran would go up in nuclear fire regardless of how the nuke was delivered.
How would the whole world know?
Maybe it came from NK. Maybe Pakistan. Who knows with enough surety to be willing to incinerate millions in response?
NK doesn't care
Pakistan's leaders want to suck pakistan dry for their own gain
Iran's leaders have said they'd like to wipe israel off the map and have the proxies to do it.
Even if it wasn't Iran, a nukes Israel is not going to wait until the end of the investigation. MAD seems like something that needs to be done immediatly, rather than two weeks later. This in order to prevent the enemy from pulling more shit.
I so tired of people treating the muslims like if they were children!
Why don't they do a friggin effort and try to understand the west, for once?
They understand us perfectly. We have freedom and they hate us for it.
Quote from: The Brain on May 22, 2009, 02:27:45 PM
They understand us perfectly. We have freedom and they hate us for it.
That's weak.
The islamotards are perfectly happy and free in a regime that enforces their ideals for a perfect islamic world.
Quote from: Siege on May 22, 2009, 02:13:32 PM
I so tired of people treating the muslims like if they were children!
Why don't they do a friggin effort and try to understand the west, for once?
It wasn't Muslims that attacked the USS Liberty.
Quote from: Siege on May 22, 2009, 02:30:23 PM
Quote from: The Brain on May 22, 2009, 02:27:45 PM
They understand us perfectly. We have freedom and they hate us for it.
That's weak.
The islamotards are perfectly happy and free in a regime that enforces their ideals for a perfect islamic world.
But we are not. Hence the hate.
Quote from: Neil on May 22, 2009, 02:31:44 PM
It wasn't Muslims that attacked the USS Liberty.
It wasn't Muslims either who shot down all those Canadian Helicopters either. USA! USA!
Don't worry if the Israelis ever fight on our side in a war we will frag plenty of them in revenge.
Quote from: Valmy on May 22, 2009, 02:33:26 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 22, 2009, 02:31:44 PM
It wasn't Muslims that attacked the USS Liberty.
It wasn't Muslims either who shot down all those Canadian Helicopters either. USA! USA!
Canadian helicopters have been shot down? I don't even think they can get them off the ground anymore.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on May 22, 2009, 02:07:42 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 22, 2009, 11:58:05 AM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on May 22, 2009, 11:52:54 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 22, 2009, 09:47:35 AM
I agree that the prospect of them launching first use nuclear missile strikes against Israel or US interests seems remote, but a more serious concern is the possibility they would arrange for one of their regional proxies to get a hold of a small weapon and detonate it under conditions that give Iran some plausible deniability (or at least what some nutter there thinks is plausible deniability).
wouldn't matter, the whole world would know who it was and the bombed victim, in thise case Israel, would retaliate at the master as well as the executo of the plan. Iran would go up in nuclear fire regardless of how the nuke was delivered.
How would the whole world know?
Maybe it came from NK. Maybe Pakistan. Who knows with enough surety to be willing to incinerate millions in response?
NK doesn't care
Pakistan's leaders want to suck pakistan dry for their own gain
Iran's leaders have said they'd like to wipe israel off the map and have the proxies to do it.
Even if it wasn't Iran, a nukes Israel is not going to wait until the end of the investigation. MAD seems like something that needs to be done immediatly, rather than two weeks later. This in order to prevent the enemy from pulling more shit.
So you are saying that if a nuke goes off anywhere, Israel is going to nuke Iran, even if they have no idea if the nuke actually came from Iran?
And this is the basis of your confidence in letting Iran have nukes?
Sounds like a great deal for some country that doesn't like Iran.
I think I'll nuke Israel. That way, the Israelis will take out Iran, and the look on Siegebreaker's face would be worth the expense.
Quote from: Berkut on May 22, 2009, 02:43:14 PM
So you are saying that if a nuke goes off anywhere, Israel is going to nuke Iran, even if they have no idea if the nuke actually came from Iran?
And this is the basis of your confidence in letting Iran have nukes?
Sounds like a great deal for some country that doesn't like Iran.
If you hate both Jews and Shiites it would be a twofer!
I can't think of anybody who fits that description though...except Neil...
Quote from: Valmy on May 22, 2009, 02:48:07 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 22, 2009, 02:43:14 PM
So you are saying that if a nuke goes off anywhere, Israel is going to nuke Iran, even if they have no idea if the nuke actually came from Iran?
And this is the basis of your confidence in letting Iran have nukes?
Sounds like a great deal for some country that doesn't like Iran.
If you hate both Jews and Shiites it would be a twofer!
I can't think of anybody who fits that description though...except Neil...
What makes you think that I hate Jews?
I thought you hated everybody except ethnic Albertans.
Quote from: Valmy on May 22, 2009, 02:50:02 PM
I thought you hated everybody except ethnic Albertans.
See my sig.
Quote from: Berkut on May 22, 2009, 02:43:14 PM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on May 22, 2009, 02:07:42 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 22, 2009, 11:58:05 AM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on May 22, 2009, 11:52:54 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 22, 2009, 09:47:35 AM
I agree that the prospect of them launching first use nuclear missile strikes against Israel or US interests seems remote, but a more serious concern is the possibility they would arrange for one of their regional proxies to get a hold of a small weapon and detonate it under conditions that give Iran some plausible deniability (or at least what some nutter there thinks is plausible deniability).
wouldn't matter, the whole world would know who it was and the bombed victim, in thise case Israel, would retaliate at the master as well as the executo of the plan. Iran would go up in nuclear fire regardless of how the nuke was delivered.
How would the whole world know?
Maybe it came from NK. Maybe Pakistan. Who knows with enough surety to be willing to incinerate millions in response?
NK doesn't care
Pakistan's leaders want to suck pakistan dry for their own gain
Iran's leaders have said they'd like to wipe israel off the map and have the proxies to do it.
Even if it wasn't Iran, a nukes Israel is not going to wait until the end of the investigation. MAD seems like something that needs to be done immediatly, rather than two weeks later. This in order to prevent the enemy from pulling more shit.
So you are saying that if a nuke goes off anywhere, Israel is going to nuke Iran, even if they have no idea if the nuke actually came from Iran?
And this is the basis of your confidence in letting Iran have nukes?
Sounds like a great deal for some country that doesn't like Iran.
the premise was a nuke on israel, as you well know.
and if you think I want iran to have nukes you're sorely mistaken.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on May 22, 2009, 03:43:36 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 22, 2009, 02:43:14 PM
So you are saying that if a nuke goes off anywhere, Israel is going to nuke Iran, even if they have no idea if the nuke actually came from Iran?
And this is the basis of your confidence in letting Iran have nukes?
Sounds like a great deal for some country that doesn't like Iran.
the premise was a nuke on israel, as you well know.
So if a nuke goes off in Israel, Israel will nuke Iran, even if they don't know what the nuke came from Iran?
And your confidence that Iran having nukes is a-ok is based on that?
That is some rather interesting logic there.
If a nuke goes off in Israel, Israel will nuke Iran no matter where it came from.
Therefore, it is ok if Iran gets nukes.
Quote from: Berkut on May 22, 2009, 03:47:08 PM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on May 22, 2009, 03:43:36 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 22, 2009, 02:43:14 PM
So you are saying that if a nuke goes off anywhere, Israel is going to nuke Iran, even if they have no idea if the nuke actually came from Iran?
And this is the basis of your confidence in letting Iran have nukes?
Sounds like a great deal for some country that doesn't like Iran.
the premise was a nuke on israel, as you well know.
So if a nuke goes off in Israel, Israel will nuke Iran, even if they don't know what the nuke came from Iran?
And your confidence that Iran having nukes is a-ok is based on that?
That is some rather interesting logic there.
If a nuke goes off in Israel, Israel will nuke Iran no matter where it came from.
Therefore, it is ok if Iran gets nukes.
at that point Israel will not wait, nuclear deterrence doesn't work (i think) if you let your heads cool down. Retaliation needs to be swift and total.
And again, if you really think I'm okay with Iran having nukes you're sorely mistaken. extremely so.