iran war


PDA






carlrodd
January 12, 2006, 12:42 AM
i don't know when this was last discussed here in detail, but i am interested in hearing people's thoughts about whether or not we can really expect this and when.

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,392783,00.html

If you enjoyed reading about "iran war" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
TexasRifleman
January 12, 2006, 12:48 AM
I don't think it will happen unless the rest of the world also wants it. I don't think we can afford another invasion without more allies.

So tell me, are France and Germany selling "machine parts" to Iran to help build their toys? If so, guess what they will say to an invasion......

Joejojoba111
January 12, 2006, 04:30 AM
It's a scary issue. When Iran was simply being an international dick I supported the notion of sovereignty and the right to be a dick, as well I figured that it would be hypocritical to allow Pakistan and India to have nuclear weapons, and Iraq to have chemical ones, but deny Iran.

Now, though, 2 possibilities haunt me. #1)Iran already has something, and are itching to use it in a situation which could be construed as self-defence or something complicated like that, and not result in world-wide support for massive retaliation. #2)Iran is bluffing, hoping people think #1 and thus they have time to actually make a weapon.

What Iran doesn't seem to realize is that a lot of the world is generally dumber than they were 20 or 30 years ago, and while average Joes may have understood basic concepts like MAD before, even basic game theory is lots on most now. The result is that the option #3) 'Make things go boom for me to watch on TV while I eat a microwave burrito.' is gaining widespread support.


At least I don't see other explanations for the actions of Iran's leaders. Heck even a lot of the leaders are quieter, and ALL the Islamic countries are uncomfortable with Mahmoud's rhetoric. Maybe Mahmoud really IS crazy, and really DOES want to bring about some prophesized apocalypse or something.

Right now I'm betting on #1. If I had to pick even longer odds I'd suggest that Iran has had Soviet scientists working on their nuclear program since the late 1970's, when the USSR shipped a thousand or so en masse as part of an agreement. But I'd suspect that Iran doesn't have their own weapons built YET, though they might have old or re-conditioned Soviet warheads they aquired.

carlrodd
January 12, 2006, 08:40 AM
mahmoud seems to be a bit of a throwback. he's no saddam, he's no saudi royal or jordanian prince, and certainly no silk robe, sunglasses wearing kadafi. i've read and heard that he is well educated in the conservative muslim tradition, and lives a VERY simple life in accordance with the original principals of iran's revolution. he is also obviously, VERY well respected by the conservative, radical cleric element in iran. when he threatens israel, i truly believe he seeks to do whatever he can during his tenure to bring about some sort of major conflict in the middle east. didn't we used to "cause accidents" for uppity, contentious third world leaders. i know he's rather high profile, but sheesh, iran can be a very dangerous place. maybe that could be an option for israel.

Lupinus
January 12, 2006, 09:57 AM
Im not sure of an outright war. I would say air strikes would be possible, but now that we are in a neighboring country they coul counter attack and force us into a land war. One thing is certian though. Isreal will never, ever, allow Iran to own a nuclear weapon. NEVER. They will tell the world to pound salt and send a few F-15's to send a missle up allah's rear end. And to be honest I wouldn't blame them.

Biker
January 12, 2006, 10:18 AM
Here's an interesting scenario.

www.rense.com/general69/dayone.htm

Biker

carlrodd
January 12, 2006, 10:28 AM
Here's an interesting scenario.

www.rense.com/general69/dayone.htm

Biker

wow. sounds very plausible. iran just isn't iraq is it?....to say the least.

Lupinus
January 12, 2006, 10:37 AM
Very good story.

A bit more dramatic I think then the real thing would be, but still good story. The things he leaves out- Stealth and cruise missles, if it wasn't just Isreal and was a joint strike by Isreal and the US stealth and cruise missles would be the first in and would obliterate their air defense network and a good bit of their fighters. Iraq preGW1 had a very good air defense system and our planes didn't fall from the sky by any means. Also as far as the green zone attack part they leave out anti-missle defense systems like PATRIOT that have come a way since GW1 when they missles still hit Isreal and when Saddam launched a few missles before the start of this war they did a very good job. And for the ships you'd have to get a lot of missles off to get past their measures, and you'd be picked up on radar a long time before you were in fireing range of anti-ship missles and I doubt Iran would send it's planes on suicide runs or agianst US ships, they would be to busy trying to defend their airspace. But the Iraqi military was still fairly neutured still from the first Gulf war, it simply never recovered. Iran's military isn't neutured at the moment and would be admitidly harder, but the article is way mroe dramatic then the real thing would be.

Biker
January 12, 2006, 10:37 AM
Yup. I don't see any easy answers to this problem.
Biker

Lupinus
January 12, 2006, 10:39 AM
Easy answers no, but answers none the less.

Of course just like two times now we would tell Isreal thanks but no thanks.

Biker
January 12, 2006, 10:41 AM
I don't have any proof handy (I'll dig around a bit later), but there is supposably no real defense against the Sunburn missile.
This could complicate things for us...
Biker

TexasRifleman
January 12, 2006, 10:42 AM
I don't have any proof handy (I'll dig around a bit later), but there is supposably no real defense against the Sunburn missile.
This could complicate things for us...
Biker


Raytheon claims to have it covered.....

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/966345/posts

GoRon
January 12, 2006, 10:54 AM
Other than allowing Iran to control our foreign policy toward Israel and the ME there is little the US can do to avoid an eventual showdown.

If a showdown occures it will be because they want it to happen.

We can let it perculate until they are ready or we can force the issue. Neither alternative is very appealing.

Wllm. Legrand
January 12, 2006, 11:06 AM
Interesting story by someone who evidently predicted the present "Charlie Foxtrot" in Iraq.

Not to worry...the present administration will guide us to another crackerjack victory of the Project for the New American Century.

They don't even KNOW the meaning of the word "hubris". It's all Greek to them....

Waitone
January 12, 2006, 11:09 AM
Tough situation but there had better be a resolution to the problem because the very last thing anyone wants is a radical Islamic government, with access to a high percentage of the world's oil supply, implementing a nuclear umbrella under which Islamic jihadists can conduct their violent actions. Bad, bad situation that will not go away. I hope for the best but I am more pessamistic about the Iran situation than I am about what's happening in Iraq.

Manedwolf
January 12, 2006, 11:30 AM
Raytheon claims to have it covered.....

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/966345/posts

Raytheon also made the Patriots that didn't have the overall best record of knocking down clunky, old-tech Scuds.

Never trust a salesperson about a gun (or a missile), read the reports of the soldiers in the field who use them.

Manedwolf
January 12, 2006, 11:32 AM
I don't have any proof handy (I'll dig around a bit later), but there is supposably no real defense against the Sunburn missile.
This could complicate things for us...
Biker

The Russians also had developed a supercavitating torpedo that we have absolutely no defense against. It's well-believed that a number were sold to China, and who knows, could be to Iran as well.

Look up the Shkval torpedo, which travels at over 200mph underwater by creating a shielding low-friction wall of bubbles around itself. Scary stuff for Navy guys.

It seems we spent too much money and time trying to become all geared for four-day wars, essentially becoming a specialist predator. But in nature, it's the adaptable generalist predators who do the best...the specialists often are the ones on the endangered lists.

taliv
January 12, 2006, 11:39 AM
i don't think that scenario is at all realistic. stuff like iran using GPS-guided bombs??? :scrutiny: and our awacs flying above iran before the attack??

if we throw down, and especially if we initiate it, air superiority won't be in question.

Biker
January 12, 2006, 12:16 PM
A little info on the Sunburn Missile.

www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?id=2439

www.softwar.net/3m82.html

Biker

Waitone
January 12, 2006, 12:26 PM
While the Russkies develop supercaviating torpedoes we develop supercavitating ground penetrators. If the physics is similar which do you think would be easier to engineer?

Biker
January 12, 2006, 12:30 PM
While the Russkies develop supercaviating torpedoes we develop supercavitating ground penetrators. If the physics is similar which do you think would be easier to engineer?
Couldn't tell ya. I thought a 'physic' was something that helped you go 'number two'.
:)
Biker

johnster999
January 12, 2006, 12:41 PM
Like many hardline Islamists, the Iranian Pres is a total goofball full of bluster and made things much simpler for everyone.

Just a little promise here and a lie there would have placated Europe. Europe had resigned itself to a nuclear Iran. All they wanted was a comforting promise (nonproliferation) from Iran to take home to the folks. Iran could have then proceeded to research and build nukes secretly despite the promise (see US/North Korea fiasco).

What Europe got instead was, "The holocaust was a myth and we wanna blow Israel off the map and we're breaking these seals and moving ahead with enrichment right now, so there."

999

R.H. Lee
January 12, 2006, 01:05 PM
I don't understand why a military solution is always the first, or preferred option. I would rather see the U.S. withdraw militarily from the rest of the world, and use economic coercion instead as standard policy. We have enough oil reserves in the continental U.S. and Alaska to make us independent of reliance on foreign oil. That's the first step. The second step is to trade only with countries whose governments meet certain minimum standards for not only human rights but also international aggression. This is the carrot.

Then and only then, any country that poses a security threat to us or our trading partners will be dealt with militarily, after diplomatic efforts have been exhausted. That military consequence will be devastating and delivered solely by air power; no 'occupying' forces. That is the stick.

Once this pattern has been established, everyone will know what to expect. You want to run your country with a murderous dictatorship? Fine-we don't do business with you. Keep your aggression confined to your own country. If you attack one of our trading partners to exploit their wealth you will be bombed back into the stone age.

Waitone
January 12, 2006, 02:43 PM
A really interesting evaluation of Iran and US from a monetary perspective, written mid-2005. http://www.energybulletin.net/7707.html

<snip>Despite the complete absence of coverage from the five U.S. corporate media conglomerates, these foreign news stories suggest one of the Federal Reserve’s nightmares may begin to unfold in the spring of 2006, when it appears that international buyers will have a choice of buying a barrel of oil for $60 dollars on the NYMEX and IPE - or purchase a barrel of oil for €45 - €50 euros via the Iranian Bourse. This assumes the euro maintains its current 20-25% appreciated value relative to the dollar – and assumes that some sort of US "intervention" is not launched against Iran.

The upcoming bourse will introduce petrodollar versus petroeuro currency hedging, and fundamentally new dynamics to the biggest market in the world - global oil and gas trades. In essence, the U.S. will no longer be able to effortlessly expand its debt-financing via issuance of U.S. Treasury bills, and the dollar’s international demand/liquidity value will fall. <snip>
The article is chocked full of stuff not aired in mass and alternative media.

TexasRifleman
January 12, 2006, 02:59 PM
Raytheon also made the Patriots that didn't have the overall best record of knocking down clunky, old-tech Scuds.

Never trust a salesperson about a gun (or a missile), read the reports of the soldiers in the field who use them.


So you'll believe Russias' claim that the Sunburn is unbeatable, but not another groups' claim that it can be defeated....... OK.......:scrutiny:

WT
January 12, 2006, 03:02 PM
Let's see .....
1. Iran is ruled by a madman
2. Iran is developing WMD's
3. Iran is ignoring UN directives
4. Iran supports terrorism
5. Itan poses a danger.

Where have I heard that before? Washington DC 2003?

Anyway, this time we should stand aside. Let the powerful and morally superior European Union handle Iran. Time for the French Army to get into a fight.

Master Blaster
January 12, 2006, 03:07 PM
The Europeans and our good friend in Russia is handling it. They are selling parts for reactors and centrifuges, and missiles to Iran.

I think we should reciprocate and help the Chechnyians and the Georgians and the Ukrainians by selling them the exact same stuff Vladiie baby is selling Iran.

Im sure Mr. Putin would be real happy if we sold his enemies lots of Missiles capable of shooting down russian aircraft, adn capable of hitting Moscow.
Then we can sell them a nuclear reactor or two also.:evil:

johnster999
January 12, 2006, 04:01 PM
After giving the Iranian situation more serious thought, I suggest we just start bombing their nuke facilities and see what happens.

999

Joejojoba111
January 12, 2006, 05:33 PM
The Europeans and our good friend in Russia is handling it. They are selling parts for reactors and centrifuges, and missiles to Iran.

I think we should reciprocate and help the Chechnyians and the Georgians and the Ukrainians by selling them the exact same stuff Vladiie baby is selling Iran.

Im sure Mr. Putin would be real happy if we sold Missiles capable of shooting down russian aircraft his enemies lots of, adn capable of hitting Moscow.
Then we can sell them a nuclear reactor or two also.:evil:

To be fair, 'the west' did sort of give a very large chunk of the USSR's nuclear force to the Ukraine. We had to pick a side, and we did so. And they probably still hold a slight grudge against the CIA for giving 'Missiles capable of shooting down russian aircraft' already once before. But such is international politics, anyone who doubts it's a sleazy trecharous business is at odds with reality.

To be even more specific, the centrifuges and much else is probably based on designs provided by Pakistan or others, and the (Associated Press iirc) blew a news story a few years ago that most of the technical documents were available for the right price, on the black market, in convenient digital format.

Then, to be completely honest, if you step back and use game-theory, pretend both Russia and the USA had a pawn in the cold war. Russia had Iran, and USA had Israel. It's more complicated, but this is just a game. USA already armed their pawn with nuclear weapons years ago, they won the game. The first side with nukes can threaten massive retaliation. And they can prevent any other regional power from developing their own.

So the game is over? Maybe. But... What if Iran is claiming to be Developing nukes, which could be true, but simultaneously they also have been Aquiring nukes. Like a magician, everyone watches the hand making obvious gestures.

If Iran's leader is crazy, then that's that. If he's not crazy, then he has a plan. Clearly he could have appeased the world by simply acting humble and meagre, claiming he was a peace-loving man etc etc. But he didn't he has made sure the world knows the opposite.

Everyone here KNOWS that Israel will attack Iran's nuclear facilities if they become operational. This is a problem. If it's true, then Iran has an advantage of knowledge of the enemy's actions. If Iran ever wanted to use a nuclear weapon against Israel the best time for it to be defensible is when they are attacked without provocation by Israel. Then, if they have a secret stockpile of nuclear warhead-laden missiles, they will launch them, and let the rest be in the hands of Allah.

Biker
January 12, 2006, 05:40 PM
To be fair, 'the west' did sort of give a very large chunk of the USSR's nuclear force to the Ukraine. We had to pick a side, and we did so. And they probably still hold a slight grudge against the CIA for giving 'Missiles capable of shooting down russian aircraft' already once before. But such is international politics, anyone who doubts it's a sleazy trecharous business is at odds with reality.

To be even more specific, the centrifuges and much else is probably based on designs provided by Pakistan or others, and the (Associated Press iirc) blew a news story a few years ago that most of the technical documents were available for the right price, on the black market, in convenient digital format.

Then, to be completely honest, if you step back and use game-theory, pretend both Russia and the USA had a pawn in the cold war. Russia had Iran, and USA had Israel. It's more complicated, but this is just a game. USA already armed their pawn with nuclear weapons years ago, they won the game. The first side with nukes can threaten massive retaliation. And they can prevent any other regional power from developing their own.

So the game is over? Maybe. But... What if Iran is claiming to be Developing nukes, which could be true, but simultaneously they also have been Aquiring nukes. Like a magician, everyone watches the hand making obvious gestures.

If Iran's leader is crazy, then that's that. If he's not crazy, then he has a plan. Clearly he could have appeased the world by simply acting humble and meagre, claiming he was a peace-loving man etc etc. But he didn't he has made sure the world knows the opposite.

Everyone here KNOWS that Israel will attack Iran's nuclear facilities if they become operational. This is a problem. If it's true, then Iran has an advantage of knowledge of the enemy's actions. If Iran ever wanted to use a nuclear weapon against Israel the best time for it to be defensible is when they are attacked without provocation by Israel. Then, if they have a secret stockpile of nuclear warhead-laden missiles, they will launch them, and let the rest be in the hands of Allah.

Interesting take, Joejo...There's *always* much more than meets the eye in this particular chess match.
Biker

Domino
January 12, 2006, 05:43 PM
Then and only then, any country that poses a security threat to us or our trading partners will be dealt with militarily, after diplomatic efforts have been exhausted. That military consequence will be devastating and delivered solely by air power; no 'occupying' forces. That is the stick.
.

Wow, you are a true military stategist :rolleyes:

No war can be one on simply air power, occupation is necessary to secure and completely demoralize the enemy. The biggest mistake in your plan is that you assume that everyone else in the world thinks like Westerners, the problem is that they don't. People of the Middle East will only understand that they are completely defeated when they are in fact undeniably humilitated by their aggressor.

Example: Our lack of reaction from the U.S.S. Cole and Kenya embassy bombings was perseived as cowardly to Al queda. Using soley air power is considered weak and true victory cannot be achieved, in short your plan won't work in dealing with actually dealing with the Middle East.

No offense but isolationalism is pretty stupid and short sighted. The fact of the matter is that you (a nation) cannot remain powerful OR wealthy when they are uninvolved with international affairs. The proofs in the pudding, look at the way France, Britian, and the rest of Europe dealt with Germany before and during WWII. They didn't do anything until it was already too late and they would have been defeated if the US and Russia waited to get involved.

In fact, the whole reason the US is the superpower today is BECAUSE of WWII! What do you think the world would look like if Germany and Japan were left unimpossed for a few more years? We would be speaking German ;)

Manedwolf
January 12, 2006, 05:59 PM
While the Russkies develop supercaviating torpedoes we develop supercavitating ground penetrators. If the physics is similar which do you think would be easier to engineer?

The thing is, we haven't any defense against them. Really, if we got into any kind of scuffle with China over Taiwan or the like, it could be the first time since WWII that we lose capital ships in combat, as in "carrier sunk". :eek:

And we can only hope that Iran doesn't have some, or likewise...

Manedwolf
January 12, 2006, 06:01 PM
.

No war can be one on simply air power, occupation is necessary to secure and completely demoralize the enemy.

You'd think they'd learn by now that if you break the infrastructure with air power and don't follow up with occupation AND infrastructure rebuilding, all you've done is open the field for a charismatic despot to get the population behind them in a rise to power.

tellner
January 12, 2006, 06:08 PM
If there is a war with Iran I predict that it will be a Charlie Foxtrot of biblical proportions.


Our military is already over-committed
Iraq had twelve years of harsh economic sanctions - not much military equipment or infrastructure. Iran has cash and hasn't been afraid to use it.
Most Iraqis don't like us but weren't much motivated to resist. Iran is a different kettle of fish.
So far the Shi'a in Iraq have been willing to go along. They've gotten what they want. If we go to war with Iran that will change. Lordy will it change. If you thought the insurgency was fun now...
"Disarming" Saddam Hussein was easy. He didn't have any WMDs. "Disarming" Iran will be harder.
Our low-cost pays-for-itself war in Iraq has been anything but. I can't imagine how much gold we'll spill on this one.
Occupy Iran? I don't even want to think of the logistics and problems. The resistance will be bloody and protracted.

ghost squire
January 12, 2006, 06:32 PM
There may be far more to this particular chess game then meets the eye.
But first, a few facts.

Last year, Asia consumed more oil then North America. Venezuela is America's fourth largest oil supplier. China already imports a third of its oil from other countries, and is still needs far more to expand at the rate it wants too. Iran is China's largest oil supplier. Iran signed in October 2004 a $100 billion, twenty-five-year contract with the China National Petrochemical Corporation (Sinopec) (state owned naturally) for the joint production and export of liquefied natural gas (LNG), much of which will ultimately go to China. Iran is the fourth largest world producer of oil, and sits atop the second largest reserve of natural gas.

India is not our friend. Despite having a democratic election system, the continually elect communist leaders. They are bitter because we supported Pakistan in the 80's, and Pakistan is still to some extent our friend. India just signed a 40 billion dollar long term deal with Iran for oil and natural gas, which to them was necessary considering they themselves produce almost no oil/gas. They also just recieved a 20 percent share in the development of a key Iranian oil field.

As you can see China and India, the world's most populous nations http://www.gesource.ac.uk/worldguide/guide_nations.html both have serious, nation breaking long term investments in Iran.

Which brings to mind a question. What would happen in the case of overt, declared war on Iran by the US? China currently has 20 DF-5 ICBM 5 megaton missiles in its inventory, all capable of reaching the west coast. They have about 80 nuclear weapons total. As of 1998, China was included in SIOP (since renamed OPLAN 8044), our nuclear operational plan.

Overt warfare is not a likely option IMO, due to mutually assured destruction. Unless our government has a true long term strategic plan which does not include the cabal of China, India and Iran in it. Which means first strikes on China at the least. India also posseses nuclear weapons, but how willing they are to use them is in question. But lets say the US has a different plan in mind.

In which case covert warfare will prevail, harkening back to the days of CIA funded and advised coups. The Coalition for Democracy in Iran was formed in 2001 to mobilize the efforts of a variety of groups and individuals across the United States supporting the aspirations of the Iranian people for freedom, democracy and respect for human rights in Iran. The CDI strongly supports President Bush's designation of Iran as part of the deadly "axis of evil." Michael Ledeen [of the American Enterprise Institute], Morris Amitay [a former director of the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC], and James Woolsley [former CIA director] formed the Coalition for Democracy in Iran, which has strong ties to the exiled Reza Pahlavi, the deceased shah's son.

Senator Sam Brownback (known as Mr. Iran by some) in 20 May 2003 introduced the Iran Democracy Act, asking for $50 million to fund opposition groups dedicated to the overthrow of the Islamic regime. The Iran Democracy Act would provide funds for pro-democracy broadcasting into Iran, would reform radio Farda to make it more effective, and would state that it is the policy of the United States to support transparent, full democracy in Iran; to support an internationally-monitored referendum in Iran by which the Iranian people can peacefully change the system of government in Iran. I don't know if it was passed or not.

On February 12 2004, the Senate passed an important resolution, S. Res. 304, that was submitted that same day by Senator Brownback. Denouncing the elections as harmful for true democratic forces in Iran, the resolution stated that the policy of the United States should be to advocate a democratic government in Iran that will restore freedom to the people of Iran, abandon terrorism, protect human rights, and live in peace and security with the international community.

O May 06 2004 the House passed H.CON.RES.398, which was introduced by HIRC Chairman Henry Hyde (R-IL) on March 25. It expresses “the concern of Congress over Iran’s development of the means to produce nuclear weapons,” and was passed under “suspension of the rules” on 06 May 2004. The final tally was 376 for the resolution, three against, 14 answering “present,” and 40 not voting. Opponents of this concurrent resolution charged that it led the country down the road to war against Iran. This resolution demands that Iran immediately cease all efforts to acquire nuclear enrichment activities and calls for the country to honor its stated commitments to grant IAEA inspectors unrestricted access to nuclear sites. But the resolution also calls upon all state parties to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty--including the United States--to use ``all appropriate means to deter, dissuade, and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.'' It also "calls on the President to use all appropriate means to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons..." Even if this bill doesn't authorize the use of force against Iran, it creates a precedent for future escalation, as did similar legislation endorsing ``regime change'' in Iraq back in 1998. This legislation called for yet more and stricter sanctions on Iran , including a demand that other countries also impose sanctions on Iran. Critics charged that sanctions were unmistakably a move toward war, particularly when, as in this legislation, a demand is made that the other nations of the world similarly isolate and blockade the country.

Bush has refused to rule out the use of force against Iran, Iran's defense minister has said that they will launch preemptive strikes if they feel their nuclear program is at risk. Iran's prime minister said in his election speech that their nuclear program will not be stopped by words. The CIA estimated in mid 2003 that Iran was 2-3 years away from developing a nuclear bomb.

Just ten minutes ago Fox News Channel had a little ticker tape thing that read "can the US leave enough troops in Iraq and still invade Iran?"

Sources: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iran-timeline.htm
http://www.nukestrat.com/china/indexchina.htm
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/china/icbm/df-5.htm

ghost squire
January 12, 2006, 06:43 PM
One more thing... I see perhaps a few other options, one being a strike, possibly utilizing tactical nukes, possibly by multiple US allies, against Iran's nuclear program. In which case Iran might get the idea to invade Iraq or Afghanistan, which in turn could possibly lead to us using tactical nukes against troop formations. Or Iran could mobilize their Revolutionary Guard (which initially trained Hezbollah, Al-queda and I believe the Taliban though I'm not positive on that) and trickle them in through the borders, fighting a guerilla style war against our troops. Or they could sit back and take it.

Its really hard to formulate theoretical scenarios when the game involves this many players, so much secrecy and such varied and high stakes. And the fact that fickle minds could decide the fate of nations.

Biker
January 12, 2006, 06:44 PM
Great post, Ghost Squire. I knew that China and Iran were in bed together, but I din't know that they were having a threesome with India.
One glaring problem is, whatever Israel does, we'll likely publicly back them if not actively participate. Either way, there will be hell to pay from the rest of the Islamic world for the USA.
In answer to the Fox poll....No.
Biker

engineer151515
January 12, 2006, 06:51 PM
Know your enemy.

Iran used children as young as twelve years old, tied together in groups, to lead human wave attacks across minefields in the Iraq/Iran war.

Iran today will be willing to go that far - and further - against US forces.

Lobotomy Boy
January 12, 2006, 07:09 PM
Krikee! I just got around to reading the article posted by Waitone. If this had happened during a different administration, I would have written it off as science fiction. Charlie Foxtrot indeed.

DigitalWarrior
January 12, 2006, 07:58 PM
When I read about the description of using Children to clear minefields, I just knew it HAD to be a pile of unsubstantiated rumors. Turns out it may not be.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War#Human_Wave_Attacks_in_the_Iran-Iraq_War

It is apparently largely invisible. I can only find two references to the origins of this story. First, there is the anonymous eastern european reporter, then there is a reporter with a history of fabrication.

If there is real evidence, I would love to see it. Until then I remain Skeptical:scrutiny:.

bjbarron
January 12, 2006, 08:05 PM
Looking at this scenario, I see a couple of things....

Israel will not allow Iran to have Nukes.
The American reaction depends totally on what happens with Israel.
The next US administration is an unknown.
The answer to one nuke is two.
Americans are not going to approve of invading another ME country without extreme provocation.
The China/America trading partnership has increased by 1000% in the past 20 years.
The press will be on the side of the Iranians.
The Mullahs control Iran in spite of the fact the majority of their population is young and not actively anti-American.
The Arab street is fickle and mostly bluster.

I see a couple of questions...

Is Iran mature enough to treat with as we did the Soviets?
What government will come to power in Israel now that Sharon is gone?
What do China and India think is better...Iran holding their energy needs at will, or the relatively short interruption a war would bring?

A couple of things aren’t really important….

Europe
The UN

I personally don’t think that there is much middle ground. They’ll deal (for something) or they’ll pull the trigger. Continuing a low-grade confrontation ain’t going to stop the ME from changing around them.

If the former, we’ll see spotty Iranian aggravations for decades, if the latter…Iran will not survive.

R.H. Lee
January 12, 2006, 08:22 PM
No war can be one on simply air power, occupation is necessary to secure and completely demoralize the enemy.
The purpose is not to 'win' the 'war'. The purpose is to deprive the aggressor of the means of aggression, by killing his troops and destroying his equipment. That can easily be accomplished with air power; no need for 'occupying troops'.
The biggest mistake in your plan is that you assume that everyone else in the world thinks like Westerners, the problem is that they don't. People of the Middle East will only understand that they are completely defeated when they are in fact undeniably humilitated by their aggressor. It doesn't matter how they 'think'. After their troops are killed and their war machines destroyed, they no longer have the ability to attack their neighbors. Game over.
No offense but isolationalism is pretty stupid and short sighted. The fact of the matter is that you (a nation) cannot remain powerful OR wealthy when they are uninvolved with international affairs. Engaging in international trade is hardly isolationism; economic benefits accrue to both buyer and seller. Military involvement OTOH simply weakens all participants and should be used as a last and short term resort.
In fact, the whole reason the US is the superpower today is BECAUSE of WWII! What do you think the world would look like if Germany and Japan were left unimpossed for a few more years? We would be speaking German And that's exactly the point. If Germany had been attacked and decimated as soon as it invaded Poland for example, WWII would never have happened, would it? ;)

Kodiaz
January 12, 2006, 09:16 PM
I've talked this over with my cousin a bunch of times and he thinks the festivities in Iran will begin in march.


Be prepared gentlemen be very prepared.

Biker
January 12, 2006, 09:33 PM
You have my attention. Expound if you would.
Biker

Shalako
January 12, 2006, 10:12 PM
I wonder how far America will go to win a war against Iran.

My guess would be just a big show of force at the beginning and then a long drawn out trickle of smaller engagements so that we don't:
1. destroy too many resources we will later need
2. kill too many civilians
3. upset the rest of the world

If it was a war for survival I'd propose:
1. flattening the entire country and putting zero men on the ground to take real estate.

carp killer
January 12, 2006, 10:17 PM
If we were to get distracted and spread thinner than we are in Iran, and if I was China, I would grab Taiwan.


And we are spread thin. Maybe Draft time?:eek:

Lobotomy Boy
January 12, 2006, 10:27 PM
If you really want to figure out what's going on with Iran, read the link Waitone posted:

http://www.energybulletin.net/7707.html

This is a bit pedantic to read, but it explains everything. This may be the most important essay you might ever read.

Gordon Fink
January 12, 2006, 10:27 PM
By the logic of the current war, the U.S. should absolutely invade Iran. That said, we have little to gain in this case. Of course, if Iran is going nuclear, then that means the example we’re making out of Iraq is not having the desired effect.

~G. Fink

CAnnoneer
January 12, 2006, 10:35 PM
.
In fact, the whole reason the US is the superpower today is BECAUSE of WWII!

But not for the reasons you stipulate. The US stepped into superpowerhood because the Germans, French, and British destroyed themselves and each other economically and politically in costly world wars.

Economic weakness leads to military weakness, and both lead to collapse. It has been true for virtually all major empires throughout history.

USSR is dead. If we continue projecting global military power, we will just bankrupt ourselves in a few decades. With the current type of people in power, it will take even less.

Finally, there is a wide grey area between total isolationism and total imperialism. Pulling back to our borders is not necessarily isolationist. It simply is not imperialist or fiscally irresponsible.

Art Eatman
January 12, 2006, 10:51 PM
R. H. Lee said, "We have enough oil reserves in the continental U.S. and Alaska to make us independent of reliance on foreign oil."

I just really do not believe that. We're importing over 50% of our national daily/annual usage. That's much more than the one million bpd estimated to be had from ANWR, and the offshore possible oil is another one or few million bpd. "New" oil from Alaska and from offshore fields isn't enough to make up the difference. It would probably help reduce current pricing, yeah. But that's all.

Now, we have alternative transportation fuels, but they're nowhere near being readily available. The big problem with them is that the energy required to provide them is a much larger percentage of the energy within. That is, oil is a 30:1 return on development energy. Alternatives are in the realm of 5:1.

Art

Kodiaz
January 12, 2006, 11:01 PM
Expound

Well Iran is going to fire up it's own exchange for oil in March.

And supposedly that's also supposed to be when Iran will be ready to start turning on reactors. So Israel isn't going to let that happen especially now. The guy replacing Sharon will almost gaurantee himself election by kicking some Iranian hind end. The only possible Israeli leader that has the stature and the stones to let the reactors fire up would have been Sharon. And he almost certainly would not have allowed it to happen. This year could be a real nasty one for the good ole USA unfortunately for me I'm only 31 and I didn't start looking at this kind of thing until Katrina. So IMHO I'm woefully unprepared I just hope I can get my tax return so I can buy my AR and a chunk of ammo.

CAnnoneer
January 12, 2006, 11:07 PM
http://www.energybulletin.net/7707.html


Thanks! Interesting article.

But, my take on it is that people will continue switching to euro, so long as the dollar keeps falling. The dollar keeps falling not because of petroeuro, but because of our trade imbalance and suicidal domestic and foreign policies.

If we pull back to our borders, stop providing free security and financial aid to foreign countries, cut military spending to a third of its current gigantomaniacal levels, and heavily invest in new technologies and industries, we will not only regain our economic power but revitalize our own country and nation with a new hope for a better future.

Globalists playing the "whack-a-mole" game with conventional and eventually nuclear clubs are only hastening our rapid decline. Ergo the tragedy of both Bush's administrations. The RINOs had a historic window of opportunity to make things right. They not only squandered them but did extra damage.

engineer151515
January 12, 2006, 11:32 PM
If there is real evidence, I would love to see it. Until then I remain Skeptical:scrutiny:.


My source:

MARINE CORPS HISTORICAL PUBLICATION

FMFRP 3-203 - Lessons Learned: Iran-Iraq War,
10 December 1990

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/war/docs/3203/

Chapter 2 "Overview" - page 10



"The Iranians first used the human wave attack on November 29, 1981, at Bostan. The brutality of the maneuver stunned the Iraqis. The Iranians hearded hundreds of children (some no more than 12 years old) into the combat zone to detonate concealed mines. The children were followed by Basij who threw themselves on the barbed wire, cutting through the entanglements under fire of the Iraqis........."

Lobotomy Boy
January 13, 2006, 12:12 AM
Thanks! Interesting article.


Thank Waitone--he posted that link on the first page of this thread. It was just so informative that I reposted it because it seemed that some had missed it.

The RINOs had a historic window of opportunity to make things right. They not only squandered them but did extra damage.

Two years ago I was fishing with one of my best friends and I told him exactly that. I said that the Bush administration had squandered the best opportunity for a truly conservative revolution in our lifetime by invading Iraq. A year and a half before that, in the fall of 2002, I told this same friend that we should not invade Iraq at that time because even though we would easily win a war with Iraq, there was no way we could win an occupation in the long run.

In turn, this same friend had a theory about why we were going to war with Iraq that was frighteningly close to the one postulated in the link Waitone posted. All that was missing in his theory was the part about the petro-dollar/petro-euro situation, which is sort of the missing link in all this. I have to say that his theory was a lot less obvious and a lot more perceptive than the ones I had.

Lupinus
January 13, 2006, 12:15 AM
R. H. Lee said, "We have enough oil reserves in the continental U.S. and Alaska to make us independent of reliance on foreign oil."

I just really do not believe that. We're importing over 50% of our national daily/annual usage. That's much more than the one million bpd estimated to be had from ANWR, and the offshore possible oil is another one or few million bpd. "New" oil from Alaska and from offshore fields isn't enough to make up the difference. It would probably help reduce current pricing, yeah. But that's all.

Now, we have alternative transportation fuels, but they're nowhere near being readily available. The big problem with them is that the energy required to provide them is a much larger percentage of the energy within. That is, oil is a 30:1 return on development energy. Alternatives are in the realm of 5:1.

There is a fix, drill where there is oil and tell the left wing tree huggers to go to the hot place. They shouldn't be allowed to completely destroy everything, but there are so many restrictions to drill and set up a refinery it is ridicules. Also we have a lot of farmers that are on hard times, switch them to sweet corn, tomatoes, other things high in sugar that are good for ethanol production. Ethanol can be made relatively cheaply, we have plenty of farmland and giving the farmers that have hit hard times a profit again would be a damn good thing, and it burns cleaner in your car anyway. Maybe not enough for a total switch but enough to blend into gas and make us much more self sufficient and not have to rely on the mid east nearly as much. Even in the winter I would rather rely on states that remain at a high enough temperature to grow crops like Florida and California then having to rely on the middle east.

Lobotomy Boy
January 13, 2006, 12:32 AM
There is a fix, drill where there is oil and tell the left wing tree huggers to go to the hot place. They shouldn't be allowed to completely destroy everything, but there are so many restrictions to drill and set up a refinery it is ridicules. Also we have a lot of farmers that are on hard times, switch them to sweet corn, tomatoes, other things high in sugar that are good for ethanol production. Ethanol can be made relatively cheaply, we have plenty of farmland and giving the farmers that have hit hard times a profit again would be a damn good thing, and it burns cleaner in your car anyway. Maybe not enough for a total switch but enough to blend into gas and make us much more self sufficient and not have to rely on the mid east nearly as much. Even in the winter I would rather rely on states that remain at a high enough temperature to grow crops like Florida and California then having to rely on the middle east.


There are a few problems with this, the primary one being that all this is not necessarily about controlling oil reserves but rather about controlling the oil-based economy. The oil companies running this country don't necessarily want more oil; they want higher profit margins on the oil they already have. More oil will only make oil cheaper and drive down profit margins. We don't want to control Iranian oil outright--we just want to make sure they sell it on our exchanges and in our currency. This is as much about propping up the dollar and financing our national debt as it is about depleting the world's oil supplies.

Second, it doesn't appear that there is enough easily recoverable oil in ANWAR to make up for the oil we consume from Arab countries.

Third, it looks like producing ethanol for use as fuel is a net energy-losing enterprise, though that hasn't been proven to my satisfaction. At best, however, it is a break-even proposition, especially when considering the decreased fuel economy vehicles experience when using oxygenated fuels. In Minnesota it appears our "green" policies requiring the use of ethanol are nothing more than welfare for ag producing companies like Cargill and ADM.

bigun15
January 13, 2006, 01:14 AM
God help us. After reading this thread, I think the world is ending.

MrTuffPaws
January 13, 2006, 01:29 AM
God help us. After reading this thread, I think the world is ending.

Yeah, imagine a world where the US just freaking left the world to it's own ends and got off the oil and onto renewable fuels.

tellner
January 13, 2006, 02:13 AM
Yeah, imagine a world where the US just freaking left the world to it's own ends and got off the oil and onto renewable fuels.

It would change every aspect of our foreign and much of our domestic policy. And not for the worse.

Nimitz
January 13, 2006, 02:30 AM
subscribing...very informative if not troubling thread....

and to think i ship out to bootcamp in May...at least i'll be protected since im going to college...I hope.

Chad

ghost squire
January 13, 2006, 04:35 AM
R. H. Lee said, "We have enough oil reserves in the continental U.S. and Alaska to make us independent of reliance on foreign oil."

I just really do not believe that. We're importing over 50% of our national daily/annual usage. That's much more than the one million bpd estimated to be had from ANWR, and the offshore possible oil is another one or few million bpd. "New" oil from Alaska and from offshore fields isn't enough to make up the difference. It would probably help reduce current pricing, yeah. But that's all.
There is a fix, drill where there is oil and tell the left wing tree huggers to go to the hot place. They shouldn't be allowed to completely destroy everything, but there are so many restrictions to drill and set up a refinery it is ridicules. Also we have a lot of farmers that are on hard times, switch them to sweet corn, tomatoes, other things high in sugar that are good for ethanol production. Ethanol can be made relatively cheaply, we have plenty of farmland and giving the farmers that have hit hard times a profit again would be a damn good thing, and it burns cleaner in your car anyway. Maybe not enough for a total switch but enough to blend into gas and make us much more self sufficient and not have to rely on the mid east nearly as much. Even in the winter I would rather rely on states that remain at a high enough temperature to grow crops like Florida and California then having to rely on the middle east.


The thing is, its not even a question about drilling on native soil anymore. There are only a few countries that haven't reached peak oil. Russia reached peak oil in the 70s or 80s, can't remember which, CONUS just headed over the peak oil hill (and I believe that included Texas). Iraq may only contribute something like 7 percent of the worlds oil, but its one of the only countries in the world that hasn't reached peak oil, it has recently been embargoed and not fully developed, and certainly is not being fully exploited right now for various reasons. Saudi Arabia is one of the countries that hasn't reached peak oil yet, but it's soon coming due to the harmful methods they use to extract oil. I think they have until 2025. Iran and Iraq are set to be major players in the future world of fossil fuels, as is our ally Saudi Arabia. The country that has ties with both has the power to control the world.

Lets make one thing clear, if this war is about the oil, and I think its clear that at least in part it is, we are fighting for the future. The future of the United States, possibly as much as a half century into it. Its clear that our current leaders are aggressive about the United States staying a superpower. Drilling on US soil is a relatively short term deal.

festivities in Iran will begin in march.
Lovely, thats my birthday.

Israel will not allow Iran to have Nukes.
The American reaction depends totally on what happens with Israel.
The next US administration is an unknown.
The answer to one nuke is two.
Americans are not going to approve of invading another ME country without extreme provocation.
The China/America trading partnership has increased by 1000% in the past 20 years.
The press will be on the side of the Iranians.
The Mullahs control Iran in spite of the fact the majority of their population is young and not actively anti-American.
The Arab street is fickle and mostly bluster.

I see a couple of questions...

Is Iran mature enough to treat with as we did the Soviets?
What government will come to power in Israel now that Sharon is gone?
What do China and India think is better...Iran holding their energy needs at will, or the relatively short interruption a war would bring?


Iran is not mature enough to treat with as we did the Soviets, clearly demonstrated by the fact that we declared them as a rogue state. I'm not sure what that last question means, could you rephrase it and perhaps go into it in more detail please?

Your statements show some excellent insight into the truth. I don't believe there will be a full scale ground war, if there is it will be followed by the big D.
The Mullahs control Iran in spite of the fact the majority of their population is young and not actively anti-American. True. Perhaps fertile ground for a coup if you ask me, the Iranian youth is thirsty for western goods and practices.

Call me a tinfoil hatter, but I don't believe the next presidency is an unknown. Not what with is at stake now, the future of America, so much time, effort and thought has already been poured into this project. If we pull out of Iraq now far too much could be lost. I think either the candidate set to win will accept current policy concerning the matter, or will befall an unfortunate accident involving dead male hookers and a goat, or as a last resort, a bullet.

If I were president I would order F-117 Nighthawks and B-2 Spirits to strike all aboveground facilities associated with Iran's nuclear program with conventional munitions, then assassinate key political and military figures and coup the government. I would ensure the government was at least semi-friendly to Chinese and Indian interests, staying loyal to the previous administrations contracts. China has a variety of revenges for us if we decide to nix their main source of fossil fuels, everything from state sponsored counterfeiting to dumping currency, or fiddling with the national debt and nuking us.

Then again Iran is a country that would be particularly hard to coup. For one thing their Revolutionary Guard would be a formidable foe. This coup couldn't be a haphazard thing, it would have to be thought out in great detail, prepared for and carried out perfectly and swiftly.

Great post, Ghost Squire. I knew that China and Iran were in bed together, but I din't know that they were having a threesome with India.
One glaring problem is, whatever Israel does, we'll likely publicly back them if not actively participate. Either way, there will be hell to pay from the rest of the Islamic world for the USA.

Thank you, and you're right about Islamic backlash. The problem is everything that benefits us, makes the Islamic world hate us.

Funny, I read http://www.energybulletin.net/7707.html only after I had made my first two posts in this thread, yet I see many of my views reinforced by it. It also brought to my attention some things that I find very interesting, thanks for linking me.


Hmmm... maybe someone should start a thead entitled, "If I were president", and everyone would chip in and say what they would do if they were president.

StrikeFire83
January 13, 2006, 04:40 AM
As I did in my other post, I would ask you folks exactly who it is that it going to fight this future war of yours?

Certainly not an American volunteer army stretched to its limits across the globe. Sure we can devistate Iran with our overwhelming techno-supremacy and impressive arsenal of fine weapons, but when it comes time to pacify/occupy, who is going to do the dirty work?

A war with Iran, at least in the next decade, means a draft. There's no way around it.

LAK
January 13, 2006, 04:47 AM
Expect it. Can not say when though.
----------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

StrikeFire83
January 13, 2006, 04:51 AM
Expect it. Can not say when though.
]

Expect what, the draft or a war with Iran?

slzy
January 13, 2006, 06:42 AM
surely Israel will strike Iran when they feel it necessary.no consensus building,no internet polls,no compromise.

Hook686
January 13, 2006, 06:44 AM
Tough situation but there had better be a resolution to the problem because the very last thing anyone wants is a radical Islamic government, with access to a high percentage of the world's oil supply, implementing a nuclear umbrella under which Islamic jihadists can conduct their violent actions. Bad, bad situation that will not go away. I hope for the best but I am more pessamistic about the Iran situation than I am about what's happening in Iraq.

True, but I'm not hearing anything about that third member of the "Axis of Evil".

Might make a tough situation unthinkable. :eek:

Kodiaz
January 13, 2006, 07:26 AM
Don't forget wars run up debt China owns a big chunk of our debt so we really can't do anything without China's blessing. We can't close our borders and raise tariffs so stuff gets built here. We can't stop selling them the technology that they blatantly pirate and sell. We can't start a war with Iran that will shut off China's oil.

Why do we have to take input from China.

BECAUSE THE AMERICAN DOLLAR IS WORTHLESS

Our once mighty currency is backed by nothing but massive debt. If China gets mad at us all they have to do is dump their dollars. Imagine waking up tomorrow and having the price of everything go up 10 times.

A lot of people will say China needs us to buy their goods. The U.S. use to make and buy most of what we made for a long time. China has a billion people they can buy a lot of stuff with the rest of the world buying the rest.

Even if Iran decide to give its reactors to Israel, the dollar is still going to go down in value. And all it takes is for the Chinese to get PO'd and they can trash our economy.

That is why the price of gold has been going up so much recently our money isn't worth as much as it used to be. Go to a gun show the prices are up too.

I bought a Ruger P94DC in 2001 for 380$(427 with tax and background) I went to a gunshow 2 months ago same gun was at 460.

Hopefully nothing hapens in Iran. But even if it doesn't we are still in for a bunch of trouble.

Face it non of these corrupt bastards are going to roll back govt. to a quarter of its size so we can pay the debt. So do yourselves a favor and be ready for some tough times. If your like me and you live in Fl say your getting ready for hurricane season early.

LAK
January 13, 2006, 08:00 AM
R. H. Lee said, "We have enough oil reserves in the continental U.S. and Alaska to make us independent of reliance on foreign oil."

I just really do not believe that. We're importing over 50% of our national daily/annual usage.
We are only importing over 50% of our usage because of the politically forced "interdependence" and corporate government cooperation with certain countries whose corporations pump, pipe and ship oil at the oil fix rate - and the client states in which the wells are geographically located. Not because we do not have sufficient oil and natural gas located on the CONUS.
-----------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

Lobotomy Boy
January 13, 2006, 10:10 AM
Originally Posted by MrTuffPaws
Yeah, imagine a world where the US just freaking left the world to it's own ends and got off the oil and onto renewable fuels.

It would change every aspect of our foreign and much of our domestic policy. And not for the worse.


It would certainly change every aspect of our policies for the worse as far as the oil companies who are the puppet masters of our "elected" officials; hence it won't happen under our current system. Energy independence for the U.S. would devestate the oil industry's collective profit margin. Political stability in the Middle East would devestate the oil industry's collective profit margin. The oil industry's collective profit margin has been proven to be of higher value than tens of thousands of human lives.

The Democrats offer no reasonable alternative to the Republicans on this. Yesterday I listened to John Kerry blather the same corporate-oil party line as the Bush administration.

Someone suggested a thread describing our actions if we were president. I think that the best suggestions would simply be a blueprint for a presidential assassination--anyone who did what was right for the country as opposed to what was right for the energy industry would soon be feeding the same worms as JFK.

How do these people live with themselves? How do they go to sleep at night?

carlrodd
January 13, 2006, 10:37 AM
subscribing...very informative if not troubling thread....

and to think i ship out to bootcamp in May...at least i'll be protected since im going to college...I hope.

Chad

uh....don't count on it. if you were in college and had not made a commitment to the military..i.e. enlisting in the reserves or national guard you might be ok. but since you say you're going to boot camp, i'm assuming you have done just that. you're enrollment in college will not be a factor if they need to call up whatever guard or reserve unit you're in. that's exciting though....you must wanna fight, so now you'll get your chance. i myself was qualifying with my m16 on 11 Sep 2001. imagine how that felt. you're goin to war chad.......hooah.

hey, since you're fate is sealed, just go active and do something high speed like joining the cavalry or airborne infantry.

nucstl1
January 13, 2006, 10:48 AM
We need to remember the majority of the Iranian population under 30. They are like-minded and want to join the western world. The U.S. will be very cautious not ot burn any bridges with the folks we need to take power. I agree with sevela posts about our actions in the ME, being based on the ultimate target of Iran. Iran is the center of gravity for the Islamofacists, but this is driven by the minorit that rule. I worked with an Iranian expat during the onset of GW2, and she was all for getting Saddam, but she mentioned that Tehran needed to be the next stop. Another item we need to remember....we never got paybacks for the little incident in '79....which of course was driven by the same folks in power today.

rick_reno
January 13, 2006, 11:35 AM
Here's a link that discusses this - and ties some of the dots together. It's too long to post here.

http://www.raidersnewsupdate.com/lead-story323.htm

trooper
January 13, 2006, 11:57 AM
Subscribing... fascinating thoughts here.


Trooper

Mongo the Mutterer
January 13, 2006, 12:07 PM
....we never got paybacks for the little incident in '79....which of course was driven by the same folks in power today.Yes, some of us remember. Maybe we should send Jimmy Carter over to negotiate??? He did soooo wellll with Yassir....:cuss:

Biker
January 13, 2006, 12:07 PM
Here's a link that discusses this - and ties some of the dots together. It's too long to post here.

http://www.raidersnewsupdate.com/lead-story323.htm
The world really has gone crazy. I don't have the words...
Biker

carlrodd
January 13, 2006, 12:23 PM
let's for a moment assume that in all these links, there is some thread of truth. it all seems very logical and plausible. does anyone else get the feeling that this administration is just hell-bent on pursuing these sorts of goals, despite the myriad of potential disasterous outcomes for our country? i'd like to hear some more about informed views on the agenda of this administration globally. any good links for this? i thought clinton was bad with the double-talk, but this admin is right up there.

progunner1957
January 13, 2006, 12:32 PM
One thing is certian though. Isreal will never, ever, allow Iran to own a nuclear weapon. NEVER. They will tell the world to pound salt and send a few F-15's to send a missle up allah's rear end. And to be honest I wouldn't blame them.

I wouldn't blame them either. Iran's "leader," Mahmoud - is just plain batdoodoo in the head. A psycho, antisemite bigot hell-bent on destroying a whole nation, and who has nuclear weapons. Greaaaaaaaat - just what the world needs.:what:

I hope if he keeps beating his babymaker on his chest, Israel smokes him.
We sold Israel those F15's for a reason...:D :D

benEzra
January 13, 2006, 12:47 PM
While the Russkies develop supercaviating torpedoes we develop supercavitating ground penetrators. If the physics is similar which do you think would be easier to engineer?
The torpedo is vastly easier. You can create a cavity in water by blowing a bubble (which is what the Shkval does; it is a rocket that pipes a small percentage of its exhaust forward to a second, annular exhaust in the nose, creating a bubble that the missile travels in).

When you invent a cheap, low-energy way to blow bubbles in solid rock, the supercavitating ground penetrator will be a reality. (And basements and tunnels will get a lot cheaper!)

We are only importing over 50% of our usage because of the politically forced "interdependence" and corporate government cooperation with certain countries whose corporations pump, pipe and ship oil at the oil fix rate - and the client states in which the wells are geographically located. Not because we do not have sufficient oil and natural gas located on the CONUS.
One of the largest natural gas deposits in the world sits off the Gulf Coast of Florida, but Florida won't drill it because they don't want the existence of over-the-horizon gas wells to "offend the tourists." So Florida just complains about high gas and oil prices instead.

We have lots of resources we choose not to use. But that's largely a domestic political problem, not a geostrategic one.

R.H. Lee
January 13, 2006, 01:56 PM
R. H. Lee said, "We have enough oil reserves in the continental U.S. and Alaska to make us independent of reliance on foreign oil."

I just really do not believe that. We're importing over 50% of our national daily/annual usage. That's much more than the one million bpd estimated to be had from ANWR, and the offshore possible oil is another one or few million bpd. "New" oil from Alaska and from offshore fields isn't enough to make up the difference. It would probably help reduce current pricing, yeah. But that's all.
Don't forget about the oil locked up in shale. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale) An estimated 1200 billion barrels. Add that to ANWR and untapped offshore fields will go a long way to providing all domestic consumption at current levels. Of course, the price will go up, at least initially, but that price increase will also lower demand and consumption.

As far as any U.S. nuclear strike on Iran, that would be complete folly (barring some cataclysmic attack on U.S. soil by the government of Iran). There are other ways to bring Iran into compliance and deter them from aggressive activities. (Mine, blockade their harbors; destroy oil fields and production facilities, etc.) We have no business killing millions of Iranian civilians and any U.S. President who ordered a nuclear attack on Iran should be turned over the the World Court or some other international body for trial and summary execution along with any members of Congress who authorized such an attack.

GoRon
January 13, 2006, 03:44 PM
Here's a link that discusses this - and ties some of the dots together. It's too long to post here.

http://www.raidersnewsupdate.com/lead-story323.htm

While the link is an interesting thought exercise.....

The fact that this guy and his book were featured on Coast to Coast with Art Bell leads me to take it all with a pound of salt.

hillbilly
January 13, 2006, 03:49 PM
I read through this thread and was struck by something.

Everyone is so anxious to discuss the minutae of "oil economies" and "global oil conspiracies" and other such stuff that the elephant in the room gets no mention at all.

No one on this thread seems to understand or appreciate the ugly, blatant truth about the fundamentalist Islamists running Iran.

They do want a war.

They do want a confrontation.

They want war because they are convinced, and are busy trying to convince everyone in their country, that they are really Holy Warriors who will win a miraculous victory by the grace of Allah over the evil, decadent, corrupt West.

Read the book "Reading Lolita In Tehran" for a look inside the mindset of such a regime.

To Iran, getting nukes is sort of like Crusaders following a piece of the "true cross" into battle.

The mullahs think that Iran will get nukes because Allah wants them to get nukes and wipe out Israel and the decadent West, especially the Great American Satan.

When you are a jihadi fighting in the service of Allah, nit-picky things like reality don't get in your way.

Or have you not noticed the jihadi insurgency in Iraq?

Nit-picky realities like helicopter gunships or determined Marines with machine guns don't matter a whole lot when you are a jihadi bent on martyrdom............

Or the jihadist suicide attacks in London and in Beslan and on the WTC and in Bali, and everywhere else?

Driving children in front of your troops to blow up minefields isn't cruel.....all the kids who got killed got to go to heaven as martyrs!!!!!!!!!

Folks, realize the potency of Islamic fundamentalism at work here.

When the mullahs say they want to destroy Israel and for conservative Islam to dominate the world.....they friggin' mean it.

That's what makes them so flippin' dangerous.

With the Soviets, there was at least the chance to play a game based on logic and reason.

With fundamentalist jihadis seeking martyrdom as the highest good, you can flat out forget that whole "logic and reason" stuff immediately.

hillbilly

hillbilly
January 13, 2006, 03:52 PM
Let me put it this way.........

If there was not a single solitary drop of oil in Iran, the mullahs would still want to nuke each and every single person reading this thread precisely and exactly because you aren't a fundamentalist Muslim.

hillbilly

Old Fuff
January 13, 2006, 04:00 PM
Yup... +1.

The Socialists in Europe and England, as well as our home-grown radical left Democrats always believe they can talk...talk...talk, and everything will come out right. They won't think otherwise until some mushroom clouds appear... :banghead:

carlrodd
January 13, 2006, 05:03 PM
While the link is an interesting thought exercise.....

The fact that this guy and his book were featured on Coast to Coast with Art Bell leads me to take it all with a pound of salt.

a whole pound?

carlrodd
January 13, 2006, 05:14 PM
Yup... +1.

The Socialists in Europe and England, as well as our home-grown radical left Democrats always believe they can talk...talk...talk, and everything will come out right. They won't think otherwise until some mushroom clouds appear... :banghead:


agreed, but that mushroom cloud might be from us. apparently there is no middle ground/road EVER in our country. it's either people on one side that have no backbone and refuse to stand up to the international community, or it's people reacting against that, or just plain being hawkish, and unable to consider the consequences of aggression. there IS middle ground. you can deal VERY firmly with other countries while not being negligent and repeatedly putting the welfare of your nation at risk. this administration is UNBENDABLE....kudos for that, but a number of its agendas and plans within plans have been ill-concieved....at best.

Lucky
January 13, 2006, 05:50 PM
What about supporting a pliable strong-man in power in Iraq to form a sort of balance-of-power between the two states. Would that work?

I suppose strong-men are like puppies though, if you stop paying attention to them they do something to get attention, pee on the furniture, or invade Kuwait. But they're so cute:)

Hook686
January 13, 2006, 06:40 PM
I think middle ground requires a willingness to stand for a moment in another's shoes and really be able to feel that experience ... tough to do when ones 1st thought is the other side (us-them) is out to beat us. We have fractionated our great nation all by ourselves I'm thinking ... and getting more like a tribal nation all the time.

Hook686
January 13, 2006, 06:48 PM
Today, 05:00 AM #68
LAK
Senior Member


[Originally Posted by Art Eatman

R. H. Lee said, "We have enough oil reserves in the continental U.S. and Alaska to make us independent of reliance on foreign oil."

I just really do not believe that. We're importing over 50% of our national daily/annual usage.

We are only importing over 50% of our usage because of the politically forced "interdependence" and corporate government cooperation with certain countries whose corporations pump, pipe and ship oil at the oil fix rate - and the client states in which the wells are geographically located. Not because we do not have sufficient oil and natural gas located on the CONUS.


Do you have a handle on what it might cost to refine that oil and what air quality standard that might apply to the products of that refining operation ?

Art Eatman
January 13, 2006, 09:03 PM
Jumping back in: It's less an air-pollution problem than it is a lack-of-water problem. The Piceance Creek area's oil shale is in a rather water-poor area. I forget which of the El Gigantico oil companies has a pilot program to heat the shale underground to liquify the oil.

Again: With conventional oil production, the input energy for production and transport is roughly 1/30th of the oil's energy. Such as oil shale production is about 1/5th of the oil's energy. Ergo, available but costly.

In 1975-ish, oil shale was thought to be competitive at $40/bbl of crude oil. In 2006 dollars, that's around $80 to $100/bbl for crude. Say $4/gallon at the pumps for gasoline.

Art

hillbilly
January 13, 2006, 10:15 PM
Oh yes.....how silly of me....to not take some sort of "middle ground" stance and consider things from Iran's point of view.

How silly of me to not think of empathizing and understanding a regime that has used herds of children as cost-effective land mine detonation devices.....:rolleyes:


How silly of me to seek some sort of middle ground with the man who gave the following speech........

Again, the speech below is not the rantings of some whacko with an obscure blog, he's not some shadowy talk-radio figure......he's not even some guy in a backwater "militia" organization.

The man who gave the speech below is none other than the friggin' president of a country that's about to get nuclear weapons.

Tell me where the "Middle Ground" is in the speech below.........Please, tell me.

I don't want more war.

But this guy is going to bring it whether we want it or not.

Even if the US went into total isolationism, the guy who gave the speech below would still wind up with nukes.

Read his speech, and think about that for a bit...........

hillbilly


http://mysite.verizon.net/rogmios/id79.html

The Iranian Students News Agency (ISNA), published the full text of Ahmadinejad's speech. The following is a translation of excerpts from ISNA's report and from the speech. [1]


"Prior to his statement, Ahmadinejad said that if you plan to chant the slogan 'Death to Israel,' say it in the right and complete way.

"The president warned the leaders of the Islamic world that they should be wary of Fitna [civil strife]: 'If someone is under the pressure of hegemonic power [i.e. the West] and misunderstands something is wrong, or he is naïve, or he is an egotist and his hedonism leads him to recognize the Zionist regime – he should know that he will burn in the fire of the Islamic Ummah [nation]…'


"Ahmadinejad articulated the real meaning of Zionism: '...We must see what the real story of Palestine is... The establishment of the regime that is occupying Jerusalem was a very grave move by the hegemonic and arrogant system [i.e. the West] against the Islamic world. We are in the process of an historical war between the World of Arrogance [i.e. the West] and the Islamic world, and this war has been going on for hundreds of years.


"'In this historical war, the situation at the fronts has changed many times. During some periods, the Muslims were the victors and were very active, and looked forward, and the World of Arrogance was in retreat.

"'Unfortunately, in the past 300 years, the Islamic world has been in retreat vis-à-vis the World of Arrogance… During the period of the last 100 years, the [walls of the] world of Islam were destroyed and the World of Arrogance turned the regime occupying Jerusalem into a bridge for its dominance over the Islamic world...


"'This occupying country [i.e. Israel] is in fact a front of the World of Arrogance in the heart of the Islamic world. They have in fact built a bastion [Israel] from which they can expand their rule to the entire Islamic world... This means that the current war in Palestine is the front line of the Islamic world against the World of Arrogance, and will determine the fate of Palestine for centuries to come.


"'Today the Palestinian nation stands against the hegemonic system as the representative of the Islamic Ummah [nation]. Thanks to God, since the Palestinian people adopted the Islamic war and the Islamic goals, and since their struggle has become Islamic in its attitude and orientation, we have been witnessing the progress and success of the Palestinian people.'


"Ahmadinejad said: 'The issue of this [World without Zionism] conference is very valuable. In this very grave war, many people are trying to scatter grains of desperation and hopelessness regarding the struggle between the Islamic world and the front of the infidels, and in their hearts they want to empty the Islamic world.


"'... They [ask]: 'Is it possible for us to witness a world without America and Zionism?' But you had best know that this slogan and this goal are attainable, and surely can be achieved…


"'When the dear Imam [Khomeini] said that [the Shah's] regime must go, and that we demand a world without dependent governments, many people who claimed to have political and other knowledge [asked], 'Is it possible [that the Shah’s regime can be toppled]?'


"'That day, when Imam [Khomeini] began his movement, all the powers supported [the Shah's] corrupt regime… and said it was not possible. However, our nation stood firm, and by now we have, for 27 years, been living without a government dependent on America. Imam [Khomeni] said: 'The rule of the East [U.S.S.R.] and of the West [U.S.] should be ended.' But the weak people who saw only the tiny world near them did not believe it.


"'Nobody believed that we would one day witness the collapse of the Eastern Imperialism [i.e. the U.S.S.R], and said it was an iron regime. But in our short lifetime we have witnessed how this regime collapsed in such a way that we must look for it in libraries, and we can find no literature about it.


"'Imam [Khomeini] said that Saddam [Hussein] must go, and that he would be humiliated in a way that was unprecedented. And what do you see today? A man who, 10 years ago, spoke as proudly as if he would live for eternity is today chained by the feet, and is now being tried in his own country...


"'Imam [Khomeini] said: 'This regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history.' This sentence is very wise. The issue of Palestine is not an issue on which we can compromise.


"'Is it possible that an [Islamic] front allows another front [i.e. country] to arise in its [own] heart? This means defeat, and he who accepts the existence of this regime [i.e. Israel] in fact signs the defeat of the Islamic world.


"'In his battle against the World of Arrogance, our dear Imam [Khomeini] set the regime occupying Qods [Jerusalem] as the target of his fight.


"'I do not doubt that the new wave which has begun in our dear Palestine and which today we are also witnessing in the Islamic world is a wave of morality which has spread all over the Islamic world. Very soon, this stain of disgrace [i.e. Israel] will be purged from the center of the Islamic world – and this is attainable.

"'But we must be wary of Fitna. For more than 50 years, the World of Arrogance has tried to give recognition to the existence of this falsified regime [Israel]. With its first steps, and then with further steps, it has tried hard in this direction to stabilize it.

"'Regrettably, 27 or 28 years ago... one of the countries of the first line [i.e. Egypt] made this failure [of recognizing Israel] – and we still hope that they will correct it.


"'Lately we have new Fitna underway… With the forced evacuation [of Gaza] that was imposed by the Palestinian people, they [the Israelis] evacuated only a corner. [Israel] declared this as the final victory and, on the pretext of evacuating Gaza and establishing a Palestinian government, tried to put an end to the hopes of the Palestinians.

"'Today, [Israel] seeks, satanically and deceitfully, to gain control of the front of war. It is trying to influence the Palestinian groups in Palestine so as to preoccupy them with political issues and jobs – so that they relinquish the Palestinian cause that determines their destiny, and come into conflict with each other.

"'On the pretext of goodwill, they [Israel] intended, by evacuating the Gaza strip, to gain recognition of its corrupt regime by some Islamic states. I very much hope, and ask God, that the Palestinian people and the dear Palestinian groups will be wary of this Fitna.

"'The issue of Palestine is by no means over, and will end only when all of Palestine will have a government belonging to the Palestinian people. The refugees must return to their homes, and there must be a government that has come to power by the will of the [Palestinian] people. And, of course those [i.e. the Jews] who came to this country from far away to plunder it have no right to decide anything for the [Palestinian] people.


"'I hope that the Palestinians will maintain their wariness and intelligence, much as they have pursued their battles in the past 10 years. This will be a short period, and if we pass through it successfully, the process of the elimination of the Zionist regime will be smooth and simple.

"'I warn all the leaders of the Islamic world to be wary of Fitna: If someone is under the pressure of hegemonic power [i.e. the West] and understands that something is wrong, or he is naïve, or he is an egotist and his hedonism leads him to recognize the Zionist regime – he should know that he will burn in the fire of the Islamic Ummah [nation]…

"'The people who sit in closed rooms cannot decide on this matter. The Islamic people cannot allow this historical enemy to exist in the heart of the Islamic world.


"'Oh dear people, look at this global arena. By whom are we confronted? We have to understand the depth of the disgrace of the enemy, until our holy hatred expands continuously and strikes like a wave.'"

lowracer
January 13, 2006, 10:42 PM
...Lies in our stockpile of some 350+ neutron bombs.

Neutron bombs, for those who do not remember their 1970's history, kill people with intense neutron radiation, but do not substantially harm buildings and other infrastructure. The neutron radiation is very short-lived as well, so that the bombed area becomes usable very quickly, once the bodies are disposed of.

Now the USA will never use these terrible neutron weapons against anyone, because we will be afraid of what the rest of the world would say about us, especially the French.

However, it would not be expensive at all to ship 350+ neutron bombs to Israel under cover of night. The Israelis have the means and the motive to deliver them, and deliver them all. Our GPS system could help them place these weapons right on target.

Yes many innocent people will be killed. It's simply the cost of war. This war would be won in a matter of hours. Iran would cease to exist.

Any nation which protested this would be quietly reminded that we actually have a lot more than 350 neutron bombs on stockpile.

CAnnoneer
January 13, 2006, 10:52 PM
I too like fusion bombs, but they should be our Option B.

We can still get our internal and external affairs in order, without wiping countries off the map. However, time is running out and the soft approach requires immediate action, if Option B is to be avoided.

Biker
January 13, 2006, 10:55 PM
...Lies in our stockpile of some 350+ neutron bombs.

Neutron bombs, for those who do not remember their 1970's history, kill people with intense neutron radiation, but do not substantially harm buildings and other infrastructure. The neutron radiation is very short-lived as well, so that the bombed area becomes usable very quickly, once the bodies are disposed of.

Now the USA will never use these terrible neutron weapons against anyone, because we will be afraid of what the rest of the world would say about us, especially the French.

However, it would not be expensive at all to ship 350+ neutron bombs to Israel under cover of night. The Israelis have the means and the motive to deliver them, and deliver them all. Our GPS system could help them place these weapons right on target.

Yes many innocent people will be killed. It's simply the cost of war. This war would be won in a matter of hours. Iran would cease to exist.

Any nation which protested this would be quietly reminded that we actually have a lot more than 350 neutron bombs on stockpile.

You are joking, of course.
Biker:rolleyes:

Old Fuff
January 13, 2006, 11:01 PM
carlrodd:

There IS middle ground. You can deal VERY firmly with other countries while not being negligent and repeatedly putting the welfare of your nation at risk.

If there was not a single solitary drop of oil in Iran, the mullahs would still want to nuke each and every single person reading this thread precisely and exactly because you aren't a fundamentalist Muslim. (Hillbilly).

I don’t think there is much of a middle ground when you are dealing with fanatics, and that was the point “Hillbilly” and I were trying to make. If you believe otherwise I think you are naïve.

As a child my memory goes back to World War Two. Hitler was by most everyone’s perception a classic fanatic. During the late 1930’s many people, in and out of various European governments thought that “war in out times” could be prevented through negations – that after all was what the League of Nations was for, and Hitler after all was… well… reasonable.

Franklin Roosevelt knew better, as did Winston Churchill, and history proved them to be right. World War Two ended with Unconditional Surrender, and not a “middle ground” deal, because with Nazism and the Japanese Empire there was no middle ground, only total defeat.

Harry Truman followed Roosevelt, and while he ended World War Two with 2 Atomic Bombs, he (and The United Nations) ended the Korean War with a negotiated settlement, and we have been stuck there ever since.

At least in the above examples the leaders didn’t have nuclear weapons, but that might change shortly – in both Iran and North Korea. Both countries are ruled by fanatics who have no interest in any middle ground, but see negotiating over it as an excellent way to stall for time, while they go forward in their plans to become nuclear powers.

The Socialists in Europe, and their counterparts in the United States are slow learners. They believe that any country’s leaders can be brought to the table and that discussions will ultimately lead to a fair “middle ground” solution. I highly doubt it. It should be remembered that the Japanese were negotiating a settlement of this kind with Roosevelt’s State Department when their bombers struck Pearl Harbor. Hopefully that taught us something.

Countries such as Iran and North Korea are often (and accurately) described as “Rouge States.” If we think that negotiations, sanctions, U.N. resolutions, and even threats and ultimatums will blunt their insane ambitions and intentions we will likely see the day when New York, Washington D.C., or perhaps Los Angeles are converted to radioactive rubble under a mushroom cloud.

If there are any survivors you can explain to them about middle ground…

Joejojoba111
January 13, 2006, 11:42 PM
...Lies in our stockpile of some 350+ neutron bombs.

Neutron bombs, for those who do not remember their 1970's history, kill people with intense neutron radiation, but do not substantially harm buildings and other infrastructure. The neutron radiation is very short-lived as well, so that the bombed area becomes usable very quickly, once the bodies are disposed of.

Now the USA will never use these terrible neutron weapons against anyone, because we will be afraid of what the rest of the world would say about us, especially the French.

However, it would not be expensive at all to ship 350+ neutron bombs to Israel under cover of night. The Israelis have the means and the motive to deliver them, and deliver them all. Our GPS system could help them place these weapons right on target.

Yes many innocent people will be killed. It's simply the cost of war. This war would be won in a matter of hours. Iran would cease to exist.

Any nation which protested this would be quietly reminded that we actually have a lot more than 350 neutron bombs on stockpile.

See? You all thought it was inconceivable that anyone but the lunatic president of Iran could think like that. Lowracer has shown you how very easy it is to think in such a manner, I bet a great many of you read his post objectively, and took quite a while before you realized he was performing a political satire on us.

Because if anyone tries to convince me that such a war is 'right' or 'wrong', they are wasting their time. There's no place for morals in such a conflict, anyone who pretends there is scares me as they are clinically delusional.

If you want to propose nuclear war, propose it because it can be won. Propose it because it can be profitable, because it will be entertaining, any legitimate reason. But don't waste our time with righteousness.

Incidentally, it can't be won. Aiui neutron bombs are not that simple, and the one's from the 1970's don't exist anymore, etc etc there are many factual problems. However, even if the situation were possible, 2 immediate problems loom. #1 Retaliatory strikes by major powers. #2 side effects on allies.

Don't kid yourself, if you launch at Iran you should be prepared for warheads to impact every city, base, and installation on the North American continent. If you aren't prepared to destroy 95% of all life on Earth in less than a decade's time, then it's unwise to suggest state A using nuclear weapons on State D which aquires nuclear weapons from state B to respond to State C who was given nuclear weapons by state A who was in a prolonged brinksmanship with state B.

If Iran launched at Israel, would the US respond? Ok, that answered, now ask, if Israel launched at Iran, is it possible that someone else might respond? Nuclear warfare is a completely different ballgame VERY different.

CAnnoneer
January 14, 2006, 12:44 AM
#1 Retaliatory strikes by major powers. #2 side effects on allies.

These arguments have been given before on this board. So, as usual, I am posing the question:

If A nukes B before B acquires nukes to likely nuke A and C, why would C or D even consider nuking A?

CAnnoneer
January 14, 2006, 12:47 AM
Aiui neutron bombs are not that simple, and the one's from the 1970's don't exist anymore, etc etc there are many factual problems.

This is the first time I hear we no longer have neutron/hydrogen/fusion bombs or that there are problems with them. Please elaborate.

Biker
January 14, 2006, 12:48 AM
Ever consider that b *already* has nukes? Or, perhaps even more importantly, that b has...*friends with nukes*?
Biker

Lobotomy Boy
January 14, 2006, 12:59 AM
If A nukes B before B acquires nukes to likely nuke A and C, why would C or D even consider nuking A?

Though I am but a simple liberal arts major who has never taken a college level algebra course, I'm going to give this a whirl.

Let's see:

A-B(B-N)=CD+N(CD+N-A)

I think the math would be far more complex than that. Iran is in the hands of religious fundamentalist nut jobs, to be certain. Hillbilly suggests that there can be no middle ground because of this, and he is correct to assume that there is no compromise possible with a religious fundamentalist nut job. But he does not consider the geopolitics of oil in his assessment of the situation, so his equation is far too incomplete to yield a solution.

Yes, the Middle East is run by religious fundamentalist nut jobs. And yes the turmoil in the region is ultimately all about the oil. To arrive at some sort of reasonable solution, you cannot consider one fact in the absence of the other.

CAnnoneer
January 14, 2006, 01:22 AM
Ever consider that b *already* has nukes?

Then we are screwed already. There will be no MAD stalemate with these jokers. But, AFAIS from media reports, that is not the case yet. Also, a maniac like them would immediately boast about having nukes if he did, for a number of reasons.


Or, perhaps even more importantly, that b has...*friends with nukes*?
Biker

Who are these friends and why would they risk their necks?

Joejojoba111
January 14, 2006, 05:05 AM
Neutron bombs decayed faster than normal warheads half life 10 or 20 years or such. Short shelf lifes and high costs. And the whole theory was tactical. Soviets trained second crews to re-crew the tanks the first bomb killed off, and so-on, even though the armor would still be radioactive. Plus more effort was put into defences against such weapons on the part of the tanks. There would still be a blast, and all that stuff you associate with a nuclear boom. The difference was that tanks were less succeptible to the overpressure effects, so the whole enhanced radiation effect was dreamt up. Of course the media, in all its accuracy, took the whole 'it doesn't blow down buildings it just kills humans' notion and ran with it.

Why would Russia use nuclear weapons? Why would the USA? Why would Israel? Why would Iran? One reason is because they are there. What's the branch of the Russian military which has generally escaped the debilitating budget cuts? That's right. Not only that, but they have been upgrading to brand new missiles. Just for the sake of argument, if you pretend that Iran is to Russia as Israel is to America, there is good reason to believe that Iran could already have nukes - because Israel already has them. Why would Russia nuke Israel? For the same reasons America would nuke Iran, retaliation. In the nuclear war game, you take tiny itsy bitsy small chances, only. You don't take huge honking chances like 'I hope they don't have anything, and I hope the Russians don't mind missiles flying towards them. ('Cause the Russians are reasonable, it's not like they'd shoot down a passenger jet that entered their airspace and had only a small possible theoretical chance to have some malicious intent. Nope they are very forgiving and very patient.:( )

And want to believe that the new-and-improved patriots will save anyone, go ahead and believe it. What I could be persuaded to believe is that they can finally intercept a V2 or some other simple and antiquated ballistic missile without countermeasures. I'm not sure whether Iran's missiles fit that description. For what it's worth Israel also has large bulky lasers too. (and even when things are working perfectly, no-one guarantees 100% hits)

Then there's the problem of 'what if they are using cobalt in some way?'. If it's a pre-irradiated cobalt dirty-bomb, then shooting it mid-air would just scatter the material around, and radioactive cobalt pretty much the most radioactive stuff you can find.

IMO the only logical use for nuclear weapons would be if it was to destroy missiles being launched by Iran. You could give them a warning - Iran, you've been acting the dick, if you launch any missiles at all we will intercept them with nuclear airbursts as close to your launch site as possible.

Because I kind of suspect that Iran already has something, and they are goading Israel to attack them so they can use it. If I was a leader bent on hitting Israel with nukes, and I knew their MO, I'd have my reactor go catastrophic when they hit it, launch my nukes at them, and sit back in confidence that if I didn't die everyone would look at the situation and say, "Yea, Israel blew up their reactor and it made a nuclear mess, so when Iran launched those missiles at Tel Aviv to make a nuclear mess it doesn't seem that bad." And everyone who suggested Iran sabotaged their own reactor would be the lunatic conspiracy theorists.

telomerase
January 14, 2006, 06:56 AM
>If I was a leader bent on hitting Israel with nukes, and I knew their MO, I'd have my reactor go catastrophic when they hit it,

Probably not an option. No one builds Chernobyl-style ("positive void coefficient") reactors anymore (though US foreign aid is keeping a couple of the crappy things running in various ex-Soviet locations).

LAK
January 14, 2006, 07:49 AM
Do you have a handle on what it might cost to refine that oil and what air quality standard that might apply to the products of that refining operation ?
This again is a manifestation of a government dominated by people with a global agenda, who will not take the necessary action to change our direction. The fact of the matter is; we are already refining oil; we import oil - not ready-to-pump gasoline. With appropriate action by the Legislatures, newer, more efficient and cleaner refineries could have been built a long time ago.
------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

Lobotomy Boy
January 14, 2006, 10:41 AM
Who are these friends?

China, India, and Russia.

...and why would they risk their necks?

Oil. Lots and lots of easily extractable oil. If China, India, or Russia nuked Saudi Arabia, we would retaliate too.

Lupinus
January 14, 2006, 01:37 PM
Oil. Lots and lots of easily extractable oil. If China, India, or Russia nuked Saudi Arabia, we would retaliate too.
Possibly, but Im not sure they are willing to be completly obliterated for the sake of Iranian oil. The current fundies or the next guys to pick up the pieces, they can still get the oil since I doubt highly we would nuke the oil fields. Then agian I doubt we would use anything nuclear unless by the small chance it was a very small tacticle nuke. With all the emphisis we put on not killing civilians I doubt we would launch city killer type nukes unless it was in retaliation for such an attack on us. In the course of regular warfair I think nukes would be restricted to enhanced bunker buster type attacks or maybe massed formations outside of major cities. With how much care we take to not hit civilians I doubt we would launch a massive ICBM to take out Irans cities.

telomerase
January 14, 2006, 01:45 PM
Conoco-Philips thinks the US is going to attack some oil-producing state, presumably to knock out production as we are doing in Iraq.. They 'overpaid' for Burlington Resources to acquire more domestic gas. Wall Street hammered the stock price, but I'll bet C-P management knows what it's doing.

Art Eatman
January 14, 2006, 04:25 PM
LAK, we do indeed import refined products such as gasoline. One of the reasons no new refineries have been built in the U.S. in the last thirty years is that there are fewer pollution controls in the foreign oil-prodeuction countries, and thus the construction/operating cost is more profitable.

Art

Waitone
January 14, 2006, 04:43 PM
LAK, we do indeed import refined products such as gasoline. One of the reasons no new refineries have been built in the U.S. in the last thirty years is that there are fewer pollution controls in the foreign oil-prodeuction countries, and thus the construction/operating cost is more profitable.During Katrina I saw an article pointing out how the US government causes more problems than it solves. The example used was how in 2006 IIRC a new law would kick in which would keep US oil companies from importing gasoline into the US. Seems them foreign refineries make gasoline unfit for US consumption.

If I remember correctly and IF the article is accurate, we are looking at a deliberate restriction in supply during a time of contracting supply. Now, who do you suppose benefits by fed.gov restricting supplies in the face of contracting supplier? Hmmmmm? :scrutiny:

carlrodd
January 14, 2006, 08:57 PM
Oh yes.....how silly of me....to not take some sort of "middle ground" stance and consider things from Iran's point of view.

How silly of me to not think of empathizing and understanding a regime that has used herds of children as cost-effective land mine detonation devices.....:rolleyes:


How silly of me to seek some sort of middle ground with the man who gave the following speech........

Again, the speech below is not the rantings of some whacko with an obscure blog, he's not some shadowy talk-radio figure......he's not even some guy in a backwater "militia" organization.

The man who gave the speech below is none other than the friggin' president of a country that's about to get nuclear weapons.

Tell me where the "Middle Ground" is in the speech below.........Please, tell me.




hillbilly, when i say middle ground, i mean considering ALL of the factors and potential outcomes and consequences of our actions.......show me how this administration has really ever done this. seems they identify a goal, for better or worse, and follow the first course of action that comes to mind. i do NOT, when i say middle ground, mean treating with, placating, or trying to empathize with jack asses like this iranian president and iran's crazy cleric club. they must be put in their place, period. but there are SO very many ways to go about this....and i am saying that our current administration seems intent upon choosing the loudest, least well thought out way.

for goodness sake....they determined that they wanted to go into iraq....did they pay heed to the MAJORITY of senior ranking general officers and military advisors?.....not at all. d. rumsfeld had his mind made up that it should be done "this way", and so it was done. the result?....an ill-concieved invasion with an even more poorly thought out occupation plan. should we expect anything different with this impending conflict with iran?....i say no.

Hook686
January 15, 2006, 03:28 AM
carlrodd:





I don’t think there is much of a middle ground when you are dealing with fanatics, and that was the point “Hillbilly” and I were trying to make. If you believe otherwise I think you are naïve.



I think I understand ... my thought was you sound rather fanatical to me, as does invading another country, or talking 1st strike with nuclear weapons. Just my personal view, certainly the minority view. I once heard a wise man say, "Violence is the refuge of an incompetent man." War sucks .... big time.

PCGS65
January 15, 2006, 09:32 AM
Irainian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad reminds me of Adolf Hitler by wanting to kill all the jewish people/wipe israel off the map. Except probably worse with the bomb.:uhoh:
Checkout this link.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060115/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_nuclear;_ylt=Av6dG1igKDsJjq3wLvNTTIKs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3b3JuZGZhBHNlYwM3MjE-

GoRon
January 15, 2006, 10:42 AM
did they pay heed to the MAJORITY of senior ranking general officers and military advisors?.....not at all. d. rumsfeld had his mind made up that it should be done "this way", and so it was done.
Where did you find out the majority of high ranking generals were against going into Iraq?

but there are SO very many ways to go about this....and i am saying that our current administration seems intent upon choosing the loudest, least well thought out way.
What are the options when dealing with a country whose leaders have made it clear what they want and are going to do? They want to see Israel destroyed, the west out of the middle east and they are developing nuclear weapons. What do you not understand? I am all for talk and dialog, but it takes two willing parties to reach an agreement and they are not going to compromise.

Prepare for a conflict with Iran, because it looks like that is what THEY want.

CAnnoneer
January 15, 2006, 04:11 PM
Prepare for a conflict with Iran, because it looks like that is what THEY want.

That may be, but WE cannot afford to enter it by conventional means only, while military specialists agree that policing after the "shock and awe" would be far worse than Iraq. So, a solution would have to involve nukes to be effective, yet the political price would be prohibitive. Hence, I fear the civilian grofaz's in WashDC will concoct some compromise monstrosity that would be the final blow on us as a world power. THAT is why going in Iran is insane.

Kim
January 15, 2006, 04:43 PM
I agree with Hillbilly. As much as the President and our politicians and MSM have made the effort to cloud over the real problem and placate the masses emotions I am afraid this is all going to end badly. The truth is we are fighting a totalitarian ideology. One based on a Religion. One of a deeply held belief system worse than the Nazi's. It is so evident for those who open their eyes. The reason these people comment suicide is relgious based. The reason they kill is not what we have been told-poverty,US presence in Saudia Arabia, Israel -Palestine conflict. It is their religion. Now no one wants to talk of this but not doing so may well be the death of the West. They are willing to kill themselves as they see it as a holy thing to do and as dying fighting for Allah and The House of Islam gets them directly into Paradise bypassing Judgement as they are judged on good works not Grace. This is why we have a BIG problem. We did not cause it. NO matter what the lefties say. Iran must be stopped from having a nuclear bomb. Will that solve the long term problem but it will buy time for what I am not sure.

Hacker15E
January 15, 2006, 06:39 PM
Based on several discussions I've had with officers from another central Asian country, the majority of the people in Iran are not anti-American radical Muslims. They *are*, however, very nationalistic, and as Persians also somewhat anti-Arab.

These officers also felt that Iran was a bit of a North Korea wannabe -- they've seen how nuclear sabre-rattling out of NK has caused the west to treat them with some level of respect in the international community, and Iran thinks that this type of verbal bullying (probably backed up by some actual nuclear work) will help their world stature. Additionally, they know that they can affect the US economy in an instant with their oil production.

IMHO, it would be a big mistake to go punching them in the mouth outright. It would be smarter to let Israel do their thing, then see what happens.

CAnnoneer
January 15, 2006, 11:56 PM
IMHO, it would be a big mistake to go punching them in the mouth outright. It would be smarter to let Israel do their thing, then see what happens.

+1

Just for once maybe we can avoid being Israel's mittens.

trooper
January 16, 2006, 10:40 AM
The truth is we are fighting a totalitarian ideology.

Nope, not really... actually you're fighting several ideologies who again fight among themselves, too. Just think about the ongoing violent conflict between Sunnis and Shi'ites in Iraq. Throw in various tribal loyalties, different political party affiliations and Arab, Persian and Kurdish nationalism and you have a really, really complicated puzzle to solve.

A simple "us vs. them" just doesn't cut it.


Regards,

Trooper

USMCRotrHed
January 16, 2006, 02:32 PM
The world really has gone crazy. I don't have the words...


I have a few:

The religious side of me says....Good the second coming of Christ is near.
The survivalist side says....How much for kerosene, a generator, and 5 cases of Wolf ammo in 5.56 and 7.62x39.
The capitalist in me says.....how much for that Big Mac.
The jarhead in me says....if I lose that 25 pounds will the Marines still take me at 37.
The political junkie in me says....why won't any real leaders run for office.
The investor in me says....buy oil stock and gold bullion.

If you enjoyed reading about "iran war" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!