Iran

[bascule]

So, what countries do we 100% trust wSith nukes?

 

I don't trust anyone with nukes, including America.

 

Russia? France?

 

Well, relative to the others you list, these aren't too bad...

 

Pakistan?

 

Pakistan scares me greatly, not because of Musharraf, but because of the possibility of Musharraf's regime being toppled and someone else (like Al Qaeda?) taking control of the country and with it their nuclear arsenal.

 

India?

 

I always worry about nuclear escalation between Pakistan and India...

 

North Korea?

 

North Korea is presently my biggest worry (as far as nuclear powers go at present). They're working on both uranium and plutonium bomb cores. Unsubstantiated rumor has it that they're also working on developing hydrogen bombs. They supposedly have a variant of their TD-2 ICBM that can hit the west coast of the US. And they're selling this technology to Iran. Scary, scary stuff.

 

Israel?

 

Religious fanatics and nuclear weapons just do not mix.

 

China?

 

China just confuses me. I can't tell if they want to kick our ass with a ground invasion or just in the international marketplace.

 

Otherwise, I just see nuclear proliferation. There just isn't enough downside currently, and I don't think the US should invade every country that "might" have nukes.

 

Well, the big difference with Iran is that they're threatening to wipe Israel off the map. They're developing nuclear weapons and ICBMs with a 6000km range. The other difference is, as yet, they don't seem to have developed any nukes. We still have a chance to stop them. We don't need a ground invasion as much as just some cruise missile attacks.

[patcalhoun]

I don't trust anyone with nukes, including America.

 

You seem to be doing well regardless.

 

We still have a chance to stop them. We don't need a ground invasion as much as just some cruise missile attacks.

 

And how do you handle facilities buried under 20 meters of limestone and granite? Tomahawks don't come equipped with jackhammers and lunchbreaks.

[Jim]

You seem to be doing well regardless.

 

 

 

And how do you handle facilities buried under 20 meters of limestone and granite? Tomahawks don't come equipped with jackhammers and lunchbreaks.

 

No worries. It's all in the capable hands of the international community which, if given half a chance, could have made the Iraq invasion entirely unnecessary. All America has to sit back and let the master diplomats from the EU do their thing.

[doG]

And how do you handle facilities buried under 20 meters of limestone and granite?

That sounds like a good test for the B61-11

[bascule]

That sounds like a good test for the B61-11

 

Yeah, use nukes to destroy nukes... what a great idea

 

</SARCASM>

[Bettina]

So' date=' what countries do we 100% trust wSith nukes?

Russia? France? Pakistan? India? North Korea? Israel? China?

 

In addition to my previous idea, we could add that if a country doesn't allow inspections, then the facilities will be bombed. That doesn't fix North Korea, but they could be covered under the first provision.

 

Otherwise, I just see nuclear proliferation. There just isn't enough downside currently, and I don't think the US should invade every country that "might" have nukes.[/quote']

 

The only ones I can remotely trust is any country not run by mullahs.

 

Russia, China and the US, for example, have had them a long time and were level headed enough not to use them against each other.

 

The mullahs are a different story...

 

Bettina

[patcalhoun]

Yeah, use nukes to destroy nukes... what a great idea

 

You're the one who suggested a cruise missile strike in the first place.

[bascule]

You're the one who suggested a cruise missile strike in the first place.

 

Yes, I did. Having fun trolling?

[patcalhoun]

Yes, I did. Having fun trolling?

 

I gotta ask, and I'm only asking once. What did you get out of that snide remark to Dog? Dog at least made the connection that the only way you can present get to a bunker that deep in limestone and granite is with nukes. And, like you said, "[w]e don't need a ground invasion as much as just some cruise missile attacks." A conventional penetrator can only achieve about 300 meters per second in its terminal run. How deep can it penetrate, bascule?

 

We don't need to go for each other's throats, and I have no intentions of taking the bait. So why don't you and I put our differences behind us and get along. And apologize to Dog. I know you're better than that.

[bascule]

I gotta ask, and I'm only asking once. What did you get out of that snide remark to Dog?

 

It wasn't intended to be a snide remark, and I assumed doG was joking. I thought of making the same joke myself.

 

Dog at least made the connection that the only way you can present get to a bunker that deep in limestone and granite is with nukes.

 

I'd request a source on the physical configuration of these bunkers you allege, but really you're just a boring person to discuss anything with and I'm quite close to putting you on ignore.

[patcalhoun]

It wasn't intended to be a snide remark, and I assumed doG was joking. I thought of making the same joke myself.

 

Okay then, I'll accept that.

 

I'd request a source on the physical configuration of these bunkers you allege, but really you're just a boring person to discuss anything with and I'm quite close to putting you on ignore.

 

Fair enough. Well, we have:

 

Source 1.

An air raid on Iran's nuclear facilities, he said, would ultimately fail since some of the reactors are hidden deep in underground bunkers.

 

Source 2.

Yes' date=' but they likely would require extensive bombing and cause huge civilian casualties. Iran has spread its nuclear program over more than a dozen facilities, some 75 feet or more underground. Many are near cities.[/quote']

 

and Source 3.

To locate and then strike these disbursed and underground facilities … would probably require not air power but nuclear weapons

 

Your remarks aren't especially uninformed because you suggested an air strike. You suggested a cruise missile strikes. Tomahawks have no deep penetration ability whatsoever, and they only carry 1,000 pound warheads or nukes.

[5614]

Either that post from Jerusalem Post is not complete (ie. there is more important info you didn't quote) or it was not telling the whole story.

 

Along with the Air Force, special units have been mobilised in case of an attack against Iran. They will be transported via helicopted to the underground areas where they will personally deal with the issue.

 

This is all the "official gossip" although the Israeli government (as far as I know) have still not officially said much.

[patcalhoun]

Either that post from Jerusalem Post is not complete (ie. there is more important info you didn't quote) or it was not telling the whole story.

 

Those links were to refute bascule's claim that a cruise missile attack would be sufficient. It's borderline obvious that the inability of an airstrike to achieve the objective's effects necessitates an airland operation.

[Soonerborn]

I tell you what scares me is that these nut jobs have learned alot about what to do from the Iraq War and they are actually putting it in action.

 

1. They cleaned out the military, intelligiance and security forces, replacing many top level people with hardliners.

 

2. They are appointing military officers to positions normally held by civilians such as mayors.

 

3. They have built new bases and command bunkers next to (or under) important holy sites and areas with high civilian populations.

 

4. They have built a series of deep bunkers in the mountians along the Iraqi border that can hold 250K troops and another 500k civilians.

 

5. China and Russia both used Iraq to test out some weapon systems and have helped Iran greatly in applying the knowledge gained. Example is the silkworm missile that hit Kuwait City and now Iran just completed testing its new and revamped silkworm missile batteries in late December.

 

6. Iran has undertaken a huge military buildup expected to be completed sometime in 2007

 

7. Use the media especially the US media. Remember how "hopeless" Afghanistan was after 3 weeks? How about the "huge quagmire" the US Army got bogged down in because of a sandstorm in the middle of the fastest military advance in history? The media just loves to over dramatize things.

 

You start piecing all this together and intentions become clear. They believe that they can get into a fight with the US and others and win, not by actually beating them but by outlasting them.

 

I believe their overall plan is something like this. Commence puffing the chest and blustering. Begin developing nuclear weapons or make it look like you are and deny it. Walk a fine line between diplomacy and threats to draw the aggressive nations into attacking but without the wide support of the UN using a Russia and/or China veto to stop any major multination attack. While that is going on prepare to hold off against a ground invasion and move priority targets into areas that will sustain collateral damage during bombings. When the attack comes get lots of pictures of people carrying arms and legs around digging for survivors, wounded women and children in the hospitals and blown up holy sites to distribute to international news services. Force the US to commit ground forces and inflict high casualties at any cost. Hold out against a ground attack long enough for world wide protest to cause the UN to intervene or the US to stop and broker a ceasefire. Allow the inspectors in to show that no nuclear weapons are being developed (if there actually never was any real attempt) or tell them to piss off because there is nothing they can do about it anyways. In the end, come across as if it was the big bad old imperialistic US thats in the wrong and setup shop to start serious work on a nuke without being bothered again.

 

Bonus Rounds

 

Israel attacks, use Hezbollah and possibly some Iranian special forces to launch multiple attacks on Israel. Can probably get most other Palestinean terrorist groups to attack also even if they arent directly backed by Iran.

 

Unleash the Taliban that have been under protection in Iran into Afghanistan to tie down US forces there.

 

I dont know maybe this is all farfetched but it sure doesnt seem like it right now. Its just my own opinion of whats going to happen based on all the info I have read. I mean they have purposefully put us in a position to where we cannot ignore them, rebuffed diplomacy and are forcing a direct confrontation. They are even trying to make it so that a bombing campaign will not be enough and that ground troops will be necessary. Right now it would take weeks of bombing and even then that might not be enough. The easiest way would be if China and Russia both helped but thats not going to happen unless we have some type of significant leverage to use on them.

 

This is just a bad deal all around. Its like VDH said in his article last week, its either a really bad choice now or a much much worse choice later. When this starts all these people screaming about high numbers of innocent deaths in Iraq will get to see what that really means.

[Severian]

The only ones I can remotely trust is any country not run by mullahs.

 

Russia' date=' China and the US, for example, have had them a long time and were level headed enough not to use them against each other.

 

The mullahs are a different story...

 

Bettina[/quote']

 

I haven't heard of any mullahs using nuclear weapons, but I have heard of Americans using them.

[bascule]

I haven't heard of any mullahs using nuclear weapons, but I have heard of Americans using them.

 

Yes, amazing how mullahs have never used their non-existent nuclear weapons in the past.

 

Iran is threatening to wipe Israel off the map. Repeatedly. They're working on nuclear weapons and 6,000km range ICBMs.

 

Do you really trust them not to use nuclear weapons once they have them?

 

It's 4200 kilometers from Tehran to Paris. 4400 km to London. 4800 km to Madrid. The 6,000km range of the Shahab-6 will allow them to strike anywhere in Europe, if they so desire.

[Severian]

Yes, amazing how mullahs have never used their non-existent nuclear weapons in the past.

 

I'm sure they would use them if they had them. That would make them just as evil as the Americans....

 

This reminds me of: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/43012

[Soonerborn]

 

Iran is threatening to wipe Israel off the map. Repeatedly. They're working on nuclear weapons and 6' date='000km range ICBMs.

 

[/quote']

 

Not to mention what Israel's defense minister said a few years back. Something along the lines of this.

If Israel gets nuked then we are taking everyone down with us. We have nukes aimed at every major ME city and several European capitals.

 

He went on to say that the reason for taking down European cities with them is that the only reason a ME country would be able to get nukes would be through the action of EU countries either aiding them or preventing military efforts to stop them. So they are also to be held accountable if Israel goes down.

 

I would think that even people who agree with anihilating Israel would be on the side of any action preventing Iran from gaining nuclear capability. Israel will respond and it will be far more devastating than initial strike on them.

[aguy2]

I would think that even people who agree with anihilating Israel would be on the side of any action preventing Iran from gaining nuclear capability. Israel will respond and it will be far more devastating than initial strike on them.

 

From what I hear the idf could make a 60 nuke 'strike hard and strike deep' and still have 40 or more in reserve for tactical purposes.

 

aguy2

 

Ps. My dad's 'liberator' was named 'sooner'.

[bascule]

Not to mention what Israel's defense minister said a few years back. Something along the lines of this.

If Israel gets nuked then we are taking everyone down with us. We have nukes aimed at every major ME city and several European capitals.

 

That's a statement I can't take seriously without a source.

 

He went on to say that the reason for taking down European cities with them is that the only reason a ME country would be able to get nukes would be through the action of EU countries either aiding them or preventing military efforts to stop them. So they are also to be held accountable if Israel goes down.

 

Iran got the equipment and designs they needed from A.Q. Khan' date=' the father of the Pakistani nuclear bomb (who stole it from Europe in the '60s). They got the ICBM technology from North Korea.

 

I would think that even people who agree with anihilating Israel would be on the side of any action preventing Iran from gaining nuclear capability. Israel will respond and it will be far more devastating than initial strike on them.

 

Well, there's a lot of practical implecations of nuking Israel too. First, there's the Palestinian population, and second, Jerusalem, which is also a Muslim holy city. They'd be using a uranium core fission bomb, which means it'd be only Hiroshima sized, or larger, so they'd probably just nuke one primarily Jewish city which is not Jerusalem.

 

One would hope such an attack would no be responded to with a MAD policy.

[Bettina]

I haven't heard of any mullahs using nuclear weapons, but I have heard of Americans using them.

 

Wait awhile.....I'm afraid you will.

 

Bettina

[Jim]

I'm sure they would use them if they had them. That would make them just as evil as the Americans....

 

You are equating the the obliteration of Israel with the use of nukes by Truman to end WWII?

[5614]

Not to mention what Israel's defense minister said a few years back. Something along the lines of this.

 

If Israel gets nuked then we are taking everyone down with us. We have nukes aimed at every major ME city and several European capitals.

I agree with bascule, I cannot take that seriously without a decent and respectable source.

[philcandless]

I agree with bascule, I cannot take that seriously without a decent and respectable source.

 

Israel has Jericho 2 IRBMs with an estimated CEP from 1000 m. It is difficult to tell exactly what Israel's nuclear strategy is, but a low single shot kill probability against targets hardened to better than 1000 psi means they simply do not have the capability to pursue a counterforce doctrine. Their cruise missiles can do the trick, but they don't have many of those. That means the balance of Israeli targeting doctrine is fundamentally countervalue.

[aguy2]

That means the balance of Israeli targeting doctrine is fundamentally countervalue.

 

I am not familar with the term 'countervalue'; could you fill me in?

 

aguy2