How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 Nuclear Weaponed Iran   [ Page: 1  2  ]
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Nuclear Weaponed Iran

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


0 posted 10-28-2009 04:24 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


http://tv.nationalreview.com/uncommonknowledge/post/?q=NmM0OTVjZTgzOTZiYjk1 NmM5YTdiMjk5ZmMyZGFlOWY=


Given Russia’s interest, and Iran’s threat through Saudi Arabia’s oil facilities,
I don’t see how Iran can be stopped from accomplishing nuclear weapons.

At the same time I don’t know how Israel can be made to live with that.

.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


1 posted 10-29-2009 03:35 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     It's not a pretty picture under any circumstances, John.  I don'y know how accurate our intelligence is from that area at this point.  In general, I'm not happy with it.  I believe we don't have much penetration of Israeli intelligence, and I don't have any idea how factionalized they are or the Israeli government is.  This is, as you suggest, a major element in determining the outcome.

     While were are supposed to have an alliance with the Saudis, I am not clear about the nature of that.  How good a grip the House of Saud has on the government is unclear, and the extent of their bargains with the Wahabist folks means that whatever they say to us will still need to get the okay on some level with the Religious Islamic Right over there.  The House of Saud will feel a need to say Yes out front to as many people as possible, because No is politically dangerous in that culture (and perhaps in politics in general, if you think about it).  The actual Nos will come in the form of delays and unforeseen circumstances and accidents and apologies and unexplained cancellations.  We like to think we're much more straightforward in the U.S., but I tend to think that Politics is Politics the world around.  The arabs are simply a bit more flowery about it.

     If all the hoopla we were hearing 15 years back about loose nukes in the break-up areas of the old USSR was true, it seems there may well be a nuke in some sort of condition floating around the area anyway, and probably under Iranian control.  Perhaps I'm simply being a wild man in thinking this, but the quarrel we're having right now is about the Iranians developing their own capability to build their own nukes, not about whether there's one sitting around someplace that could be used if somebody wanted to use it.  We don't want Iran to have their own dependable nuclear capability, with more than one or two dependable bombs and the means of delivering them in such as way that they would be hard to stop as a weapon of war.  If they were used as a terrorist weapon, I think it would change the nature of how the world would look on terrorism.  Now it's a real annoyance, but it's found a niche where the response is just short of a serious major war for those who even look they sponsor a successful midrange terrorist attack.

     Detonation of a nuclear weapon would, I think change the correlation of forces, and would provoke a seriously savage counterattack with 1)either a significant amount of world support; or 2) a seriously polarized world response which might break down into a nuclear version of the events that lead up to World War I as alliances dragged unwilling participants into an ever-growing nuclear exchange.  

     Hopefully, most folks are too fond of their hindquarters to risk such an exchange for the possibility of limited gain.  Our job as a super-power, I would imagine, is twofold as well.  Make sure that people realize the level of consequence remains high.  Make sure that the level of reward for not pursuing such a course remains diplomatically and economically high as well.  Everybody needs to feel they're getting something of a share of the wealth and that a rising tide is, in fact, floating all boats.

     That seems to be a response that might be useful.

     The problem is that everything is so vague, it's hard to break down such a general outline of possible future events into potential future plans, or even find some sort of markers to look for to see what sort of clues we should look for that might lead us to which sort of outcomes.  I think I'm simply going to have to start warming up the old Tarot Deck, and start working the Yarrow Sticks to see what The Superior Man should do.  Confucius, here I come!
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


2 posted 10-29-2009 05:36 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.

http://tv.nationalreview.com/uncommonknowledge/post/?q=NTM3YjcwNzM2OTI4MGRi MWMyMDU3ZTk5YmI2OGE4NjE=


So, should our planes shoot down theirs,
or join them?

.

Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


3 posted 10-29-2009 07:27 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
So, should our planes shoot down theirs,
or join them?


You probably won't need to shoot down the Israeli planes - they're likely to fall out of the sky through a lack of fuel long before they get to Iran. Unless they plan to re-fuel in mid-air - a logistical disaster waiting to happen and a bad idea tactically.

Operation Opera, the Israeli air attack on the Iraqi nuclear facility at Osirak was at the limit of their tactical range and relied heavily on speed. Iran's facilities are about twice that distance - refueling takes time and they'd have to do it twice. Plenty of time for the Iranian Air Force to prepare on the way there, and retaliate at leisure on the way back.

Then you have to consider the flightpath the Israeli's would have to take to even get to Iran - there are only four viable routes.

Jordan - Iraq - Iran
Saudi Arabia - Iraq - Iran
Saudi Arabia - Kuwait - Iran
Saudi Arabia - across the Persian Gulf - Iran

And the reverse coming back.

The first one is out. It would violate the Jordanian\Israeli peace treaty and Jordan would almost certainly retaliate.

That leaves three routes via Saudi Arabia. The Saudi's are unlikely to risk the almost certain retribution Iran would exact if they allowed Israli planes to use their airspace to attack Iran.

All the above makes an air assault by Israel unlikely to happen and less likely to succeed even if it did.

If Israel was stupid enough to try an air assault America would be well advised to stay well out of it. If they help Israel they'll lose whatever credibility they have left in the Middle East and Europe. If Israel overfly Iraq and the Americans sit back and let them the result will be exactly the same.

A lose\lose situation.

.
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


4 posted 10-29-2009 07:54 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


Could a one way mission work?
I'm sure they have missiles; could they do that?
I think the only thing that will stop them is
the absolute impossibility of success. From
their perspective they are seeking to avert
annihilation and with a 2% approval Obama
has nothing to say  . . .

I am convinced, if there's a way,
they will do it.  "Never Again" . . .

.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


5 posted 10-29-2009 08:25 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



Dear Huan Yi,

                    I notice that diplomacy was the first thing you leaped to consider.  The possibility that Israel might actually have to do some diplomatic work and negotiation rather than put it's alliance with the United States to aggressive and not necessarily fully US sanctioned use, seems unworthy of your consideration?  That puts Israel in an uncommonly fragile sort of dependency with the United States without having developed an alternative strategy for survival.  How smart is that for them as a matter of national policy?  How smart is it for us as a matter of US policy to permit this to happen.

     You can see at this point at least the ugly spectre of the sort of end game this sort of scenario implies.  Grinch has sketched it above.  You, John, are making indirect reference to it by avoiding all mention of any non-military options.  You are in the process of offering a choice of methods of suicide for Israel,  Hmmm?  Should it be nuclear fire?  Slow starvation by blockade?  Biological attack?  Chemical weapons?  Maybe Israel should start it first?

     Take a deep breath, give your head a shake or two, and consider how to marshall some diplomatic solutions here that don't end with beautiful glowing sunsets and no population in the area for the next thousand years or so.  Words first.  What are the issues that can be talked out.  Put down the guns and step away from the heated rhetoric, and figure out what can be done to keep everybody breathing for the foreseeable future.  What do these people have in common?

Sincerely, Bob Kaven
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


6 posted 10-29-2009 08:29 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

The maximum range of an F16 is about 3800 kilometres, that's at cruising speed; at combat speeds you could almost halve that. The Iranian border is around 1700 kilometres as the crow flies and the latest atomic facility close to a 1000 kilometres further into Iran.

They'd struggle to even get close without refuelling and they'd need a miracle to get back, even if they did what would they gain? If Iran is intent on producing atomic weapons they're unlikely to have a single facility - they'd need several to produce enough weapons grade material. If you take out one it's likely to make them escalate production not slow it down and what do you think they're going to do with the first one off the production line?

Could Israel use missiles?

The Jericho III certainly has the range but not the precision guidance system to target such a small site. They could pop a 350 - 750 kilogram nuclear warhead on it and put it somewhere in the ballpark but that's not likely to go down well with anyone. Not to mention the senseless irony of trying to stop the use of nuclear weapons by launching one.

It's all pretty pointless though. The reality is that Iran has had the capability of producing nuclear weapons for at least 30 years and the ability to procure them for at least 20 - if they really want them you can bet your bottom dollar they already have them. Knocking out one facility isn't going to result in anything but grief for Israel.

.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


7 posted 10-29-2009 08:50 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Oh I think engineering a strike against Iran is just the thing we need.  That way, instead of the population being nearly up in arms against its' leadership -- they'd all galvanize together against US!

Brilliant!
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


8 posted 10-30-2009 06:21 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.

I think the US will have little to say about it.  If Israel determines a nuclear weaponed Iran
an existential threat then they will act.  
What other choice after 1939-45 do they have.

.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


9 posted 10-30-2009 07:31 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     Diplomacy.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


10 posted 10-30-2009 07:51 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

quote:
What other choice after 1939-45 do they have.


I don't buy that particular argument, for the same reason I don't buy the excuse that some paedophiles abuse children because, as children, they were themselves abused. So what. It's a lamentable fact that lots of people were abused when they were young yet the majority of them manage to choose not to inflict the same thing on another human being.

One heinous act doesn't excuse another in my book, if the Israelis choose to kill Iranians it's because they choose to kill Iranians - period. The fact that 65 years ago Germans killed Jews isn't a valid excuse to kill Iranians or Arabs, the Jewish nation has grown up since 1945, or should have.

What choice do they have?

They can choose not to become the thing they hate - that would be a good start.

.
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


11 posted 10-30-2009 10:24 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.

"They can choose not to become the thing they hate - that would be a good start."


And die instead?
Didn't they try that the first time?


.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


12 posted 10-31-2009 05:55 AM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

quote:
And die instead?
Didn't they try that the first time?


The first time?

The Iranians aren't the Germans Huan, the Germans aren't even the Germans who were responsible for the Holocaust, the world has moved on and Israel needs recognise that fact. Israel are easily capable of defending themselves, and well within their rights to do so, the key word there being defending. The minute Israel decides that a strike first philosophy is the best course they become the closest thing to the 1940's Germany that the world has seen.

Despite the melodramatic rhetoric and the threats of Iranian leaders, threats manufactured largely for a domestic audience that expects and demands no less, Iran is about as likely to launch a nuclear attack against Israel as Israel is against Iran. In fact probably less likely.

.
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


13 posted 10-31-2009 04:10 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


"Despite the melodramatic rhetoric and the threats of Iranian leaders, threats manufactured largely for a domestic audience that expects and demands no less, Iran is about as likely to launch a nuclear attack against Israel as Israel is against Iran. In fact probably less likely."


"In fact probably less likely."

Why?  

If instead they chose to dominate the Middle East and its oil with the threat
would that be acceptable?
.  


Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


14 posted 10-31-2009 07:44 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



Dear John,

          Perhaps you didn't hear the word "diplomacy" because it didn't add extra gasoline to the fire?

     For a man who doesn't like to hear about people dying in combat, you seem remarkably deaf to options mentioned that lead to solutions other that shots being fired, or that lead to fewer shots being fired that might be exchanged otherwise — should there ever exist some way of measuring that desirable outcome.

     Are you so fixated on how to counter the perception of threat with military force that you won't even respond to the suggestion of diplomacy being used twice in the same thread?  This suggests that you have forgotten your Clauswitz.  Not that you need necessarily subscribe; some folks don't.  War is the extension of diplomacy by other means.  

     Many people would suggest that one would do well in terms of lives, materiel, treasure, position and power to explore and then exhaust the options of diplomacy before embarking on the other means, and that the options of diplomacy be applied fairly and judiciously.  I would be one of those people.

    
Sincerely, Bob Kaven
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


15 posted 10-31-2009 07:57 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     Recent history might suggest that the middle east might have more immediate worries for who might wish to take control of it's oil than those countries under whose soil that oil likes.  As a hint, those countries might include some with the same initials as The Union of South Africa, but excluding that particular nation.  And whose troops might have been actively involved in ground combat in that area over the past few years.

     Not to put too much of a point on it.

     And who already have nuclear weapons and have made not so hidden threats about using them in the area, as when some nukes went missing down if Florida a few years back and Vice President Cheney had words to say.

     If the area had nations to worry about, I would put that country I mentioned on the list, though perhaps a bit lower on the list now than less than a year ago.  Since we might be talking about countries who had said, at the time, that they were willing to use first strike capability should they feel threatened, whatever that meant to them at the time.

     Perhaps because we have an unshakable notion of ourselves a good guys — at least some of us, including myself, much of the time — it may be difficult to understand that others need not share that perception, especially when we don't always act like good guys in the eyes of others.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


16 posted 10-31-2009 08:58 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Well John,  

You may not think we have a lot to say about it -- but I think you may be wrong:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_aid_to_Israel.gif
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_%E2%80%93_United_States_relations#United_States_military_and_economic_aid
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


17 posted 11-01-2009 09:33 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


I'm still waiting to read
why Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his Guard
would not eventually offensively use the bomb
once they have it . . .Fear of death?


.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


18 posted 11-02-2009 12:26 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     And I would like to know why you wouldn't use that third wish on the funny lamp you have to rain destruction on every muslim you don't like.  I suspect the answers may have a lot in common.  You don't have the lamp, and Iran doesn't have the bomb.  And you still want to talk about stuff that doesn't have anything to do with diplomacy.

     Granted reality and the limited options it gives us to deal with are less fascinating than the unlimited grounds and vistas of pure fantasy, but it also gives us a somewhat more hopeful possibility for a resolution that is less than catastrophic.  

      We may have some possibility for affecting outcome of events diplomatically. We would actually have to negotiate with Israel and Iran and other nations.  We would actually need to define what we find to be an acceptable outcome.

We need to speak about these things we Iran, with Israel and with our various allies and with other players in the area.

     Who do you identify these folks as being , John?  What goals do your think would be appropriate?
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


19 posted 11-02-2009 02:47 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
I'm still waiting to read
why Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his Guard
would not eventually offensively use the bomb
once they have it . . .Fear of death?


How about fear of god?

Launching a nuclear strike towards the two most holy sites in the Islamic world isn't likely to go down too well with the all-powerful one, or Muslims worldwide, including the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Why is he so important? Well he happens to be the supreme leader of Iran - he's the bloke that tells Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Iranian Guard when to jump, where to jump and how high to jump and Ali, supposedly, gets his orders from him upstairs.

It'd be like the Pope sanctioning the nuking of Rome

If that weren't enough Israel would almost certainly retaliate and their nuclear capability, although not openly declared, is generally accepted to be significantly larger than anything Iran might possess.

quote:
If instead they chose to dominate the Middle East and its oil with the threat
would that be acceptable?


How exactly would that work? Iran has 10% of the world's oil, in the Middle East only Saudi Arabia produces more oil and Saudi Arabia have been listening to Iranian threats that have never materialised for years. Why would they suddenly capitulate in the face of another?

Not convincing enough?

OK. What about geography a meteorology?

When the nuclear reactor at Chernobyl went bang the sheep 2200 miles away in Wales were contaminated by the radioactive fallout carried by the prevailing winds, to such an extent they weren't safe to eat.

Iran is 220 miles away from Saudi Arabia, and, contrary to what people may say, the Iranians certainly know which way the wind blows.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


20 posted 11-02-2009 03:44 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.

"Launching a nuclear strike towards the two most holy sites in the Islamic world isn't likely to go down too well with the all-powerful one, or Muslims worldwide, including the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei."

Have you read or heard anyone of authority in Islam say as much?  Does this then protect Israel from an offensive strike?

I don't believe fear of death works in this
situation.

.


.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


21 posted 11-02-2009 04:12 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
I don't believe fear of death works in this
situation.


Really? That's odd.

The Israelis do, and so does the US. If they didn't they wouldn't be spending all that time and money building up a nuclear deterrent. It's going to be a heck of a shock when you tell them that they're wasting their time and money, I suggest you get them to sit down before you tell them and have some brandy ready - they're likely to need it.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


22 posted 11-02-2009 07:20 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


Grinch,

And Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his Guard?

(You knew who I'm writing about . . .

Please . . .)

I think they are of a kind that already proves
a contempt for death in pursuit of killing others
now at least once a week.


PS:

"Have you read or heard anyone of authority in Islam say as much?  Does this then protect Israel from an offensive strike?"

.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


23 posted 11-02-2009 08:03 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
And Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his Guard?



Launching a nuclear strike towards the two most holy sites in the Islamic world isn't likely to go down too well with the all-powerful one, or Muslims worldwide, including the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Why is he so important? Well he happens to be the supreme leader of Iran - he's the bloke that tells Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Iranian Guard when to jump, where to jump and how high to jump and Ali, supposedly, gets his orders from him upstairs.

It'd be like the Pope sanctioning the nuking of Rome


quote:
I think they are of a kind that already proves
a contempt for death in pursuit of killing others
now at least once a week.


Who are "they"?

PS

quote:
"Have you read or heard anyone of authority in Islam say as much?


No and I'm not likely to either, that's the thing about threats and deterrents - if you tell people you don't really mean what you say they become pretty useless.

PSS

quote:
Does this then protect Israel from an offensive strike?


No, it just makes an Iranian offensive strike unlikely, which is a very good argument against Israel launching their own offensive strike.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


24 posted 11-02-2009 08:18 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


“Who are "they"?”

“Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his Guard?”

But you knew that . . .


.
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> Nuclear Weaponed Iran   [ Page: 1  2  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors