Bet on the day Iran sites will get bombed.

halkar

fly_agaric wrote:

You are being a bit pedantic. It doesn't take a military expert (which I'm not - obviously) to see that while the US may be very keen to get the Iraqi army up and running for counter-insurgency so they can pull out some troops, I doubt they will be so keen about Iraqi controlled AA defenses and an Iraqi airforce! The airspace above Iraq will be controlled by the US military for quite a while yet I'd say.
What will the Iraqi govt. shoot down the Israeli jets with if the US won't? Peashooters?

The extent of future US anger with any unilateral Israeli action against Iran will depend on how it pans out. I don't think the US would lift a finger to hinder said action while it is in progress.

Anything like this would pi$$ the Shias off in Iraq. They are highly influenced by Iran also they have been quite and cooperative since the Iraqi invasion began.
That is the last thing US needs in Iraq right now me thinks.

Manic Moran

rsynnott wrote:

I'd be very surprised if Israel (a country, incidentally, with at least one illicit nuclear arms production facility; this is France's fault) would bomb nuclear sites, which potentially house hot tanks, reactors and other nastiness, on its own doorstep.

I refer you yet again to the 1981 Osirak incident where the Israelis did just that to a country that was a few hundered miles closer. The Israelis have also shown than distance is not a major factor, with air operations carried out over Libya (bombing) and Uganda (hostage rescue).

And, I'd VERY surprised if the Americans attack. Iran's not Iraq. They could be looking at another long and unpleasant war.

There is a major difference between an attack and an invasion. A conventional invasion/occupation is obviously unlikely, but airstrikes or troop insertions up to brigade size are not beyond the realm of possibility. If they needed to, the US could fly some two and a half light infantry divisions in without calling on their Stryker forces which are also designed for air deployment, but you then start to hit problems of sustainability and extraction.

Hmm.. Perhaps a combination of Market-Garden and The March of the Ten Thousand? Fly troops in, grab the equipment/nukes/whatever, and extract themselves out along the 'airborne carpet.' I'll lay money someone's looking at it.

NTM

RedPlanet

I take the other view, fair play to Iran.
If i were they, i would unilaterly withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and be done with it.
The existing nuclear powers have not decommissioned their own arsenels like they should have, and in the case of USA threaten to use them.

Iran hasn't exactly been launching wars against other countries, engaging in "regime change" or any of the nastiness Russia and USA dish out.
Screw them and screw the NPT.

Victor

Manic Moran wrote:

The Israelis have also shown than distance is not a major factor, with air operations carried out over Libya (bombing)

Remind me?

Manic Moran

Victor wrote:

Remind me?

Ack. My error. Tunisia, not Libya. Even further West. 1985, using F-15s

NTM

Victor

Manic Moran wrote:

Ack. My error. Tunisia, not Libya. Even further West. 1985, using F-15s

NTM

u r teh wrong!!!111!!! twenyty tree :v:

fly_agaric

^^Victor, I thought you were going to give us the US generals' options as you see it?:D I suppose threaten them with AA defenses (attack them if they don't turn back?); send up aircraft to challenge them (and maybe engage them if they won't turn back); or do nothing. Anyway, enough waffling about military stuff I don't understand. Could they even tell if the jets were Israeli?

Hobbes

fly_agaric wrote:

The extent of future US anger with any unilateral Israeli action against Iran will depend on how it pans out. I don't think the US would lift a finger to hinder said action while it is in progress.

I think they would prefer not to allow Israel to do such a thing without a large number of countries behind its actions.

Apart from destablising Iraq it is also going to destablise the world. Assume everyone sits back and does nothing. Most Middle East countries are going to back Iran. You could be looking at Oil embargoes, insurgency increases in already unstable areas.

Remember the initial Iraq war a large number of Middle East countries agreed that they would not get involved on the condition that Israel did not help the US.

Manic Moran

Hobbes wrote:

Most Middle East countries are going to back Iran.

I don't know about that. There isn't very much love lost between Iran and the Arab countries, outside of alliances of convenience. (i.e. Sryia, Lybia). Bear in mind that most Arab countries supported Iraq (The Arab country) against Iran (the Non-Arab country) for as long as the two were fighting it out.

My guess is there would be some shaking of heads, and the usual outcries from Gadaffi et-al, but I think the majority of the regional countries will generally keep quiet as long as it's not the Israelis doing any bombing. They certainly won't come out and support it, but I don't think there would be the outcry some imagine.

NTM

Jimboo_Jones

I dont know - I think most arab countries would be looking at the third muslim country to be attacked by Bush and wondering just how long it would be before their country was next....

I think the idea of sending in troops to grab any nuclear material as very highly unlikely. Why risk troops when a few cruse missles would do the job. Yes there would be some fall out, but I doubt that would give anyone in the white house any sleepless nights. Plus sending in troops into what must be the most highly defended parts of Iran is never going to be easy, even with helicopter drops Iran would get quite a warning that the Americans where on their way.

RedPlanet

I don't believe for a moment that the yanks would attack Iran. Look at recent history, USA attacks the "Taliban regime" in Afghanistan and Iraq, 2 very poorly defened 3rd world countries and look at all the problems they've had.
Iran isn't a 3rd world country, it's not undefended and it's too big to just bomb from the air like Kosovo.
I think it's a case of "mad-dog USA" doing a lot of growling and barking, but in this case, has no bite.

Hobbes

Manic Moran wrote:

but I think the majority of the regional countries will generally keep quiet as long as it's not the Israelis doing any bombing.

Which is what I meant. It is unlikely the US are going to anything at all. Israel is the only likely country that has said it plans to strike. Them doing so would polorize the Middle East.

Not directed at you Moran but I love flippant attitude here and in the media about "ahh sure lets just throw a few cruise missiles, its not like it will be a big deal". AQ basically turned 3 planes into cruise missiles and you saw the fall out from that, why does anyone think that another country would just shrug and accept it?

Jimboo_Jones

I wasnt ment to be flippant - but I still think that the US would more likely use cruse missles than actualy send in troops

AQ basically turned 3 planes into cruise missiles and you saw the fall out from that, why does anyone think that another country would just shrug and accept it?

I do not think Iran would shrug it off, but I think the fallout would be less than an invasion. I seem to remeber the US sending in cruse missles into Iraq and Afgan in the years before they invaded them, so the pattern is there.

Hobbes

Jimboo_Jones wrote:

I think the fallout would be less than an invasion.

Which fallout? Nuclear or the whole can of worms it would open up worldwide.

Jimboo_Jones

ahh I see, I thought you ment political fallout

I do not really have a clue about what type of radioactive fallout you would get from bombing Iran's facillities. (I think they only have one powerplant, the rest of the sites are enrichment / conversion / research ones) comparison of the powerplant with say Chernobyl?

I guess it all depends on how close the sites are to populated areas as well.

As for the can of worms, well if the radioactive fallout doesnt kill a super huge amount, I think the US could brush it off. As it did when it attacked Libya, Sudan, Afghanistan and Iraq.

rsynnott

Jimboo_Jones wrote:

I do not really have a clue about what type of radioactive fallout you would get from bombing Iran's facillities. (I think they only have one powerplant, the rest of the sites are enrichment / conversion / research ones) comparison of the powerplant with say Chernobyl?

I guess it all depends on how close the sites are to populated areas as well.

Probably anything from not dramatic to nil, unless they bombed the reactor, which it's highly unlikely they'd do as it would constitute a nuclear attack on civilians.

sovtek

I'm just curious as to when it became illegal or a "threat" for a country to develop nuclear power?
Not that I'm advocating it at all.

sovtek

sovtek wrote:

I'm just curious as to when it became illegal or a "threat" for a country to develop nuclear power?
Not that I'm advocating it at all.

They are probably afraid [again] as to who might get their hands on the weaponry-theres quite a few guys across the border who might be able to sweet talk themselves into possession of it.
They'd certainly not be afraid to use it I'd say.
Same goes for NK but too late now :rolleyes:

As regards Nuclear power on its own without enriching uranium-any country should be doing that with nothing other than "green" criticism.
Heck as long as its securely held, I dont even see the issue with responsible governments wanting to join the "influence" family of having nukes as responsible governments obviously wouldnt use them in todays circumstances.

Renegades and extremists-well I wouldnt be confident of the same level of responsibility there and I doubt any US administration would be confident that secretly some west hating punters in Iran wouldnt hand over the goods to extremists to do the dirty work for them.

sovtek

Earthman wrote:

They are probably afraid [again] as to who might get their hands on the weaponry-theres quite a few guys across the border who might be able to sweet talk themselves into possession of it.
They'd certainly not be afraid to use it I'd say.

And there are a few that run my country that have stated there willingness to use actual weapons of the nuclear variety against anyone. That's after signing a treaty stating that they would in good faith get rid of their nuclear weapons. In addition these same "extremists" are trying to get funding for new nukes that they want to be able to actually use on the battlefield.
Now if a country that hasn't broken any treatise or international law by developing nuclear power (as the IAEA has stated) can be refered to the UNSC for doing so...why couldn't/shouldn't one of it's permanent members be.

Heck as long as its securely held, I dont even see the issue with responsible governments wanting to join the "influence" family of having nukes as responsible governments obviously wouldnt use them in todays circumstances.

The legal issue would be the binding to all signatories of the NPT...and who, these days, defines "responsible"....Israel? the US? the UK?

Renegades and extremists-well I wouldnt be confident of the same level of responsibility there and I doubt any US administration would be confident that secretly some west hating punters in Iran wouldnt hand over the goods to extremists to do the dirty work for them.

Is there any evidence that this would happen. Especially considering Iran was cooperating with the UN and IAEA on this issue before morons like John Bolton started saber rattling.
Are the EU3 "appeasing" here...hell yes...Merkel couldn't wait to get to the other side of the Atlantic to entertain the child president.

sovtek

Earthman wrote:

Same goes for NK but too late now :rolleyes:

Oh yeah....Clinton told 'em that he'd give him some nuclear reactors...he didn't ever do it and and viola....Kim now has nooks (well one or two...maybe).

toiletduck

sovtek wrote:

Oh yeah....Clinton told 'em that he'd give him some nuclear reactors...he didn't ever do it and and viola....Kim now has nooks (well one or two...maybe).

im almost sure they did get the reactors as well as lots of oil

sovtek

GypsumFantastic wrote:

Different political regimes and Israel does not have a stated intent to annihilate any of its neighbours -

"Our fathers had reached the frontiers recognized in the partition plan; the Six-Day War generation has managed to reach Suez, Jordan, and the Golan Heights. This is not the end. After the present cease-fire lines, there will be new ones. They will extend beyond Jordan ... to Lebanon and ... to central Syria as well."
-- Moshe Dayan to Zionist youth at a meeting in the Golan Heights July, 1968

sovtek

sovtek wrote:

Is there any evidence that this would happen. Especially considering Iran was cooperating with the UN and IAEA on this issue before morons like John Bolton started saber rattling.

Put it to you this way,I have my gun under lock and key so it wont get into the wrong hands.The guards wouldnt give me a licence if they thought I'd mis use it.Multiply that by a couple of million in terms of importance and you have nuke policy.

sovtek

toiletduck wrote:

im almost sure they did get the reactors as well as lots of oil

Nope don't think so...although I could be wrong...

sovtek

Earthman wrote:

Put it to you this way,I have my gun under lock and key so it wont get into the wrong hands.The guards wouldnt give me a licence if they thought I'd mis use it.Multiply that by a couple of million in terms of importance and you have nuke policy.

Not really a good analogy. Especially considering the only country in history to actually use them.

sovtek

sovtek wrote:

Not really a good analogy. Especially considering the only country in history to actually use them.

Why not?
Do you think less lives would have been lost if they hadnt used them?
WW2 was a serious war with serious issues unlike many of the more recent wars.
(If you are a complete pacifist-fair enough you wont like their use and you wont like the ordinary consequenses of war)

Couple that with the fact that when the US used them, no other country had them.
Meaning that since other countries have them, their use has only been strategic possession and not to be exploded ie as the ultimate preventative possession tool to others saber rattling.

So it stands to reason to me that theres no logic against any country having nuclear weapons for that purpose, theres only logic against irresponsible governments having them or regimes that may let them fall into renegade hands on the quiet...
Unscrupolous renegades that is,who wouldnt care less about the consequences of using them willy nilly ( as opposed to their first ever use which you alluded to which had extreme and un repeated or hopefully unrepeatable circumstances )

As you must know, we're long past the point where the existing countries that have them, realise that the use of them would be futile(given that there would be retaliation)... Likewise,I doubt many would like to privatise nuclear bomb making by stealth which is what the UN defacto probably reckon letting any Tom Dick or Harry Country develop them would mean

Manic Moran

Whilst I'm sure the US would have a preference for a JDAM or Tomahawk strike, the possibility remains that some of the facilities may simply be so far underground that the only way to be sure is by the use of boots on the ground.

NTM

sovtek

Earthman wrote:

Why not?
Do you think less lives would have been lost if they hadnt used them?

I'm not going to go into this whole debate to far...but yes. The US military was aware that Japan was ready to surrender.

(If you are a complete pacifist-fair enough you wont like their use and you wont like the ordinary consequenses of war)

No not a complete pacifist, unless the definition has changed to "someone who opposes world ending weapons existing".

Couple that with the fact that when the US used them, no other country had them.

I'm not sure how that justifies their use or possesion.

Meaning that since other countries have them, their use has only been strategic possession and not to be exploded ie as the ultimate preventative possession tool to others saber rattling.

I can't remember exactly where it was stated that the US would reserve the right to a first strike on a non-nuclear nation.
Now "we" are trying to develop nukes that can actually be used in a "conventional" war.

So it stands to reason to me that theres no logic against any country having nuclear weapons for that purpose, theres only logic against irresponsible governments having them or regimes that may let them fall into renegade hands on the quiet...

And I think I kinda raised the question of who, these days, is considered "responsible". I also brought up the fact that the US (along with other nations) has pledged, under binding international agreement, to get rid of it's nuclear weapons.

Unscrupolous renegades that is,who wouldnt care less about the consequences of using them willy nilly

Like the people that want to willy nillily use them against people that don't have them or in conventional war.

( as opposed to their first ever use which you alluded to which had extreme and un repeated or hopefully unrepeatable circumstances )

Yes lets hope the US never wants to scare the **** out of another country that doens't agree with its economic model...or as a test of technology.

As you must know, we're long past the point where the existing countries that have them, realise that the use of them would be futile(given that there would be retaliation)...

Jaysus I hope so but I'm not as optimistic as you about the leaders of the country with the most nukes to date.

OH and I forgot to mention that Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapons program.

sovtek

sovtek wrote:

I'm not going to go into this whole debate to far...but yes. The US military was aware that Japan was ready to surrender.

I'm not convinced that they were, but lets not go there for now and agree to disagree on that one as I dont have the time tbh.

I'm not sure how that justifies their use or possesion.

Oh I'd like to see no weapons, peace love and x boxes for all too believe me

I can't remember exactly where it was stated that the US would reserve the right to a first strike on a non-nuclear nation.
Now "we" are trying to develop nukes that can actually be used in a "conventional" war.

I'd have thought such developments and production had job creation and deterrant in mind.
Umpteen new innovations and developments notwithstanding, they'd never ever be used by a relatively sane government other than their deterrent flexing capabilities.
Heck thats why they havent been used in 60 years.

And I think I kinda raised the question of who, these days, is considered "responsible". I also brought up the fact that the US (along with other nations) has pledged, under binding international agreement, to get rid of it's nuclear weapons.

I'd have thought all countries currently with them would or should be responsible, though I have my doubts regarding some ex soviet countries in the same way as I'd be concerned about mavericks in Iran.

Like the people that want to willy nillily use them against people that don't have them or in conventional war.

Sovtec EVEN your country doesnt want to use them.Talking about using them is EASY and all part of the deterrant game,I'd have hoped after 60 years of these language games and associated weapons development games without their use, that that would be clear by now.

Jaysus I hope so but I'm not as optimistic as you about the leaders of the country with the most nukes to date.

As I've said, they build their weaponry to build their defence industry.
Hell they go as far as manufacturing conventional wars for it.
But nowhere to date in 60 years have they considered the folly of using nukes-even your child presidents advisors arent that mad.
What use would all the money be to them, if the world went up in smoke?

OH and I forgot to mention that Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapons program.

Have you a link to that? Preferably with a web cam?
Seriously you cannot say that for certain, its an opinion of yours and not a fact.

Ping Chow Chi

toiletduck wrote:

im almost sure they did get the reactors as well as lots of oil

nope - I seem to remember that they kept being put on hold for various reasons