Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Toad on January 18, 2006, 02:44:11 AM
-
War or Peace?
I'm thinking ego and posturing and fear almost guarantees this will end with bloodshed.
Israel: Iran must not acquire nuclear weapons (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/01/17/olmert.iran/index.html)
"Under no circumstances, and at no point, can Israel allow anyone with these kinds of malicious designs against us [to] have control of weapons of destruction that can threaten our existence," Olmert said at a Tuesday news conference.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sparked widespread international condemnation in October when he called for Israel to be "wiped off the map."
Israeli officials have said they hope to use diplomacy to diffuse any possible nuclear crisis with Iran, and only to use military force as a last resort. An Israeli attack ordered by Prime Minister Menachem Begin in 1981 destroyed a nuclear reactor in Iraq.
-
War. Or at least to the very brink.
The Sunday papers were grim reading, and there was a strong suggestion of armed conflict around August 2007.
Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/01/15/do1502.xml This article was written by a professor of history at Harvard university.
Extract With every passing year after the turn of the century, the instability of the Gulf region grew. By the beginning of 2006, nearly all the combustible ingredients for a conflict - far bigger in its scale and scope than the wars of 1991 or 2003 - were in place.
The first underlying cause of the war was the increase in the region's relative importance as a source of petroleum. On the one hand, the rest of the world's oil reserves were being rapidly exhausted. On the other, the breakneck growth of the Asian economies had caused a huge surge in global demand for energy. It is hard to believe today, but for most of the 1990s the price of oil had averaged less than $20 a barrel.
A second precondition of war was demographic. While European fertility had fallen below the natural replacement rate in the 1970s, the decline in the Islamic world had been much slower. By the late 1990s the fertility rate in the eight Muslim countries to the south and east of the European Union was two and half times higher than the European figure.
This tendency was especially pronounced in Iran, where the social conservatism of the 1979 Revolution - which had lowered the age of marriage and prohibited contraception - combined with the high mortality of the Iran-Iraq War and the subsequent baby boom to produce, by the first decade of the new century, a quite extraordinary surplus of young men. More than two fifths of the population of Iran in 1995 had been aged 14 or younger. This was the generation that was ready to fight in 2007.
-
yup.
big question is... would the whitehouse support a pre-emptive israeli strike? Can't see how israel could pull off a smackdown without our knowledge... which to the rest of the world would be 'our support'.
-
On the scale of severity, I think this Iranian nuke debacle could be on a par with the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. If avoided and we all survive, we'll all remember where we were that day.
-
There are no options wrt Iran.
None.
Talk of it is pure 2006 politics.
-
Well beet1e, I think your Cuban missle crisis analogy is a little off the mark.
The reason is left as an exercise for the student.
I agree to it being a coin toss right now, Toad. Since it's all up in the air, can we talk about something else? You're a reader of history, so I'm curious about your take (a few simple paragraphs) on how things got this 'interesting.' Don't worry, I'm not laying any traps. ;)
-
There's going to be a parking lot in the Middle East, just not sure where yet.
-SW
-
>>israeli strike
I don't see us supporting any Israeli strike while we are in Iraq.
Hopefully we have learned from our mistake with NK. Just having inspectors present was not enough. I think the Russian proposal is worth looking into, but it must 'guarantee' Iran will not be able to produce a bomb. Anything else short of that should not be acceptable...
-
there is no way we could support an israeli pre-emptive strike. we have too much at stake in the region and the result would be galvanizing to the moslems. besides that there is nothing to bomb yet. I predict a negotiated settlement. the euros seem to be taking the lead in this one. the good news is the euros are resusitating neville chamberlain. he will soon return from tehran in a vintage lockheed electra waving a piece of paper above his head on a blustery day. look for france to pre-emptively surrender some time next week and allowing more moslems to emigrate to the french calphite.
-
but it must 'guarantee' Iran will not be able to produce a bomb. Anything else short of that should not be acceptable...
Iran's purpose behind this "Is to produce a bomb" so obviously it will be unacceptable.....Your Move.
-
Israel **WILL** take out Iran's reactors. And soon.
The real question is, "Will the Euro's be as fed up with Iran as Israel is by that time?"
-
Originally posted by beet1e
On the scale of severity, I think this Iranian nuke debacle could be on a par with the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. If avoided and we all survive, we'll all remember where we were that day.
Not even close.
I'm fairly certain that the U.S. can survive without Israel.
-
Without a doubt we would support and Isreali strike. Why do the work when you can get someone else to do it? :aok
-
Originally posted by Rolex
your take (a few simple paragraphs) on how things got this 'interesting.' Don't worry, I'm not laying any traps. ;)
Paragraph One: The Israelis have a not too distant history of genocide. You had a dictator in Germany proposing and trying to complete the "Final Solution". You had the numerous Arab/Israeli wars (1948, 1956, 1967, 1973 plus other conflicts that were not perhaps full scale wars) where various Arab leaders proposed and tried to "wipe Israel off the map". You now have Ahmadinejad repeating the "wipe Israel off the map" proposal and simulataneously moving to enable Iran to have nuclear weapons with which to do so. Despite Iran's denials, I doubt there's very many in national leadership anywhere that think Iran isn't working towards having nuke weapons rather than "peaceful" use of nuclear power.
Paragraph Two: The Israelis have a not too distant history of preemptive reaction towards attempts to reinitiate genocide against them. Six Day War and Osirak as cases in point; they've acted premptively before when they felt threatened. Additoinally, the US sold them "bunker buster" bombs in April of 2005, a time when talks between the Europeans and Iran were deadlocked over Tehran's refusal to give up uranium enrichment. Israel is already assumed to be a nuclear power and they have a further history of improving US weaponry without bothering to ask or tell the US what they are doing (usually required under the terms of the agreements) and being reluctant to explain what and how they did to the weaponry later (Bekaa Valley).
Paragraph Three: Ahmadinejad has picked up the "Jihad against Israel" flag that pretty much had fallen with the Egypt-Israel agreement. IMO, this is one more attempt to focus a population's view on an external problem so that the population doesn't focus on internal problems. We all know this is a pretty standard technique of politicians everywhere. Additionally, the Iranian government is probably the most rigidly Islamic of the Arab powers. Iran has a government that is probably the closest to what some call "radical Islam"; jihad isn't an unknown concept there.
Paragraph Four: By focusing his population on "wiping Israel off the map" while openly enriching uranium, Ahmadinejad has attracted serious attention from Israel's politicoes who are understandably alarmed when yet another Arab country proposes to "wipe them off the map".
The End.
But we both know it won't be. :)
-
Israel has taken out a nuclear facility before, they will have no trouble doing it again. Where it goes from there is anyone's guess.
-
The coin will fall down. What do I win?
-
Originally posted by Suave
The coin will fall down. What do I win?
A job as the night manager of Iran's nuclear facility.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Despite Iran's denials, I doubt there's very many in national leadership anywhere that think Iran isn't working towards having nuke weapons rather than "peaceful" use of nuclear power.
Indeed. They reportedly have uranium enrichment centrifuges, including the advanced cascade centrifuges. I'm quoting from memory here, but I thought that nuclear fuel for a power generating reactor needed to be only 3% pure, whereas weapons grade uranium needs to be 70% pure. Centrifuges are not needed to produce nuclear fuel for reactors. But... According to Israel, Iran will be able learn how to operate its uranium enrichment centrifuges within 3-6 months - unless it is compelled once more to halt its "research" on enrichment. (See here for the view of Major General Aharon Zeev-Farkash, the recently retired director of military intelligence.)
Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/01/17/bldiplomatic17.xml
-
If I had heard that some two-bit puppet wanted my country wiped off the map, I would have bombed everywhere that no-good s.o.g. went.
This whole Muslim vs. Jewish thing tee's me off. We should all be lucky to be alive after what went on almost 70 years ago.
-
June 6, 2006
666
MARK OF THE BEAST>>>>>TIME IS RUNNING OUT!!!!!!!
-
OH NOES!
-SW
-
Originally posted by soda72
>>israeli strike
I don't see us supporting any Israeli strike while we are in Iraq.
Hopefully we have learned from our mistake with NK. Just having inspectors present was not enough. I think the Russian proposal is worth looking into, but it must 'guarantee' Iran will not be able to produce a bomb. Anything else short of that should not be acceptable...
No flame intended. I am just curious. Could you elaborate on what the "mistake with NK" was / is? If it was a mistake I presume you have a solution or at least a "what we should have done instead of the mistake" option in mind.
-
Hey Mav.. in my lil underdeveloped brain I see the 'mistake' with NK was in negotiating with them some years back.. the food for promise stuff. They lied, bought time, continued development.
Seems to me, there's no reason for 'em to change.. they've been lying and reneging on treaty agreements for over 50 years.
So why 'negotiate' with a lying, thieving, murderous communist dictators regime at all?
-
Iran is the tripwire ...
it is a no win situation
-
Hang, I'd say the mistake was the 2 BILLION DOLLARS for NK to just "Think" about not pursuing nuclear weapons.
That's all thanks to our favorite arkansas adulterer...
-
I'm not sure an airstrike will work in this case, I've heard numerous reports that Iran has learned from the strike on Iraq's plant and has spread their facilities around.
Agreed, Israel will do something before Iran becomes a 'nuclear partner', I'm thinking sabotage from within or even assassinations of nuclear scientists might go in conjunction with the airstrikes.
-
Originally posted by Delirium
I'm not sure an airstrike will work in this case, I've heard numerous reports that Iran has learned from the strike on Iraq's plant and has spread their facilities around.
Yes Del, here is a map.
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2006/01/16/wiran16big.jpg)
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Hang, I'd say the mistake was the 2 BILLION DOLLARS for NK to just "Think" about not pursuing nuclear weapons.
That's all thanks to our favorite arkansas adulterer...
Source? Other than Newsmax or Frontpagemag, please.
-
It's interesting to me that Washington and London are more concerned about Iran than Iran's neighbors are. Just as Washington is more concerned about North Korea than the South Koreans are. There seems to be a culture of overreaction. I don't think there is any doubt that Ahmadinejad is unsophisticated and clumsy, to say the least.
Now, I'm not an advocate for Iran, but any negotiation requires honestly putting yourself in the shoes of the people across the table to better understand your own position and options - how they will be received, what are their fears and goals, what are the misconceptions of your position and even misconceptions of their position.
So let's step back from the brink of overreaction for a minute and try to understand why Iran seems intent on building a nuclear arsenal and why it is boldly defying intervention. And let's talk about the history of Iran, the US and the UK, so we can understand how leaders like Ahmadinejad come to power and why they find support from their people by thumbing their noses at the west.
Specifically, how the UK history of colonizing the Iranian oil, the CIA-led coup against the secular government, the US and UK deposing of Reza Shah I and the US encouragement of war against Iraq (costing a million Iranian lives) and subsequent double-cross by arming Iraq has built a culture of frustration at the west.
Those facts and history provide the backdrop for understanding their position. It's also important to understand that the inconsistency of foreign policy regarding nuclear nonproliferation has fueled Ahmadinejad's strength. Iran does not harbor Al Qaeda or Taliban-trained suicide bombers, like Pakistan has done and continues to do, yet no one is advocating military intervention.
Pakistan, India, Israel and China are not signers of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, yet they surround Iran. India and Pakistan have even received nuclear cooperation agreements with the US in spite of their refusal to sign the treaty.
I would say that inconsistency of foreign policy and continued outside influence in the affairs of Iran would be key parts of their position.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Source? Other than Newsmax or Frontpagemag, please.
You forgot the New York Times, they've fallen under that umbrella as well and I have recently obtained a secret document that proves it.
-
Originally posted by Rolex
It's interesting to me that Washington and London are more concerned about Iran than Iran's neighbors are. Just as Washington is more concerned about North Korea than the South Koreans are. There seems to be a culture of overreaction. I don't think there is any doubt that Ahmadinejad is unsophisticated and clumsy, to say the least.
Now, I'm not an advocate for Iran, but any negotiation requires honestly putting yourself in the shoes of the people across the table to better understand your own position and options - how they will be received, what are their fears and goals, what are the misconceptions of your position and even misconceptions of their position.
So let's step back from the brink of overreaction for a minute and try to understand why Iran seems intent on building a nuclear arsenal and why it is boldly defying intervention. And let's talk about the history of Iran, the US and the UK, so we can understand how leaders like Ahmadinejad come to power and why they find support from their people by thumbing their noses at the west.
Specifically, how the UK history of colonizing the Iranian oil, the CIA-led coup against the secular government, the US and UK deposing of Reza Shah I and the US encouragement of war against Iraq (costing a million Iranian lives) and subsequent double-cross by arming Iraq has built a culture of frustration at the west.
Those facts and history provide the backdrop for understanding their position. It's also important to understand that the inconsistency of foreign policy regarding nuclear nonproliferation has fueled Ahmadinejad's strength. Iran does not harbor Al Qaeda or Taliban-trained suicide bombers, like Pakistan has done and continues to do, yet no one is advocating military intervention.
Pakistan, India, Israel and China are not signers of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, yet they surround Iran. India and Pakistan have even received nuclear cooperation agreements with the US in spite of their refusal to sign the treaty.
I would say that inconsistency of foreign policy and continued outside influence in the affairs of Iran would be key parts of their position.
Good points.
I hate you.
On a brighter note.. if I was Iran, I'd wanna be buddies with Russia and China, and pull an Abramoff. Done right, Iran would wind up with everything it wants, we'll be unable to do dick-all with China and Russia propping up Iran with an oil and gas for bombs and bullets via mutual defense treaties.
We'll even lose the 'hearts and minds' battle on the homefront.. the soccer moms and stay at home stock trader dads won't wanna send their kids and cash off to another middle east dirtpile.
we're screwed.
-
Originally posted by Rolex
It's interesting to me that Washington and London are more concerned about Iran than Iran's neighbors are.
Really? You have no idea ( find it interesting) why the US and Britain should be concerned about Iran?
Iran's neighbors have nearly zero reason to be concerned about Iran, with the exception of Israel.
-
I don't disagree with your historical recitation Rolex. With the exception that I do believe Iran is harboring A-Q, either turning a blind eye to them or giving them some support. People I know back from Afghanistan have told me that they're quite certain A-Q use Iran as a safe refuge, just as A-Q do in the Pakistan border areas.
However, I do think Ahmadinejad is an idiot for provoking Israel.
Without the "wipe them off the map" comment, I think this situation would progress as NK, Pakistan, India, Israel and China did. Fact is, nobody wants to screw with a nation that has nukes. Undeniable, proven by recent history; and the "world community" (UN) can do jack-all to stop a nation bent on having nuke weapons. The UNSC isn't going to authorize any invasion of any country to stop them from joining the nuke club.
Without the "wipe them out" comment, this would go to the UN, angst and anger would be expressed and Iran would join the nuke club and the world would go on.
I think Ahmadinejad put his foot in it. I'm not sure the Israelis will let them become a nuclear power after that. An attack by Israel would be handled the same way. Shock, outrage and horror by the bystanders and the world would go on.
Because.... whose gonna screw with Israel? They have nukes.
It's quite a club for the members and I'm not suprised so many would like to join.
-
(http://www.conelrad.com/duckandcover/images/dandc_title_400.gif)
(http://www.help-for-you.com/news/Nov2001/Nov03/doomsday_clock_magazine_cover.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Toad
Because.... who's gonna screw with Israel? They have nukes.
Indeed, an easy concept to grasp - more nukes = less war! ;)
-
lol Beet :rofl
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Indeed, an easy concept to grasp - more nukes = less war! ;)
in which case britian will be disarming shortly no doubt. ask saw to send you some white cloth, preferrable with a nice lace border. :D
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Indeed, an easy concept to grasp - more nukes = less war! ;)
Indeed.
At first, only the US had nukes; we used two.
Since that time, more and more countries have armed with nukes and there hasn't been a single World War since. Looks like it does work!
And, if there is an Israeli strike with "small nuke" tipped deep penetrators, Iran will be denied entry into the club, at least for a while. Considering Iran is attempting to be a Sharia-run nation with nukes and a world full of infidels, that may indeed "=less war" as well.
-
The recent banning of CNN by Iran sort of caught my eye. I feel it is a "testing of the waters", so to speak, checking for a reaction or non-reaction. I think it is very possible that we will see more of this on a larger scale in the future. The first step of isolating their people from the rest of the world in order to be able to feed them any info that they wish without outside influence. When and if the time comes for action on this they will be hand in hand with Russia. On that you can bet.
-
Storch - no, I said MORE nukes = less war! Indeed, I am vehemently opposed to unilateral disarmament, which is why I've never suggested.... well, you know what. In 1983, a General Election in Britain was fought with this very issue at the top of the list of issues over which the election was fought. Margaret Thatcher saw the folly of unilateral disarmament. And thankfully, so too did the electorate. Maggie won with a 144 seat landslide. The other party wanted to disarm in the vain hope that Russia would follow suit!
Originally posted by Toad
Indeed.
At first, only the US had nukes; we used two.
Since that time, more and more countries have armed with nukes and there hasn't been a single World War since. Looks like it does work!
Yes, YES! I've finally found something we can agree on! BTW, I hope you noticed that I waited 24h+ before having that bit of fun in your thread. ;) And, if there is an Israeli strike with "small nuke" tipped deep penetrators, Iran will be denied entry into the club, at least for a while. Considering Iran is a Sharia-run nation with nukes and a world full of infidels, that may indeed "=less war" as well.
Given that the facilities are so spread out/underground, how feasible would it be for Israel to disable Iran's nukes?
-
beet made a very good observation... since the nuke... we have ended one huge war and made it impossible for the huffy, barborous little your-0-peans to start any more wars out of their decaying little countries.
They have been good little boys.
lazs
-
If Iran nuked Israel, wouldnt there be 3 headed Iraqis running around?
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Given that the facilities are so spread out/underground, how feasible would it be for Israel to disable Iran's nukes?
The GBU-28 was developed for Desert Storm.
A sled test on 26 February proved that the bomb could penetrate over 20 feet of concrete, while an earlier flight test had demonstrated the bomb's ability to penetrate more than 100 feet of earth.
Since then it has been improved and the Israelis have a record of improving our improvements. They've had them for almost a year now.
As for spread out numerous underground targets, we sold them 100 GBU-28's.
Israel also has three German Dolphin class submarines, each reportedly capable of launching 24 nuclear tipped Harpoons. They would be in range of many of the facilities from the Gulf of Oman. There's a rumor going round they've been rehearsing that one.
As I said, a very stupid comment by Ahmadinejad. Probably every other country would dismiss that remark as just another politician blowing smoke. I'm not sure Israel would do that.
-
Originally posted by Toad
The GBU-28 was developed for Desert Storm.
Since then it has been improved and the Israelis have a record of improving our improvements. They've had them for almost a year now.
As for spread out numerous underground targets, we sold them 100 GBU-28's.
Israel also has three German Dolphin class submarines, each reportedly capable of launching 24 nuclear tipped Harpoons. They would be in range of many of the facilities from the Gulf of Oman. There's a rumor going round they've been rehearsing that one.
As I said, a very stupid comment by Ahmadinejad. Probably every other country would dismiss that remark as just another politician blowing smoke. I'm not sure Israel would do that.
I thought AGM-84's were Anti-Ship Missiles?
Karaya
-
Originally posted by Toad
Israel also has three German Dolphin class submarines, each reportedly capable of launching 24 nuclear tipped Harpoons. They would be in range of many of the facilities from the Gulf of Oman. There's a rumor going round they've been rehearsing that one.
Actually they are fitted with an indigenous Popeye cruise missile, which might have a range up to 1500 km.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/missile/popeye-t.htm
-
Or maybe both:
Also from Global Security:
Submarines (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/israel/sub.htm)
The submarine has the capacity to carry anti-ship missiles, mines, decoys and STN Atlas wire-guided DM2A3 torpedoes. The surface-to-surface missiles may include the submarine-launched Harpoon which delivers a 227 kilogram warhead to a range of 130 kilometres at high subsonic speed. It is generally agreed that these submarines are outfitted with six 533-millimeter torpedo tubes suitable for the 21-inch torpedoes that are normally used on most submarines, including those of the United States....
...An article published by the Los Angeles Times in mid-October 2003, indicated that Israel had successfully modified American-supplied Harpoon cruise missiles for use with nuclear warheads on its submarines. The process would have involved reducing the size of the warheads to fit inside the missiles as well as altering the guidance systems so as to be able to hit land-based targets, but would enable Israel to deliver nuclear weapons from the sea virtually unimpedded. The claim was however disputed by Israeli and others who questioned the ability of the Harpoon missile to carry a nuclear payload.
As of early November 2003, it was reported by the German newspaper Berliner Zeitung, that Germany`s leading shipyard company HDW was involved in negotiations with Israel to construct two additional Dolphin submarines. HDW confirmed these conversations, which were said to be of a purely technical nature and claimed the German government had approved them. It was also reported that Israeli engineers had modified the missile launching pads of earlier Dolphin submarines at the Kiel's HDW dockyard, possibly to accomodate nuclear warheads....
-
Beet may be on to something:
Chirac wants to NUKE terrorists! (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4627862.stm)
I bought a shovel last week end, I will start digging this week end. :noid
-
Iran would never attack anyone straight up ...
they would just feed the local nutjobs the materials to do their dirty work
-
Maybe that's what Israel truly fears.
Nuclear Iran = Nuclear Hammas or some such.
-
So did the BBC translate something incorrectly?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4644398.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4644398.stm)