Interesting article on possible Israeli strike on Iran by The Economist

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,797
572
126
http://www.economist.com/node/21548228

Basically the article states that a strike by Israel on Iran would have a low chance of significantly setting back Iran's Nuclear program, based on what is know about the capabilities of, and resources available to their air force

Also that a strike on Iran might convince Iran that they need a nuclear weapon to discourage attack and firmly set them on a path to acquire the ability or accelerate such a program if it already exists.

Basically unless the United States wants to get involved with aerial bombing attacks (in which case the best case scenario is setting back any program that might exist 5-10 years) the best option available is probably some form of carrot and stick approach with negotiations.

Better relations (and perhaps aid) if they allow IAEA inspectors in or more sanctions if they don't.
 

cubby1223

Lifer
May 24, 2004
13,518
42
86
Basically unless the United States wants to get involved with aerial bombing attacks (in which case the best case scenario is setting back any program that might exist 5-10 years) the best option available is probably some form of carrot and stick approach with negotiations.

Better relations (and perhaps aid) if they allow IAEA inspectors in or more sanctions if they don't.

Inspectors & sanctions don't work either. My opinion, the only path to preventing them from obtaining nuclear weapons is to bomb Iran into submission.

Why did Germany & Japan turn around and become allies, become peaceful nations, productive nations? While Afghanistan kills our soldiers after *their* people first desecrated Korans?
 

tommo123

Platinum Member
Sep 25, 2005
2,617
48
91
Inspectors & sanctions don't work either. My opinion, the only path to preventing them from obtaining nuclear weapons is to bomb Iran into submission.

Why did Germany & Japan turn around and become allies, become peaceful nations, productive nations? While Afghanistan kills our soldiers after *their* people first desecrated Korans?

and it;s opinions like that that justify them having nukes. there's no evidence of them trying to build nuclear weapons, only nuclear power which they have every right to have.
 

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,797
572
126
Inspectors & sanctions don't work either. My opinion, the only path to preventing them from obtaining nuclear weapons is to bomb Iran into submission.

Why did Germany & Japan turn around and become allies, become peaceful nations, productive nations? While Afghanistan kills our soldiers after *their* people first desecrated Korans?

That's the problem read the article more carefully Israel with their current munitions would have to perform flawlessly (get more than one direct hit on the suspected main site) to really impact Iran's ability to develop atomic weapons.

An attack on them would surely cause them to really get on that project anyway if (whether or not they actually trying now).

It would require the largest conventional bombs in the U.S. inventory to push back the Iranian program (again if it really exists, I'm betting that they want to be sure that they can embark on a program but I'm not sure they're doing more than saber rattling at this point) 5-10 years.

Bombing them into submission might be done but look at how the middle east reacts (overreacts(?)) to a lot of things that U.S. forces do in Iraq or Afghanistan and tell me that you still think that it's the only viable option?

There's just a whole slew of not really great choices to choose from when it comes to Iran and their nuclear program...

This is a long in the making example of the law of unintended consequences. Maybe if the CIA didn't help overthrew the democratically elected leader of Iran back in the 50's we'd have a regime more agreeable to talks about a nuclear program.


As for the troops in Afghanistan? Well they wouldn't have to be there if the Special forces commanders were allowed to find and kill/capture Bin Laden when he was in the Tora Bora area in Afghanistan... when was that oh yeah around the 2003 time frame.
 

Texashiker

Lifer
Dec 18, 2010
18,811
198
106
Basically unless the United States wants to get involved with aerial bombing attacks (in which case the best case scenario is setting back any program that might exist 5-10 years) the best option available is probably some form of carrot and stick approach with negotiations.

Better relations (and perhaps aid) if they allow IAEA inspectors in or more sanctions if they don't.

The only thing that is going to stop Iran is to replace its government.

Sanctions and other obstacles are short term solutions. We need to be thinking 20, 30, 40 years from now.

the only long term solution is to invade Iran, overthrow the government, and restore Iran to a pre-1970s form of government.
 

cubby1223

Lifer
May 24, 2004
13,518
42
86
I'm saying that in the present, anything less than (the U.S.) bombing them into submission will not stop them from obtaining nukes.

We can't go back in history and change actions of the past. The only thing we can do is deal with situations in the here & now. We can learn from the past and understand what consequences of previous actions were - but we have to move forward in ways that are under our control.

Sanctions didn't stop Kim Jong Il. Food aid didn't stop Kim Jong Il. The only thing that stopped him was old age.
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,018
37
91
The only thing that is going to stop Iran is to replace its government.

Sanctions and other obstacles are short term solutions. We need to be thinking 20, 30, 40 years from now.

the only long term solution is to invade Iran, overthrow the government, and restore Iran to a pre-1970s form of government.

That will never happen (unless Iran decides to shut down seaway in their territory, and even then, we'd only take over what we needed to protect that seaway, not the whole country/replace its Leadership).

The US public doesn't have the stomach to allow our military to do what it takes to win wars with countries no one cares about (Afghanistan, Iraq). They're certainly not going to have the stomach to do what would be needed to first conquer Iran, and then, hold it, and then, help the Iranians willing to make it work against the Iranians that wanted to kill The Great Satan.

In short: Unless Iran does something hysterically stupid (closing off their part of the seaway/the whole seaway), Iran will keep on kicking as it has been. Their Leadership is brutal enough to stop public sentiment, which hasn't reached anywhere close to the level necessary to signal to the religious Leadership there to allow the present political Leadership to be changed.

Chuck
 

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,645
0
76
www.facebook.com
Inspectors & sanctions don't work either. My opinion, the only path to preventing them from obtaining nuclear weapons is to bomb Iran into submission.

Why did Germany & Japan turn around and become allies, become peaceful nations, productive nations? While Afghanistan kills our soldiers after *their* people first desecrated Korans?
Why don't you do it with your own property since you think it works so well? The Afghanis and the Japanese earlier were pretty much forced into attacking Americans.

Japan wanted to surrender anyway. You need to learn the truth rather than what you were told in public schools.
 

cubby1223

Lifer
May 24, 2004
13,518
42
86
Why don't you do it with your own property since you think it works so well? The Afghanis and the Japanese earlier were pretty much forced into attacking Americans.

Japan wanted to surrender anyway. You need to learn the truth rather than what you were told in public schools.

Ah, yes, "the truth".

Go ahead and offer up your perspective on how to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Do you believe diplomacy will work? Do you believe sanctions will work? What insight do the Articles of Confederation provide on these matters?

And, are you blaming the Pacific Theater on the United States? Does your "truth" involve the United States invading Manchuria in 1931 and then again in 1937? Because that is not what I was told in public schools, but who knows maybe I am wrong?



My personal opinion is that Iran will develop nuclear weapons. We either stop them, or prepare for how to deal with their nuclear arsenal. If there is no will to bomb Iran into submission, then I believe we must accept they will gain nukes and start preparing for dealing with that situation.
 
Last edited:

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,797
572
126
The only thing that is going to stop Iran is to replace its government.

Sanctions and other obstacles are short term solutions. We need to be thinking 20, 30, 40 years from now.

the only long term solution is to invade Iran, overthrow the government, and restore Iran to a pre-1970s form of government.

Do we have the 500 billion initial down payment for that option? and are we willing to do it right...

That is sending in enough soldiers to keep order after the overthrow of the current regime...

I seriously doubt we'd have the will to do that even if we have enough equipment that isn't degraded by being in Iraq and Afghanistan for a number of years.

Oddly enough there's more evidence for a true nuclear capability in Iran than there ever was in Iraq... oh the irony. If it wasn't such a serious situation I'd be laughing at everyone who reads the P&N forums who were for O.I.L... excuse me it was renamed to O.I.F.
 

Linflas

Lifer
Jan 30, 2001
15,395
78
91
Ah, yes, "the truth".

Go ahead and offer up your perspective on how to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Do you believe diplomacy will work? Do you believe sanctions will work? What insight do the Articles of Confederation provide on these matters?

And, are you blaming the Pacific Theater on the United States? Does your "truth" involve the United States invading Manchuria in 1931? Because that is not what I was told in public schools, but who knows maybe I am wrong?



My personal opinion is that Iran will develop nuclear weapons. We either stop them, or prepare for how to deal with their nuclear arsenal. If there is no will to bomb Iran into submission, then I believe we must accept they will gain nukes and start preparing for dealing with that situation.

Not really a stretch for him. He has stated previously that Allied war crimes were worse than anything perpetrated by Hitler or Tojo.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=33047494&postcount=65
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
Why don't you do it with your own property since you think it works so well? The Afghanis and the Japanese earlier were pretty much forced into attacking Americans.

Japan wanted to surrender anyway. You need to learn the truth rather than what you were told in public schools.


And where did you learn the "truth".

Japan was "forced" into attacking the US after over 10 years of raping Asia; from Korea, China, the Philippines, Indonesia, East Indies and the Pacific Islands.

Of course Japan wanted to surrender.
On their terms. Which were unacceptable.
While publicly stating their intent to fight on to the bitter end, Japan's leaders at the Supreme Council for the Direction of the War (the "Big Six") were privately making entreaties to the neutral Soviet Union, to mediate peace on terms favorable to the Japanese.
Link_Wiki
And until; they were still trying to kill the Allies and prisoners.
 
Last edited:

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
IMHO, Iran with a few nuclear weapons is no threat to the mid-east. Israel may not like it, but they will simply have to get over it. And even then, Iran building its first nuke, if they build them at all, is at least 3 years away.
 

spacejamz

Lifer
Mar 31, 2003
10,989
1,723
126
Why don't you do it with your own property since you think it works so well? The Afghanis and the Japanese earlier were pretty much forced into attacking Americans.

Japan wanted to surrender anyway. You need to learn the truth rather than what you were told in public schools.

Where are your links substantiating that Japan wanted to surrender? You have said this in numerous threads, but have NEVER backed it up...

Everyone, except you apparently, believed that Japan was going to fight to the last man and US casualties if Japan were invaded would be in the hundreds of thousands...Truman had to pick between the deaths of tens of thousands of Japanese or hundreds of thousands of US troops.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall#cite_ref-shockley_0-0

Estimated casualties

Because the U.S. military planners assumed "that operations in this area will be opposed not only by the available organized military forces of the Empire, but also by a fanatically hostile population",[10] high casualties were thought to be inevitable, but nobody knew with certainty how high. Several people made estimates, but they varied widely in numbers, assumptions, and purposes, which included advocating for and against the invasion. Afterwards, they were reused in the debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Casualty estimates were based on the experience of the preceding campaigns, drawing different lessons:

In a letter sent to Gen. Curtis LeMay from Gen. Lauris Norstad, when LeMay assumed command of the B-29 force on Guam, Norstad told LeMay that if an invasion took place, it would cost the US "half a million" dead.[41]
In a study done by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in April, the figures of 7.45 casualties/1,000 man-days and 1.78 fatalities/1,000 man-days were developed. This implied that a 90-day Olympic campaign would cost 456,000 casualties, including 109,000 dead or missing. If Coronet took another 90 days, the combined cost would be 1,200,000 casualties, with 267,000 fatalities.[42]

A study done by Adm. Nimitz's staff in May estimated 49,000 U.S casualties in the first 30 days, including 5,000 at sea.[43] A study done by General MacArthur's staff in June estimated 23,000 US casualties in the first 30 days and 125,000 after 120 days.[44] When these figures were questioned by General Marshall, MacArthur submitted a revised estimate of 105,000, in part by deducting wounded men able to return to duty.[45]

In a conference with President Truman on June 18, Marshall, taking the Battle of Luzon as the best model for Olympic, thought the Americans would suffer 31,000 casualties in the first 30 days (and ultimately 20% of Japanese casualties, which implied a total of 70,000 casualties).[46] Adm. Leahy, more impressed by the Battle of Okinawa, thought the American forces would suffer a 35% casualty rate (implying an ultimate toll of 268,000).[47] Admiral King thought that casualties in the first 30 days would fall between Luzon and Okinawa, i.e., between 31,000 and 41,000.[47] Of these estimates, only Nimitz's included losses of the forces at sea, though kamikazes had inflicted 1.78 fatalities per kamikaze pilot in the Battle of Okinawa,[48] and troop transports off Ky&#363;sh&#363; would have been much more exposed.

A study done for Secretary of War Henry Stimson's staff by William Shockley estimated that conquering Japan would cost 1.7-4 million American casualties, including 400,000-800,000 fatalities, and five to ten million Japanese fatalities. The key assumption was large-scale participation by civilians in the defense of Japan.[1]

Outside the government, well-informed civilians were also making guesses. Kyle Palmer, war correspondent for the Los Angeles Times, said half a million to a million Americans would die by the end of the war. Herbert Hoover, in a memorandums submitted to Truman and Stimson, also estimated 500,000 to 1,000,000 fatalities, and those were believed to be conservative estimates; but it is not known if Hoover discussed these specific figures in his meetings with Truman. The chief of the Army Operations division thought them "entirely too high" under "our present plan of campaign."[49]

The Battle of Okinawa ran up 72,000 US casualties in 82 days, of whom 12,510 were killed or missing. (This is conservative, because it excludes several thousand US soldiers who died after the battle indirectly, from their wounds.) The entire island of Okinawa is 464 sq mi (1,200 km2). If the US casualty rate during the invasion of Japan had been only 5% as high per unit area as it was at Okinawa, the US would still have lost 297,000 soldiers (killed or missing).
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,505
2
0
I suggest using nukes on Iran... all of the ones we have. Don't stop until everyone is dead. The world will be a better place with Iran not in it. We can clean up the fallout; at least progress can be made with that.

Am I the only one who is sick and tired of Iran and almost every other nation in the Middle East? Seriously... they need to stop acting like little boys and girls.
 

Karl Agathon

Golden Member
Sep 30, 2010
1,081
0
0
IMHO, Iran with a few nuclear weapons is no threat to the mid-east. Israel may not like it, but they will simply have to get over it. And even then, Iran building its first nuke, if they build them at all, is at least 3 years away.

I am inclined to agree with you for the most part. To further add, as long as Iran knows various nuclear arsonals are pointed at it, they wont be in a hurry to use one on anyone else. This is also assuming that Iran stays a rational state actor of course. The Israelis also have a devastating second strike capability at their disposal. im not all that worried about it, but of course, thats easy for me to say when I live half way around the world from that area.
 
Last edited:

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,797
572
126
I suggest using nukes on Iran... all of the ones we have. Don't stop until everyone is dead. The world will be a better place with Iran not in it. We can clean up the fallout; at least progress can be made with that.

Am I the only one who is sick and tired of Iran and almost every other nation in the Middle East? Seriously... they need to stop acting like little boys and girls.

That's pretty dumb expending our entire nuclear arsenal in the area... yeah, every other nuclear power wouldn't believe that we haven't lost our marbles.

Additionally this possible effect would have to be dealt with... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter

I hope your post was entirely facetious and sarcastic otherwise there are not words capable of describing the level of stupidity it would take to advocate that course of action.
 
Last edited:

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,321
126
Why don't you do it with your own property since you think it works so well? The Afghanis and the Japanese earlier were pretty much forced into attacking Americans.

Japan wanted to surrender anyway. You need to learn the truth rather than what you were told in public schools.
You have no supporting links to back up your wild misguided allegations.....
You also know little of Japanese culture in that period of history.
 

Freshgeardude

Diamond Member
Jul 31, 2006
4,506
0
76
IMHO, Iran with a few nuclear weapons is no threat to the mid-east. Israel may not like it, but they will simply have to get over it. And even then, Iran building its first nuke, if they build them at all, is at least 3 years away.

yes and no.


iran doesnt need a nuclear warhead to hurt israel. they just need a dirty bomb which is much easier to deploy to hezbollah than to shoot a weapon straight at israel.


an you know that.
 

Kadarin

Lifer
Nov 23, 2001
44,296
16
81
Why did Germany & Japan turn around and become allies, become peaceful nations, productive nations? While Afghanistan kills our soldiers after *their* people first desecrated Korans?

Because neither Japan nor Germany are Islamic countries. Germany is a Western country, and Japan's values (postwar) are compatible with Western civilization. Islam is not.