To bomb, or to bunker? Israel's Iran choices narrow

[PJABBER]

None of gingermeggs' posts make any sense to me, but, boy, they are entertaining.

Don't have a heart attack, though, y'hear?

 

[gingermeggs]

Originally posted by: PJABBER
None of gingermeggs' posts make any sense to me, but, boy, they are entertaining.

Don't have a heart attack, though, y'hear?

Heavens' to Bettsy, no'

 

[StageLeft]

Sometime in the future, when you look back on these days, you will wonder why the U.S. did not take direct action to stop the development of the Iranian nuclear bomb.

Not likely, the US has zero and I do mean absolutely zero political capital left to do anything of the sort. Unlike in the story, you get to cry wolf just once. If Israel does not attack Iran nobody will. While the US was fvcking about in Iraq North Korea got the bomb and now the US must watch as Iran gets its bomb. That's all there is to it.

 

[Freshgeardude]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Why does PJABBER come up with only two binary Israeli choices? Which imply that if Israel does not make a preemptive strike against Iran, they better build bomb shelters instead because an Iranian nuclear strike is sure to come.

Lets do a short review of the entire 61 year history of Israel. Granted the initial Arab attacks were unjustified, but as Israeli behavior emerged, I think anyone but the most dim realize that the continuing and undiminished terrorism against Israel are attacks that Israel earns because of the Israeli systematic theft of land and property that still continues. Nor is Iran the origin of even a small fraction of terrorist attacks against Israel, as Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Arab world finance Anti-Israeli terrorism as public and private policy. And in return Israeli agents engage in assassinations across the Arab world.

And it never seems to occur to Israeli fan clubbers that if Israel wants safety and an end to Arab hostility, they need to change their disgusting behavior. Things like supporting a viable Palestinian State and returning land that they have stolen in the past. Failing that, Israel's greatest danger will be from terrorists who acquire chemical and biologic technologies along with the means to deliver them deep inside Israel. And any of the Russian loose nukes may fall into terrorists hands at some future date.

As for Iran, their go or no go point on nuclear weapons is still years into the future, and any nuclear strike they might mount against Israel would be met by a far larger nuclear strike against Iran by Israel and other nuclear powers.

bold- tbh honest, lemonlaw, i have no idea where you come up with this crap. The only problems israel is having right now is from hezbollah in the north and Hamas in gaza. no other country bordering Israel is threatning it. So, since we have proved hamas and hezbollah receive weapons from iran, they are the orgin of ALL of terrorist attacks againt israel.

secondly, while other ME countries do splat out anti-israel blabber, it surprised me to read an article which said Saudi Arabia was in favor of Israel taking out Iran's nuclear factories. We have already discussed this before, i dont need to dig up the article.


underline- While I do not believe iran has years to come for their nuclear weapon capabilities (more like 1-2 if even that) they have been stocking up on weapons and defense systems. I believe that they would be ready to defend themselves against any attack, and it wont be a simple takeover of the government.

 

[Lemon law]

To FreshgearDude, who says, "bold- tbh honest, lemonlaw, i have no idea where you come up with this crap. The only problems israel is having right now is from hezbollah in the north and Hamas in gaza. no other country bordering Israel is threatning it. So, since we have proved hamas and hezbollah receive weapons from iran, they are the orgin of ALL of terrorist attacks againt israel.

secondly, while other ME countries do splat out anti-israel blabber, it surprised me to read an article which said Saudi Arabia was in favor of Israel taking out Iran's nuclear factories. We have already discussed this before, i dont need to dig up the article.


underline- While I do not believe iran has years to come for their nuclear weapon capabilities (more like 1-2 if even that) they have been stocking up on weapons and defense systems. I believe that they would be ready to defend themselves against any attack, and it wont be a simple takeover of the government."

In a way of explanation, you would have to lose a lot of your pro Israeli bias to understand anything about the mideast and what drives the Arab and Persian side of the politics. And the difference between the rhetoric and action. And how the US occupation of Iraq has changed many of the conventional wisdom as it destabilizes quite a few countries.

But especially after the 1967 and 1973 wars, all the surrounding Arab countries have increasingly come to the realization that Israel is too powerful to attack, but the leadership of these Arab countries take advantage of the anti Israeli propaganda, to say to their citizens, see how wonderful we are and how bad Israel is, while doing nothing to help the Palestinians. And then look the other way when many of their citizens amply fund anti Israel terrorism.

Meanwhile the Saudi Royal family are a lot less stable than they look, and so for that matter is Egypt, as both countries leadership get paid big bribes by the US to do nothing about the Israel. But the Governments of Turkey and Saudi Arabia are the big losers in the US occupation of Iraq and for different reasons. (1) Saudi Arab, for the first time loses a Sunni dominated Iraq, as an Iraqi democracy equals a Shia dominated Iraq, and that plus a Shia dominated Iran effectively severs their land based ties to the rest of the Arab world that are vast majority Sunni. So it does not surprise me that Saudi's are at least like warm to an Israeli attack against Iran. (2) As for Turkey, they are very worried about a rising Kurdish movement for a homeland that might claim vast swaths of Turkey, and now the Iraqi Kurds have the oil money to finance such a movement. Meanwhile Turkey is not happy with Israeli attacks on both Lebanon and Syria.

As for Iran, the sudden loss of the Shah of Iran 30 yeas ago has destabilized US mid-east policy. And the reason for the US initial support of Saddam Hussein who engaged in a huge Iraqi military build up in the early 80's. And too late Rumsfeld and other Reagan administration policy wonks belatedly realized that Saddam was double dealing with the Russians also. And soon Saddam was committed to a war with Iran that Iran barely survived. As Iran found they could not buy, beg, or steal the weapons they needed to
defend themselves against Iraq. As a result Iran has a thriving home based armament industry that could easily blunt any land based attack against Iranian soil. And probably have a fairly effective defense against most aerial attacks. And given the not so secret Cheney desire to militarily take over Iran, and given that recent history, I don't think anyone can rationally blame Iran for investing in their own self defense. And if there is one issue that is universally popular in Iran, it is investing in their own nuclear energy program for the generation of electrical power. And its also worth noting, that Iran has learned from the mistakes of Saddam and Syria, because they buried their nuclear sites deep underground, widely dispersed them, thus making an effective Israeli attack against them beyond the capacity of Israel. And worse yet, the Israeli strike would have to be massive and nuclear, something Israel could never justify as mere self defense, and would make Israel into a rouge state the world could not support. Worse yet, such a Israel attack would have to kill every Iranian within 50 miles of the Coast of Persian gulf. As Iran would be perfectly justified in shutting down the Persian gulf to all oil shipments. And not one oil tanker would move for years. Within minutes oil speculators would push up the price of oil to impossible prices, it would result in an instant depression for all oil based economies in the world, and any Arab Country not willing to instantly attack Israel would have its leadership swept away.

Get a clue freshgeardude, Iran, unlike Iraq or Syria is no paper tiger, and the consequences of any Israel pre-emptive strike are almost too scary to contemplate. And it would almost certainly result in the total end for the State of Israel.

History books are littered with nutty little states with totally delusional leadership, but when they over reach, its their end. And Israel would end up without an ally in the entire world.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Sometime in the future, when you look back on these days, you will wonder why the U.S. did not take direct action to stop the development of the Iranian nuclear bomb.

Not likely, the US has zero and I do mean absolutely zero political capital left to do anything of the sort. Unlike in the story, you get to cry wolf just once. If Israel does not attack Iran nobody will. While the US was fvcking about in Iraq North Korea got the bomb and now the US must watch as Iran gets its bomb. That's all there is to it.

That's not true at all. We could easily stop Iran's bomb development. I just don't think we will.

 

[LunarRay]

LemonLaw,

"In a way of explanation, you would have to lose a lot of your pro Israeli bias to understand anything about the mideast and what drives the Arab and Persian side of the politics. And the difference between the rhetoric and action. And how the US occupation of Iraq has changed many of the conventional wisdom as it destabilizes quite a few countries.

But especially after the 1967 and 1973 wars, all the surrounding Arab countries have increasingly come to the realization that Israel is too powerful to attack, but the leadership of these Arab countries take advantage of the anti Israeli propaganda, to say to their citizens, see how wonderful we are and how bad Israel is, while doing nothing to help the Palestinians. And then look the other way when many of their citizens amply fund anti Israel terrorism.

Meanwhile the Saudi Royal family are a lot less stable than they look, and so for that matter is Egypt, as both countries leadership get paid big bribes by the US to do nothing about the Israel. But the Governments of Turkey and Saudi Arabia are the big losers in the US occupation of Iraq and for different reasons. (1) Saudi Arab, for the first time loses a Sunni dominated Iraq, as an Iraqi democracy equals a Shia dominated Iraq, and that plus a Shia dominated Iran effectively severs their land based ties to the rest of the Arab world that are vast majority Sunni. So it does not surprise me that Saudi's are at least like warm to an Israeli attack against Iran. (2) As for Turkey, they are very worried about a rising Kurdish movement for a homeland that might claim vast swaths of Turkey, and now the Iraqi Kurds have the oil money to finance such a movement. Meanwhile Turkey is not happy with Israeli attacks on both Lebanon and Syria.

As for Iran, the sudden loss of the Shah of Iran 30 yeas ago has destabilized US mid-east policy. And the reason for the US initial support of Saddam Hussein who engaged in a huge Iraqi military build up in the early 80's. And too late Rumsfeld and other Reagan administration policy wonks belatedly realized that Saddam was double dealing with the Russians also. And soon Saddam was committed to a war with Iran that Iran barely survived. As Iran found they could not buy, beg, or steal the weapons they needed to
defend themselves against Iraq. As a result Iran has a thriving home based armament industry that could easily blunt any land based attack against Iranian soil. And probably have a fairly effective defense against most aerial attacks. And given the not so secret Cheney desire to militarily take over Iran, and given that recent history, I don't think anyone can rationally blame Iran for investing in their own self defense. And if there is one issue that is universally popular in Iran, it is investing in their own nuclear energy program for the generation of electrical power. And its also worth noting, that Iran has learned from the mistakes of Saddam and Syria, because they buried their nuclear sites deep underground, widely dispersed them, thus making an effective Israeli attack against them beyond the capacity of Israel. And worse yet, the Israeli strike would have to be massive and nuclear, something Israel could never justify as mere self defense, and would make Israel into a rouge state the world could not support. Worse yet, such a Israel attack would have to kill every Iranian within 50 miles of the Coast of Persian gulf. As Iran would be perfectly justified in shutting down the Persian gulf to all oil shipments. And not one oil tanker would move for years. Within minutes oil speculators would push up the price of oil to impossible prices, it would result in an instant depression for all oil based economies in the world, and any Arab Country not willing to instantly attack Israel would have its leadership swept away.

Get a clue freshgeardude, Iran, unlike Iraq or Syria is no paper tiger, and the consequences of any Israel pre-emptive strike are almost too scary to contemplate. And it would almost certainly result in the total end for the State of Israel.

History books are littered with nutty little states with totally delusional leadership, but when they over reach, its their end. And Israel would end up without an ally in the entire world. "

This is quite some 'put together'. I can't find a hole in it at all looking at it from the perspective of Iran or Israel.
I wonder if you factored in Iraq as becoming part of the bigger Iranian objective would that not force Turkey to some agreement with Israel. I'd doubt Iraq/Iran would want to share with the Kurds thus forcing them to seek Turkish only homeland. Or do you think the Kurds only want Turkish land? I further think Iranian plans include Afghanistan and Pakistan and maybe the northern 'Stans' as well. I think the big picture is a United (maybe confederation) Islamic nation. Shia control... I can't see anything that can stop that if that is what they are up to. I don't think Iranian plans include anything west of Iraq. I don't think they care about Israel at all. They don't much care about SA either or their politics and figure it will implode sooner or later. Same with Kuwait and the rest of SA border fellows... Eventually, I can see just one big country there...
What do you think about that scenario?

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: FaaR

Any nuke sent from Iran would more than likely arrive by container ship or similar rather than on top of an ICBM; that would be a far cheaper, safer and more reliable delivery method. Nobody has full control over what exactly arrives in all those thousands of containers unloaded on a daily basis. Reload the container onto a trailer, drive off to some warehouse somewhere, then put it in a truck or van and drive it to its destination. Then krakatau! and we're down one major metropolitan city.

No it wouldn't. That would achieve little , you would be better to make a bomb out of conventional explosives. Iran does not have the capabilities for high yield devices . Low yield devices like those used on Hiroshima are very poor weapons at ground level. You need height to make them work as a mass destruction weapon, that means a missile or plane.

It is pretty cool, yet at the same time, a little disturbing, that you know this.

That is, unless you are talking out of your ass (not sure).

Here you go:
http://www.ki4u.com/free_book/s73p912.htm

It is from the book Nulcear war survival skills, Years ago I was curious about all the talk of nuclear weapons so I started reading up, have quite a few books on it that are dod material. I think it is interesting that a dod approved method in a hurry for protection is just to dig a big hole, cover it with logs and cover that with dirt.

I think people have the nuclear threat all wrong. The real threat is someone taking something like fuel rods, grinding them into powder and detonating that in a major populated area. The resulting radiation would not kill , not right away. People would get long term health problems, and the fear factor would be high. People would never know how much the exposure really did to them, always leaving them in doubt about their health every time they get a mole, cough, or become ill.

 

[AshPhoenix]

IAEA urges Israel to allow nuclear inspection and Israel refuses to cooperate

"The delegation of Israel deplores this resolution," David Danieli, deputy director of Israel's atomic energy commission, told the chamber after the vote. "Israel will not cooperate in any matter with this resolution which is only aiming at reinforcing political hostilities and lines of division in the Middle East region."

Israel insists on continuing to be the sole nuclear power in the ME. This creates an imbalance of powers in the region and encourages other nations to acquire nukes.

 

[ChunkiMunki]

but I trust Israel with a nuclear device, I DON"T trust any arab or muslim country with one.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Sometime in the future, when you look back on these days, you will wonder why the U.S. did not take direct action to stop the development of the Iranian nuclear bomb.

Not likely, the US has zero and I do mean absolutely zero political capital left to do anything of the sort. Unlike in the story, you get to cry wolf just once. If Israel does not attack Iran nobody will. While the US was fvcking about in Iraq North Korea got the bomb and now the US must watch as Iran gets its bomb. That's all there is to it.

That's not true at all. We could easily stop Iran's bomb development. I just don't think we will.

Uhmmmm.... no we couldn't. While we might be able to stop Iran's bomb development, it most certainly would not be 'easy'.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: PJABBER
Sometime in the future, when you look back on these days, you will wonder why the U.S. did not take direct action to stop the development of the Iranian nuclear bomb.

It could have been done by a coordinated air strike or it could have been the imposition of a true embargo and blockade of Iran. We could even have been supportive of something else, anything else, that could have held off disastrous consequence.

But, didn't the world join us then in navel gazing and posturing in self delusion? For a few months we were accepted back into that oh so warm embrace of those who would destroy us by bombs and by the sweeter suffocation of pacifism.

Will it be so when thousands have died? Or when fallout is settling throughout the Mid-East, Europe or maybe the U.S.?

Did you cheer the Israelis as they attempted to stave off the existential threat they faced or did you watch numbly as the clouds of war rolled across your TV screen?

Did you celebrate with the thousands of Palestinians the death of Israelis, Europeans and Americans? Did you join the conflagration or did you just write your little notes to your friends on P&N abhorring, ignoring, rejecting the little effort that was made to preclude catastrophe.

You heard it explained to you in the press, you had your intelligent conversations and you remember how the hairs stood up on the back of your head when you first heard.

But that was then.

Now it has all changed.

It will never be the same again.

Until the next time.

To bomb, or to bunker? Israel's Iran choices narrow

* Current diplomatic course falls short of Israeli hopes

By Dan Williams
16 Sep 2009 12:55:52 GMT
Reuters

JERUSALEM, Sept 16 (Reuters) - The orchestrated roar of air force exercises designed to signal Israel's readiness to attack Iranian nuclear facilities are belied, perhaps, by a far quieter project deep beneath the western Jerusalem hills.

Dubbed "Nation's Tunnel" by the media and screened from view by government guards, it is a bunker network that would shelter Israeli leaders in an atomic war -- earth-bound repudiation of the Jewish state's vow to deny its foes the bomb at all costs.

Lash out or dig in? The quandary Israelis call existential seems close to decision-point. Iran's uranium enrichment has already produced enough raw fuel for one nuclear weapon, U.N. inspectors say, though Tehran denies having military designs. Next month's international good-faith talks offer no clear relief to Israel, which wants world powers to be prepared to penalise Iran's vulnerable energy imports but sees Russia and China blocking any such resolution at the U.N. Security Council.

That the Obama administration signed on to negotiating without preconditions -- a potential disavowal of the United States's past demand for an enrichment halt -- may only crank up Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's ticking clock.

"The longer the U.S. delays playing hardball with Iran, the sooner Israel is likely to strike," wrote Wall Street Journal columnist Bret Stephens.

Yet for every expert or diplomat bracing for an imminent attack, there's another who anticipates that Israel will be forced to stand down, hobbled by tactical limitations and the strategic hazards of ruining its top ally's regional agenda.

"Israel cannot take action so long as the United States is sincerely holding a real dialogue with Iran," said Giora Eiland, a retired Israeli general and former national security adviser.

Should Iran not yield, Eiland said, Washington might be able to persuade Moscow and Beijing to back tougher sanctions.

"But Israel could also end up alone, with two bad choices -- not doing anything and allowing Iran to have de facto military nuclear capacity, and carrying out a military intervention," he said, declining to elaborate on which choice he would recommend.

PLIANCY

The talks' duration could come down to the pliancy in an Iranian posture that has so far entailed defending enrichment as a legal right and brushing off allegations of warhead research.

"If Iran shows a little more skin, then the talks will drag out longer," said Mark Fitzpatrick, non-proliferation scholar at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London..

"If doesn't show any more skin, then I think there could be sanctions by the end of the year," he said, suggesting that the United States and Europe could target Iran's financial sector.

Assumed to have the Middle East's only atomic arsenal, Israel bombed an Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981 and carried out a similar sortie against Syria in 2007.

Aerial and naval manoeuvres, leaked to the media, have told of plans to reach Iran, though this time the targets are so distant, dispersed, and fortified that even Israel's top brass admit they could deliver a short-term, disruptive blow at most.

Hence Israel's discreet arrangements for living with the possibility of a nuclear-armed arch-enemy -- the bunkers, the missile interceptors, the talk of a U.S. strategic shield and of Cold War-style deterrence based on mutually-assured destruction.

One government intelligence analyst suggested that Israel had passed a psychological threshold by "allowing" Iran to manufacture enough low-enriched uranium (LEU) for a bomb. "We keep fretting about whether they will have a 'break-out capacity', but really they're already there," the analyst said.

The U.N. national intelligence director has assessed Iran will not be technically capable of producing high-enriched uranium (HEU) for the fissile core of an atom bomb before 2013.

Turning LEU into HEU would be an overt breach of international law, requiring Iran to eject foreign nuclear inspectors and recalibrate its centrifuges.

That, Fitzpatrick said, could be enough to trigger American military intervention -- Israel's ideal scenario. But he also saw the possibility of Iran agreeing to a limited domestic enrichment deal, with safeguards against illicit bomb-making.

Israel could still upend such talks and hit Iran -- say, if it suspects a parallel, secret enrichment project is coming to fruition. The Israelis may also want to preempt Iran's bid to buy advanced Russian air defences that could stave off a strike.

"There are three clocks at work here: technical, in terms of Iran's advances; operational, in terms of our capabilities and their precautions; and diplomatic," Eiland said.

"The questions is when and how these clocks might become synchronised for a 'window' in which Israel would act." (Editing by Samia Nakhoul)

Breaking: International Atomic Energy Agency says Iran can make and deliver bomb

VIENNA (AP) - Experts at the world's top atomic watchdog are in agreement that Tehran has the ability to make a nuclear bomb and is on the way to developing a missile system able to carry an atomic warhead, according to a secret report seen by The Associated Press.

The document drafted by senior officials at the International Atomic Energy Agency is the clearest indication yet that the agency's leaders share Washington's views on Iran's weapon-making capabilities.

It appears to be the so-called "secret annex" on Iran's nuclear program that Washington says is being withheld by the IAEA's chief.

The document says Iran has "sufficient information" to build a bomb. It says Iran is likely to "overcome problems" on developing a delivery system.

You remind me of Lemon Law, a twat who knows absolutly nothing but can't help to interject his moronic "insights" into a subject.

I don't know who of the two of you are more pathetic, in fact, if someone had told me that you two were the same poster, it wouldn't have surprised me in the least.

And no, Iran isn't up for invasion, sorry to bring your orgasm to a halt, but it's not, not by Israel and not by any other nation either. Not even Israels extreme current government would do that.

So no bombs on TV for YOU! Sorry, you'll have to go yeehaw someplace else, may i suggest Pakistan?

 

[AshPhoenix]

Originally posted by: ChunkiMunki
but I trust Israel with a nuclear device, I DON"T trust any arab or muslim country with one.

That's your problem, I'm Egyptian and I live next to Israel. I don't trust Israel to be the only country with nukes in the region. I much prefer a nuclear free ME, but as long as Israel insists on being the sole nuclear power, I support other nations in the region to acquire nukes too.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Sometime in the future, when you look back on these days, you will wonder why the U.S. did not take direct action to stop the development of the Iranian nuclear bomb.

Not likely, the US has zero and I do mean absolutely zero political capital left to do anything of the sort. Unlike in the story, you get to cry wolf just once. If Israel does not attack Iran nobody will. While the US was fvcking about in Iraq North Korea got the bomb and now the US must watch as Iran gets its bomb. That's all there is to it.

That's not true at all. We could easily stop Iran's bomb development. I just don't think we will.

Uhmmmm.... no we couldn't. While we might be able to stop Iran's bomb development, it most certainly would not be 'easy'.

Are you daft, of course we could if we needed to.

Now that political monitoring of military activity is left unhindered by orders that are political in nature rather than practical as military orders we can do that if we want to.

It would take one team of ground troops and one strike, it's been done at least 60 times in the past 8 years and it worked just fine each and every time.

If need be, it can be done. It should stop with that though, like it should have stopped with that in Iraq.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Are you daft, of course we could if we needed to.

Now that political monitoring of military activity is left unhindered by orders that are political in nature rather than practical as military orders we can do that if we want to.

It would take one team of ground troops and one strike, it's been done at least 60 times in the past 8 years and it worked just fine each and every time.

If need be, it can be done. It should stop with that though, like it should have stopped with that in Iraq.

No, I'm not 'daft'. And no, it wouldn't take one team of ground troops and one strike. Iran's nuclear program is spread over multiple hardened facilities, to think that one team of ground troops could march from place to place all over Iran is 'daft'.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: AshPhoenix

Originally posted by: ChunkiMunki
but I trust Israel with a nuclear device, I DON"T trust any arab or muslim country with one.

That's your problem, I'm Egyptian and I live next to Israel. I don't trust Israel to be the only country with nukes in the region. I much prefer a nuclear free ME, but as long as Israel insists on being the sole nuclear power, I support other nations in the region to acquire nukes too.

I would not mind Israel being forced to give up their nukes but i am very much against letting people have these kinds of weapons in an area that is overrun by terrorists.

You have to understand that these are people who don't give a fuck if every single one of their nation perishes as long as they get their reward from god.

 

[fskimospy]

For a look at what is required to destroy Iran's nuclear sites I found an interesting policy paper by CSIS on the possibility/consequences of an Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. Here.

Like I said, they conclude it to be difficult and high risk, coupled with significant uncertainty that you would do enough damage to actually cripple or destroy the program.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Are you daft, of course we could if we needed to.

Now that political monitoring of military activity is left unhindered by orders that are political in nature rather than practical as military orders we can do that if we want to.

It would take one team of ground troops and one strike, it's been done at least 60 times in the past 8 years and it worked just fine each and every time.

If need be, it can be done. It should stop with that though, like it should have stopped with that in Iraq.

No, I'm not 'daft'. And no, it wouldn't take one team of ground troops and one strike. Iran's nuclear program is spread over multiple hardened facilities, to think that one team of ground troops could march from place to place all over Iran is 'daft'.

Do you honestly think you know anything about this?

You don't.

Teams like those don't "march into" anything, they find their way to the place they are ordered to go, mark the area and move out.

And no, they are not in multiple areas, they only have one reactor facility.

 

[AshPhoenix]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: AshPhoenix

Originally posted by: ChunkiMunki
but I trust Israel with a nuclear device, I DON"T trust any arab or muslim country with one.

That's your problem, I'm Egyptian and I live next to Israel. I don't trust Israel to be the only country with nukes in the region. I much prefer a nuclear free ME, but as long as Israel insists on being the sole nuclear power, I support other nations in the region to acquire nukes too.

I would not mind Israel being forced to give up their nukes but i am very much against letting people have these kinds of weapons in an area that is overrun by terrorists.

You have to understand that these are people who don't give a fuck if every single one of their nation perishes as long as they get their reward from god.

What countries exactly are overrun by terrorists ?

Israel is already run by right wing extremists. The current Israeli foreign minister threatened in 1998 that Israel could bomb the high dam and flood Egypt.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Are you daft, of course we could if we needed to.

Now that political monitoring of military activity is left unhindered by orders that are political in nature rather than practical as military orders we can do that if we want to.

It would take one team of ground troops and one strike, it's been done at least 60 times in the past 8 years and it worked just fine each and every time.

If need be, it can be done. It should stop with that though, like it should have stopped with that in Iraq.

No, I'm not 'daft'. And no, it wouldn't take one team of ground troops and one strike. Iran's nuclear program is spread over multiple hardened facilities, to think that one team of ground troops could march from place to place all over Iran is 'daft'.

Do you honestly think you know anything about this?

You don't.

Teams like those don't "march into" anything, they find their way to the place they are ordered to go, mark the area and move out.

And no, they are not in multiple areas, they only have one reactor facility.

Yes, and it would appear I know quite a bit more about it than you do. They most certainly do not have only one reactor facility. There is one at Bushehr, multiple research reactors in Isfahan, a heavy water reactor nearing completion at Arak, one in Tehran, and apparently another one under construction of Darkovin.

Regardless of all that, the number of reactors Iran has doesn't even mean much as to their nuclear capability unless you were only trying to stop them from making plutonium bombs. Nuclear reactors are not required to make uranium bombs, and Iran has an extensive uranium mining and enrichment program in place that you would also need to destroy.

I think you need to go learn more about Iran's nuclear program before you start talking about how easy it would be to destroy.

 

[PJABBER]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
For a look at what is required to destroy Iran's nuclear sites I found an interesting policy paper by CSIS on the possibility/consequences of an Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. Here.

Like I said, they conclude it to be difficult and high risk, coupled with significant uncertainty that you would do enough damage to actually cripple or destroy the program.

Thank you for that link to the excellent CSIS study. It is very helpful in getting an understanding of the complexity of mounting an attack and also provides an idea of the sphere of influence by each involved nation.

Projection of power over distance is not easy. It takes a lot planning, is a significant logistical challenge, requires cooperation or co-option of states which are not allies and the attendant uncertainties are considerable.

Of course, you do not have to destroy every important facility to cripple a development program, but crippling only means delay. And making the attempt means you are fair game for retaliation.

The best option, and the one least likely to occur, is that the development is halted, even reversed, voluntarily. Nothing else in motion right now other than a military strike is likely to interrupt or halt the development of Iranian nuclear weapons. Whether they intend to use one or just mean to use the threat of one is another debate.

Another round of negotiations is due soon. Obama will bring to bear his almighty teleprompter and moral certitude and He will go without preconditions and all will be well with the world. He has told us so.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: PJABBER

Originally posted by: eskimospy
For a look at what is required to destroy Iran's nuclear sites I found an interesting policy paper by CSIS on the possibility/consequences of an Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. Here.

Like I said, they conclude it to be difficult and high risk, coupled with significant uncertainty that you would do enough damage to actually cripple or destroy the program.

Thank you for that link to the excellent CSIS study. It is very helpful in getting an understanding of the complexity of mounting an attack and also provides an idea of the sphere of influence by each involved nation.

Projection of power over distance is not easy. It takes a lot planning, is a significant logistical challenge, requires cooperation or co-option of states which are not allies and the attendant uncertainties are considerable.

Of course, you do not have to destroy every important facility to cripple a development program, but crippling only means delay. And making the attempt means you are fair game for retaliation.

The best option, and the one least likely to occur, is that the development is halted, even reversed, voluntarily. Nothing else in motion right now other than a military strike is likely to interrupt or halt the development of Iranian nuclear weapons. Whether they intend to use one or just mean to use the threat of one is another debate.

Another round of negotiations is due soon. Obama will bring to bear his almighty teleprompter and moral certitude and He will go without preconditions and all will be well with the world. He has told us so.

See look here, you had a totally normal and decent post that people could have a reasonable discussion about it, and then you made yourself look stupid at the end. You don't have to do that, you know.

 

[Lemon law]

To JOS,

For someone who seems to have an inordinate faith in military power, and also understands little about people and politics, it may be all well and fine to call everyone who disagrees with you a with a twat, but there is always that little detail that you are a part of Nato team that has totally blown the Afghan occupation. And therefore you have almost zero credibility when calling someone else a twat and its like the pot calling the kettle black. Now if you had any understanding of the Afghan people and how to win to win hearts and minds, with a successful track record in that area, you might be credible, but I forgot, you are now willing to throw in the towel in Afghanistan rather than try something smarter than simply trying to kill your way out of all problems.

And on top of that, you seems to have zero knowledge of nuclear programs, and the wide range of Iranian options. You may be correct that Iran now has only one working reactor, but you forget its basically Russian built, fueled, and controlled. And I for one do think the Russians would retaliate against Israel if they bombed their reactor.

But getting back to the Iranian people, some rather exciting things are happening there, as they and Israel are basically the last two religiously controlled States on Earth. Iran could have gone many ways when the Shah of Iran lost all his internal support, and by fate and happenstance, the exiled Ayatollah Khomeini happened to seize the moment and used it to set up a religiously dominated government. Normally such religious States do not last long and now it looks like the Iranian people have had a bellyful of it over the last election. Worse yet, the current Ayatollah is proving to be arrogant and repressive. And in the arrests following the election, many of the sons and daughters of the most powerful Iranian political families were arrested, tossed into prisons, and brutally tortured. With many coming home in boxes or near death. In other words the basic formula of how to get the same bums rush the Shah got, although the process will take time. But Iran, in its post Shah phase has always been a battle between moderates and hardliners, and the last time Iranian moderates went hat in hand to Cheney, he kicked them in the teeth, and as a result we got Ahmadinejad. And now that the forces of Iranian moderation is once again is rising, it would only benefit the Iranian hardliners if Israel attack Iran. Because make no mistake, the entire Iranian nation is united behind their nuclear program for the legal generation of electrical nuclear power.

Meanwhile, to achieve that end, Iran is putting their efforts behind refining Uranium ore and separating out the U235 from the vastly more prevalent U238. And it does not take even close to pure U235 to make low grade enrichment reactor fuel, but it does take almost pure U235 to make a bomb. Once enough reactor fuel is made, Iran still has to build the reactors, and then they can start generating electricity. Then two years later when the fuel rods are depleted, the real go or no go point comes in terms of becoming a nuclear weapons power. Because as those fuel rods are reprocessed, the plutonium that works better in bombs can then be extracted as the fast way to become a nuclear weapons power. Meanwhile, Iran is still in compliance with the IAEA, who controls the spent fuel rods is still in question, the reactor designs are still in question, and who knows what the political situation will be in Iran when the go no go point is reached. But if Iran perceives that both the US and Israel are threats, its going to be more likely to build bombs and less likely to feel any need for nuclear weapons if the political climate is better. And the IAEA may be correct in saying, if Iran diverts all of its Uranium refining technology into solely refining enough U235 to build a nuke or two, it still means that Iran would have to scrap plans for refining enough reactor fuel. And hence Iran would choose the slowest possible way to become a nuclear power.

Meanwhile, some 40 other countries are planning to follow the Iranian lead and are petitioning the IAEA to start nuclear power generation programs of their own. And all these other countries would take a very dim view of Israel asserting its right to pre-emptively attack anyone they diddly darn choose to.

And its not a matter of the US, the UK, and the other traditional world powers losing control or running slower, its a matter that the technology is being more equally distributed to the rest of the world. The smart go with the flow, embrace change, and take advantage of the changes, the twats are the ones that try unsuccessfully to resist the changes and end up losing ugly.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Fern
As I look at their neighbors I don't see anyone who could be considered a likely threat.

You don't?

How many of their neighbors contain US military personnel and/or bases?

If I were in charge of Iran, I'd be trying to build a nuke too.

No I don't.

Which of their bordering countries do you think poses a real threat?

(The USA is another matter and has been adressed, or is being adressed)

Fern

It's not so much that those countries are a threat, but they are practically surrounded by US military.

Iranian and Pakistani scientists have been researching nukes since 1990's. It's pretty clear they'd be doing it no matter what the U.S. stance was.

 

[gingermeggs]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
To JOS,

For someone who seems to have an inordinate faith in military power, and also understands little about people and politics, it may be all well and fine to call everyone who disagrees with you a with a twat, but there is always that little detail that you are a part of Nato team that has totally blown the Afghan occupation. And therefore you have almost zero credibility when calling someone else a twat and its like the pot calling the kettle black. Now if you had any understanding of the Afghan people and how to win to win hearts and minds, with a successful track record in that area, you might be credible, but I forgot, you are now willing to throw in the towel in Afghanistan rather than try something smarter than simply trying to kill your way out of all problems.

And on top of that, you seems to have zero knowledge of nuclear programs, and the wide range of Iranian options. You may be correct that Iran now has only one working reactor, but you forget its basically Russian built, fueled, and controlled. And I for one do think the Russians would retaliate against Israel if they bombed their reactor.

But getting back to the Iranian people, some rather exciting things are happening there, as they and Israel are basically the last two religiously controlled States on Earth. Iran could have gone many ways when the Shah of Iran lost all his internal support, and by fate and happenstance, the exiled Ayatollah Khomeini happened to seize the moment and used it to set up a religiously dominated government. Normally such religious States do not last long and now it looks like the Iranian people have had a bellyful of it over the last election. Worse yet, the current Ayatollah is proving to be arrogant and repressive. And in the arrests following the election, many of the sons and daughters of the most powerful Iranian political families were arrested, tossed into prisons, and brutally tortured. With many coming home in boxes or near death. In other words the basic formula of how to get the same bums rush the Shah got, although the process will take time. But Iran, in its post Shah phase has always been a battle between moderates and hardliners, and the last time Iranian moderates went hat in hand to Cheney, he kicked them in the teeth, and as a result we got Ahmadinejad. And now that the forces of Iranian moderation is once again is rising, it would only benefit the Iranian hardliners if Israel attack Iran. Because make no mistake, the entire Iranian nation is united behind their nuclear program for the legal generation of electrical nuclear power.

Meanwhile, to achieve that end, Iran is putting their efforts behind refining Uranium ore and separating out the U235 from the vastly more prevalent U238. And it does not take even close to pure U235 to make low grade enrichment reactor fuel, but it does take almost pure U235 to make a bomb. Once enough reactor fuel is made, Iran still has to build the reactors, and then they can start generating electricity. Then two years later when the fuel rods are depleted, the real go or no go point comes in terms of becoming a nuclear weapons power. Because as those fuel rods are reprocessed, the plutonium that works better in bombs can then be extracted as the fast way to become a nuclear weapons power. Meanwhile, Iran is still in compliance with the IAEA, who controls the spent fuel rods is still in question, the reactor designs are still in question, and who knows what the political situation will be in Iran when the go no go point is reached. But if Iran perceives that both the US and Israel are threats, its going to be more likely to build bombs and less likely to feel any need for nuclear weapons if the political climate is better. And the IAEA may be correct in saying, if Iran diverts all of its Uranium refining technology into solely refining enough U235 to build a nuke or two, it still means that Iran would have to scrap plans for refining enough reactor fuel. And hence Iran would choose the slowest possible way to become a nuclear power.

Meanwhile, some 40 other countries are planning to follow the Iranian lead and are petitioning the IAEA to start nuclear power generation programs of their own. And all these other countries would take a very dim view of Israel asserting its right to pre-emptively attack anyone they diddly darn choose to.

And its not a matter of the US, the UK, and the other traditional world powers losing control or running slower, its a matter that the technology is being more equally distributed to the rest of the world. The smart go with the flow, embrace change, and take advantage of the changes, the twats are the ones that try unsuccessfully to resist the changes and end up losing ugly.

That's bullshit if I ever read it, I concur with ol'John boy' you are nub-nutted twat, Iran isn't going moderate and The Big Usa isn't going to give away any of it's stranglehold on world oil not untill there's none left!
Even if it shares a small % of that control with the UK's Bp. It's the reason Israel was created and isn't criticized by the Usa on the pali/leb thing, it's also why the Usa donated 5billion bushmarcs/chenneyrand (usd) in 2008 for the IDF.
Israel will hit the rani's, but will want to get the most costly effect on the irani economy by it and give diplomatic timing important priority, it would most likely take the form of a strategic hit from f-15 strike eagles, using the bunker buster weapons, as for Israel "fear" of Iranian retaliation, they could smash the whole region conventionally with the gloves off and that's why those god crazy shit talkers don't try shit.
Russia isn't holding any cards there, they would be stretched to say the lest and after Russ gets paid to make the reactors, what would they care if they got nailed?