(03-03-2009 10:58 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(03-03-2009 10:51 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-03-2009 10:11 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Exactly how is Russia to HELP the US with IRAN? They cannot do anything that has not been done in the past. Basically ObamaMessiahFoolPussy is throwing in the towel for a promise that means nothing.

What needs to be said is that ANY NUCLEAR DETONATION OR LAUNCH ON NATO OR ITS ALLIES FROM ANY STATE OR ROGUE NATION WILL INCUR A FULL NUCLEAR RETALIATORY STRIKE.

Once that is stated WE GO TO DEFCON 2.

I would take it a bit further:

"WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO TREAT ANY NUCLEAR DETONATION OR ATTACK OR LAUNCH AGAINST ANY STATE OR NATION FROM ANY OTHER STATE OR NATION OR ROGUE GROUP AS AN ATTACK AGAINST THE SOVEREIGN TERRITORY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND WE FURTHER RESERVE THE RIGHT TO RESPOND TO SUCH ATTACK BY RETALIATING AGAINST SUCH ATTACKING STATE OR NATION OR ROGUE GROUP WITH THE FULL RANGE OF MILITARY OPTIONS AVAILABLE, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO A FULL NUCLEAR RETALIATORY STRIKE. FAILURE TO RESPOND IN SUCH MANNER TO ANY INDIVIDUAL ATTACK DOES NOT CONSTITUTE RELINQUISHMENT OR WAIVER OF ANY PROVISION OF THIS STATEMENT, WITH REGARD EITHER TO THAT ATTACK OR ANY FUTURE ATTACKS BY THE SAME OR A DIFFERENT ATTACKER."

In other words, you use you lose.

Is there a nation with nuclear weapons that does not understand that the use of them is a zero sum game?

Why would you believe that other countries think the way people do in the West?

That's the big point here, the political left is so arrogant and so intolerant, they can't fathom how anyone thinks differently than they do, except for a few misguided ditto-heads.

I don't know why the Russians are pissed about the ABM Deployment to Poland the Czech Republic. The way the system works it can't intercept a Russian warhead headed West. so its no threat to their strategic systems.

They are just pissed at the idea that the US is setting up a strategic base on their doorstep.

My main concern is the Obama Foreign Policy/National Security Bozos.. Clinton, etc. running the negotiations. These people will give away the farm. If the Russians wanted them to give up the US ABM system in Alaska (which is effective against China and North Korea) they probably would.

Besides Russia has no real sway with the Iranians. Its not Russian technology that is building the uranium enrichment centrifuges. Iran buys uranium on the open market and is enriching it to weapons grade all by itself.

(03-03-2009 12:53 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  I don't know why the Russians are pissed about the ABM Deployment to Poland the Czech Republic. The way the system works it can't intercept a Russian warhead headed West. so its no threat to their strategic systems.

They are just pissed at the idea that the US is setting up a strategic base on their doorstep.

My main concern is the Obama Foreign Policy/National Security Bozos.. Clinton, etc. running the negotiations. These people will give away the farm.

Besides Russia has no real sway with the Iranians. Its not Russian technology that is building the uranium enrichment centrifuges. Iran buys uranium on the open market and is enriching it to weapons grade all by itself.

Would the US be pissed if the Russians decided to put a missile shield defense system in the west?

(03-03-2009 01:06 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(03-03-2009 12:53 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  I don't know why the Russians are pissed about the ABM Deployment to Poland the Czech Republic. The way the system works it can't intercept a Russian warhead headed West. so its no threat to their strategic systems.

They are just pissed at the idea that the US is setting up a strategic base on their doorstep.

My main concern is the Obama Foreign Policy/National Security Bozos.. Clinton, etc. running the negotiations. These people will give away the farm.

Besides Russia has no real sway with the Iranians. Its not Russian technology that is building the uranium enrichment centrifuges. Iran buys uranium on the open market and is enriching it to weapons grade all by itself.

Would the US be pissed if the Russians decided to put a missile shield defense system in the west?

Nope.. The Russians kept their ABM system up and running until 1991 even after the US scrapped the Safeguard ABM sites in North Daoka in the late 60's-early 70's.

MIRV's made ABM systems obsolete. What the Iranians and North Koreans have are unitary warhead missiles-which an ABM can hit. It takes a hell of a lot more technology (way beyond Iranain and NK levels) to make a MIRV "Bus"...

(03-03-2009 12:26 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(03-03-2009 10:58 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(03-03-2009 10:51 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-03-2009 10:11 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Exactly how is Russia to HELP the US with IRAN? They cannot do anything that has not been done in the past. Basically ObamaMessiahFoolPussy is throwing in the towel for a promise that means nothing.

What needs to be said is that ANY NUCLEAR DETONATION OR LAUNCH ON NATO OR ITS ALLIES FROM ANY STATE OR ROGUE NATION WILL INCUR A FULL NUCLEAR RETALIATORY STRIKE.

Once that is stated WE GO TO DEFCON 2.

I would take it a bit further:

"WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO TREAT ANY NUCLEAR DETONATION OR ATTACK OR LAUNCH AGAINST ANY STATE OR NATION FROM ANY OTHER STATE OR NATION OR ROGUE GROUP AS AN ATTACK AGAINST THE SOVEREIGN TERRITORY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND WE FURTHER RESERVE THE RIGHT TO RESPOND TO SUCH ATTACK BY RETALIATING AGAINST SUCH ATTACKING STATE OR NATION OR ROGUE GROUP WITH THE FULL RANGE OF MILITARY OPTIONS AVAILABLE, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO A FULL NUCLEAR RETALIATORY STRIKE. FAILURE TO RESPOND IN SUCH MANNER TO ANY INDIVIDUAL ATTACK DOES NOT CONSTITUTE RELINQUISHMENT OR WAIVER OF ANY PROVISION OF THIS STATEMENT, WITH REGARD EITHER TO THAT ATTACK OR ANY FUTURE ATTACKS BY THE SAME OR A DIFFERENT ATTACKER."

In other words, you use you lose.

Is there a nation with nuclear weapons that does not understand that the use of them is a zero sum game?

Why would you believe that other countries think the way people do in the West?

That's the big point here, the political left is so arrogant and so intolerant, they can't fathom how anyone thinks differently than they do, except for a few misguided ditto-heads.

I get your point...but..You didn't answer my question.

Hey... I'm fully concerned with the Iranian leaderships possible dubious motives. I just think this time...the US will not have to solve this one. The Israelis will.

(03-03-2009 01:11 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(03-03-2009 12:26 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(03-03-2009 10:58 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(03-03-2009 10:51 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-03-2009 10:11 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Exactly how is Russia to HELP the US with IRAN? They cannot do anything that has not been done in the past. Basically ObamaMessiahFoolPussy is throwing in the towel for a promise that means nothing.

What needs to be said is that ANY NUCLEAR DETONATION OR LAUNCH ON NATO OR ITS ALLIES FROM ANY STATE OR ROGUE NATION WILL INCUR A FULL NUCLEAR RETALIATORY STRIKE.

Once that is stated WE GO TO DEFCON 2.

I would take it a bit further:

"WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO TREAT ANY NUCLEAR DETONATION OR ATTACK OR LAUNCH AGAINST ANY STATE OR NATION FROM ANY OTHER STATE OR NATION OR ROGUE GROUP AS AN ATTACK AGAINST THE SOVEREIGN TERRITORY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND WE FURTHER RESERVE THE RIGHT TO RESPOND TO SUCH ATTACK BY RETALIATING AGAINST SUCH ATTACKING STATE OR NATION OR ROGUE GROUP WITH THE FULL RANGE OF MILITARY OPTIONS AVAILABLE, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO A FULL NUCLEAR RETALIATORY STRIKE. FAILURE TO RESPOND IN SUCH MANNER TO ANY INDIVIDUAL ATTACK DOES NOT CONSTITUTE RELINQUISHMENT OR WAIVER OF ANY PROVISION OF THIS STATEMENT, WITH REGARD EITHER TO THAT ATTACK OR ANY FUTURE ATTACKS BY THE SAME OR A DIFFERENT ATTACKER."

In other words, you use you lose.

Is there a nation with nuclear weapons that does not understand that the use of them is a zero sum game?

Why would you believe that other countries think the way people do in the West?

That's the big point here, the political left is so arrogant and so intolerant, they can't fathom how anyone thinks differently than they do, except for a few misguided ditto-heads.

I get your point...but..You didn't answer my question.

Hey... I'm fully concerned with the Iranian leaderships possible dubious motives. I just think this time...the US will not have to solve this one. The Israelis will.

To end the Iranian Nuclear Program, the Israeli Air Force won't have to bomb the nuclear research sites, or the centrifuge facilities---

All it has to do is kill about 30 people in the Iranian leadership, the Guardian Council, and in the Revolutionary Guards, to destabilize the country. The Iranian People hate the Mullahs and they will take care of the rest.

The Israelis demonstrated in Gaza a couple of months ago that it can find "people of interest" and selectively target them in an airstrike.

The headline could've just as easily read "Obama 'ready to drop shield plans for a used 1954 Volga'"

(03-03-2009 01:20 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  To end the Iranian Nuclear Program, the Israeli Air Force won't have to bomb the nuclear research sites, or the centrifuge facilities---

All it has to do is kill about 30 people in the Iranian leadership, the Guardian Council, and in the Revolutionary Guards, to destabilize the country. The Iranian People hate the Mullahs and they will take care of the rest.

The Israelis demonstrated in Gaza a couple of months ago that it can find "people of interest" and selectively target them in an airstrike.

Are you sure that would end the nuclear program? There must be some folks in the opposition party that recognize that nuclear capabilities does bring some leverage.

(03-03-2009 01:20 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  

(03-03-2009 01:11 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(03-03-2009 12:26 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(03-03-2009 10:58 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(03-03-2009 10:51 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-03-2009 10:11 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Exactly how is Russia to HELP the US with IRAN? They cannot do anything that has not been done in the past. Basically ObamaMessiahFoolPussy is throwing in the towel for a promise that means nothing.

What needs to be said is that ANY NUCLEAR DETONATION OR LAUNCH ON NATO OR ITS ALLIES FROM ANY STATE OR ROGUE NATION WILL INCUR A FULL NUCLEAR RETALIATORY STRIKE.

Once that is stated WE GO TO DEFCON 2.

I would take it a bit further:

"WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO TREAT ANY NUCLEAR DETONATION OR ATTACK OR LAUNCH AGAINST ANY STATE OR NATION FROM ANY OTHER STATE OR NATION OR ROGUE GROUP AS AN ATTACK AGAINST THE SOVEREIGN TERRITORY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND WE FURTHER RESERVE THE RIGHT TO RESPOND TO SUCH ATTACK BY RETALIATING AGAINST SUCH ATTACKING STATE OR NATION OR ROGUE GROUP WITH THE FULL RANGE OF MILITARY OPTIONS AVAILABLE, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO A FULL NUCLEAR RETALIATORY STRIKE. FAILURE TO RESPOND IN SUCH MANNER TO ANY INDIVIDUAL ATTACK DOES NOT CONSTITUTE RELINQUISHMENT OR WAIVER OF ANY PROVISION OF THIS STATEMENT, WITH REGARD EITHER TO THAT ATTACK OR ANY FUTURE ATTACKS BY THE SAME OR A DIFFERENT ATTACKER."

In other words, you use you lose.

Is there a nation with nuclear weapons that does not understand that the use of them is a zero sum game?

Why would you believe that other countries think the way people do in the West?

That's the big point here, the political left is so arrogant and so intolerant, they can't fathom how anyone thinks differently than they do, except for a few misguided ditto-heads.

I get your point...but..You didn't answer my question.

Hey... I'm fully concerned with the Iranian leaderships possible dubious motives. I just think this time...the US will not have to solve this one. The Israelis will.

To end the Iranian Nuclear Program, the Israeli Air Force won't have to bomb the nuclear research sites, or the centrifuge facilities---

All it has to do is kill about 30 people in the Iranian leadership, the Guardian Council, and in the Revolutionary Guards, to destabilize the country. The Iranian People hate the Mullahs and they will take care of the rest.

The Israelis demonstrated in Gaza a couple of months ago that it can find "people of interest" and selectively target them in an airstrike.

I agree. The Iranian people are hostages of this regime. If it gets destabilized, it would topple pretty fast. I think that is simply the reason the leadership is pursuing its course. They know the tenuous nature of their power base. They are trying to achieve the ultimate power weapon for use as a power grab in the Arab world and solidify their power at home.

A few random points:

Fo - terrible use of "zero sum game". A zero sum game means if I take 5 bouillons of gold from you, then I wind up +5 and you're -5. This game is an empty sum game, in that no matter how what I do to you (once the game is begun), I wind up with nothing.

Russia built Iran's reactors ... at one point in time, they could've done something about Iranian proliferation, unfortunately it was almost always the wrong thing. The US should've bribed its way out of this mess a long time ago.

Reagan did not build missile defense - he only announced it. No-one has built a proven ABM shield (nor to my knowledge any kind of combat-proven missile shield, even to the level of the Patriot system).

I don't know what kind of obligations from NATO are reliable outside of those that serve the interests of the member states (I think mine sweepers would satisfy that requirement). How many of the NATO troops serving in Afghanistan are required to stay away from any kind of conflict because of the pussified parliaments of the member states?

This entire gambit is a sham designed for domestic use (here and in Russia). Unless Putin is a total fool, he knows that Obama will not deploy the missile defense under any circumstance and he only needs to return some kind of meaningless gesture that will be treated favorably in the US. He can already claim victory for his domestic audience by way of this news.

Haven't read through this yet, but pretty sure it will be interesting to someone (from the FAS): Iran’s Uranium: Don’t Panic Yet.

(03-03-2009 01:23 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(03-03-2009 01:20 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  To end the Iranian Nuclear Program, the Israeli Air Force won't have to bomb the nuclear research sites, or the centrifuge facilities---

All it has to do is kill about 30 people in the Iranian leadership, the Guardian Council, and in the Revolutionary Guards, to destabilize the country. The Iranian People hate the Mullahs and they will take care of the rest.

The Israelis demonstrated in Gaza a couple of months ago that it can find "people of interest" and selectively target them in an airstrike.

Are you sure that would end the nuclear program? There must be some folks in the opposition party that recognize that nuclear capabilities does bring some leverage.

IMHO, if you want to end their nuclear program, you start with the ports, then the production facilities, then the piplines, and work your way backwards (a staged approach might work nicely to correspond to stages of nuclear development). But, the Iranians certainly have a variety of ways to retaliate - I'll defer to WMD on how effective those might be. However, you've got to start with a pair of balls, and those in the US were voted out of office - those in Israel have been as severely deprived of oxygen as their corresponding brain for the past couple of years.

(03-03-2009 01:23 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(03-03-2009 01:20 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  To end the Iranian Nuclear Program, the Israeli Air Force won't have to bomb the nuclear research sites, or the centrifuge facilities---

All it has to do is kill about 30 people in the Iranian leadership, the Guardian Council, and in the Revolutionary Guards, to destabilize the country. The Iranian People hate the Mullahs and they will take care of the rest.

The Israelis demonstrated in Gaza a couple of months ago that it can find "people of interest" and selectively target them in an airstrike.

Are you sure that would end the nuclear program? There must be some folks in the opposition party that recognize that nuclear capabilities does bring some leverage.

What "opposition party"??? The Mullahs don't allow those. Your political party has to be "approved" by the Guardian Council.

Who would take over if the government fell? I'd bet on the Military, and someone in exile overseas would come back to set up a government.

they talked about bringing the Shah family back a few years back I remember, they are in exile here in the US(thanks Jimmah!)

(03-03-2009 01:50 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(03-03-2009 01:23 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(03-03-2009 01:20 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  To end the Iranian Nuclear Program, the Israeli Air Force won't have to bomb the nuclear research sites, or the centrifuge facilities---

All it has to do is kill about 30 people in the Iranian leadership, the Guardian Council, and in the Revolutionary Guards, to destabilize the country. The Iranian People hate the Mullahs and they will take care of the rest.

The Israelis demonstrated in Gaza a couple of months ago that it can find "people of interest" and selectively target them in an airstrike.

Are you sure that would end the nuclear program? There must be some folks in the opposition party that recognize that nuclear capabilities does bring some leverage.

IMHO, if you want to end their nuclear program, you start with the ports, then the production facilities, then the piplines, and work your way backwards (a staged approach might work nicely to correspond to stages of nuclear development). But, the Iranians certainly have a variety of ways to retaliate - I'll defer to WMD on how effective those might be. However, you've got to start with a pair of balls, and those in the US were voted out of office - those in Israel have been as severely deprived of oxygen as their corresponding brain for the past couple of years.

How would the Iranians retaliate to an Israeli attack?

A. Missile launch on Israel (Bad idea) With chemical warheads? (Very Bad Idea).

B. Close the Straits with mines and/or naval interdiction. (Bad idea-- just asking for a war with the West).

C. Air Strikes on the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Qutar, Oman, Iraq ...who are "complicit with the Zionists" (They would take horrible losses)

Their only effective and credible weapon are terrorist cells in the West, as well as their minions such as Hezbollah, Hamas and Mookie al-Sadr in Iraq.

The big problem is that in the short term oil prices will go up from the present $40 a bbl to around $100, depending on damage to oil production/transportation infrastructure and how long the Straits are closed. That will make our present economic problems that more worse.

(03-03-2009 04:05 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  

(03-03-2009 01:50 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(03-03-2009 01:23 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(03-03-2009 01:20 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  To end the Iranian Nuclear Program, the Israeli Air Force won't have to bomb the nuclear research sites, or the centrifuge facilities---

All it has to do is kill about 30 people in the Iranian leadership, the Guardian Council, and in the Revolutionary Guards, to destabilize the country. The Iranian People hate the Mullahs and they will take care of the rest.

The Israelis demonstrated in Gaza a couple of months ago that it can find "people of interest" and selectively target them in an airstrike.

Are you sure that would end the nuclear program? There must be some folks in the opposition party that recognize that nuclear capabilities does bring some leverage.

IMHO, if you want to end their nuclear program, you start with the ports, then the production facilities, then the piplines, and work your way backwards (a staged approach might work nicely to correspond to stages of nuclear development). But, the Iranians certainly have a variety of ways to retaliate - I'll defer to WMD on how effective those might be. However, you've got to start with a pair of balls, and those in the US were voted out of office - those in Israel have been as severely deprived of oxygen as their corresponding brain for the past couple of years.

How would the Iranians retaliate to an Israeli attack?

A. Missile launch on Israel (Bad idea) With chemical warheads? (Very Bad Idea).

B. Close the Straits with mines and/or naval interdiction. (Bad idea-- just asking for a war with the West).

C. Air Strikes on the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Qutar, Oman, Iraq ...who are "complicit with the Zionists" (They would take horrible losses)

Their only effective and credible weapon are terrorist cells in the West, as well as their minions such as Hezbollah, Hamas and Mookie al-Sadr in Iraq.

The big problem is that in the short term oil prices will go up from the present $40 a bbl to around $100, depending on damage to oil production/transportation infrastructure and how long the Straits are closed. That will make our present economic problems that more worse.

Good points. What if the Israelis just decide to put the Mossad on the case instead of attacking? I wonder if they could take out the proper targets and set the stage for a coup?

(03-03-2009 04:14 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(03-03-2009 04:05 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  

(03-03-2009 01:50 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(03-03-2009 01:23 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(03-03-2009 01:20 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  To end the Iranian Nuclear Program, the Israeli Air Force won't have to bomb the nuclear research sites, or the centrifuge facilities---

All it has to do is kill about 30 people in the Iranian leadership, the Guardian Council, and in the Revolutionary Guards, to destabilize the country. The Iranian People hate the Mullahs and they will take care of the rest.

The Israelis demonstrated in Gaza a couple of months ago that it can find "people of interest" and selectively target them in an airstrike.

Are you sure that would end the nuclear program? There must be some folks in the opposition party that recognize that nuclear capabilities does bring some leverage.

IMHO, if you want to end their nuclear program, you start with the ports, then the production facilities, then the piplines, and work your way backwards (a staged approach might work nicely to correspond to stages of nuclear development). But, the Iranians certainly have a variety of ways to retaliate - I'll defer to WMD on how effective those might be. However, you've got to start with a pair of balls, and those in the US were voted out of office - those in Israel have been as severely deprived of oxygen as their corresponding brain for the past couple of years.

How would the Iranians retaliate to an Israeli attack?

A. Missile launch on Israel (Bad idea) With chemical warheads? (Very Bad Idea).

B. Close the Straits with mines and/or naval interdiction. (Bad idea-- just asking for a war with the West).

C. Air Strikes on the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Qutar, Oman, Iraq ...who are "complicit with the Zionists" (They would take horrible losses)

Their only effective and credible weapon are terrorist cells in the West, as well as their minions such as Hezbollah, Hamas and Mookie al-Sadr in Iraq.

The big problem is that in the short term oil prices will go up from the present $40 a bbl to around $100, depending on damage to oil production/transportation infrastructure and how long the Straits are closed. That will make our present economic problems that more worse.

Good points. What if the Israelis just decide to put the Mossad on the case instead of attacking? I wonder if they could take out the proper targets and set the stage for a coup?

Its more efficient to use airpower than Mossad teams to take these targets out. Look how many 250 lb GBU- 39 SDB's (Small Diameter Bombs) the IAF has bought from Boeing. (>1500). After Gaza, they still have at least 1000 to use. Perfect for taking out a building with minimal collateral damage.

Benji Netanyahu is the Prime Minister Elect.

In terms of Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, they better cut their deal NOW while Olmert is still in power, because once Benji is calling the shots the dealing is over.

There may very likely be a war in Gaza, Syria, or Lebanon by Summer 2009.

Um, people? When's the last time a nuclear threat was made against Israel? What happened? Oh, they took the threat out with air power, one of the pilots dying on the Columbia space shuttle? Yeah, I'm thinking the Mossad isn't going to be needed. ...and I'm ALL for loaning them, or selling them, a couple of F-22's.

"He who in our age opposes armaments and conscription is, perhaps unknown to himself, an abettor of those aiming at the enslavement of all."

- Ludwig Von Mises

(03-03-2009 09:22 PM)Rebel Wrote:  Um, people? When's the last time a nuclear threat was made against Israel? What happened? Oh, they took the threat out with air power, one of the pilots dying on the Columbia space shuttle? Yeah, I'm thinking the Mossad isn't going to be needed. ...and I'm ALL for loaning them, or selling them, a couple of F-22's.

Israel wanted airspace over Iraq and Bunker Buster smart bombs from the US and Bush said NO. IMHO this was the worse mistake of the Bush Administration. Just like Bill Clinton didn't take out OBL when he had the chance because he was under investigation for lying to Congress. Bush would not allow the Israeli air strike on Iran because of his low approval ratings in the US and worldwide.

Classic examples of the failure of a Man to carry out his duties as president.

The Israelis should have told Bush to sod off and done it anyway.