X. Benedict Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 We will be embraced as liberators so I don't think we will really need a plan. 531003[/snapback] excellent point, the astrology looks pretty good too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 Of course they will "go nuclear" and we will not be able to stop it. Invasion talk is a nice way to beg the question, but the issue is whether they will use it against us (unlikely in the short term because of delivery problems) or against what we consider an essential ally (more likely) or against their own legitimate and immediate enemy (most likely). We have to build a l body that will have the authority to establish legitimate and effective means of dispute resolution as an alternative to nuclear war. The first nuclear war won't be between us and Iran...it will be Pakistan and India or some other countries as a result of a particular incident...their 9/11 as it were. I would be willing to bet that the first nuclear weapons actually used against us in the continental US will have been manufactured in Eastern Europe and bootlegged by terrorists. 530937[/snapback] Now, see, this is a well written and somewhat insightful post. I agree with you that the first nuclear war will involve two Asian nations. My concern is thus: If you allow a radicalized state like Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, you have done two things: One, you've destabilized a region that's already perilously unstable, and two, you've allowed the world to see that we will simply allow our enemies to do as they wish. Both are extremely dangerous IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 Oddly enough, the wife of a coworker is a Naval Petty Officer. She is now enroute to Afghanistan with her detachment, so they must be doing something. 530951[/snapback] I have been playing around with Google Earth, check out Afghanistan. Check out Afghanistan, nothing but desolate terrain. What did your old Soviet counterparts really want with this place? It looks like hell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 I'll take "Things that only happen in Tom Clancy novels" for $200, Alex...Those dinky little diesel-electric Israeli boats...you going to sneak them through the Suez canal and around the Arabian peninsula? Or just sail them into the Atlantic and around South Africa? 530251[/snapback] 3 subs commissioned in 1999 and 2000. Evidently called Type 800 by the Israeli Navy. Blom & Voss items? http://www.harpoonhq.com/encyclopedia/HTML...iles/israel.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tennesseeboy Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 Now, see, this is a well written and somewhat insightful post. I agree with you that the first nuclear war will involve two Asian nations. My concern is thus: If you allow a radicalized state like Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, you have done two things: One, you've destabilized a region that's already perilously unstable, and two, you've allowed the world to see that we will simply allow our enemies to do as they wish. Both are extremely dangerous IMO. 531065[/snapback] Do we have the power or capacity to "disallow" Iran to acquire nuclear weapons? or Korea? No...and our braying that we do only further trumpets the fact that we don't. Countries that are our "enemy" that are neutral and that are our friends (which is not a permanent status by any means) are going to acquire nuclear weapons. The question is what we are going to do about it...not whether we will "allow" them to acquire them. An Iran with nuclear weapons may serve to stabilize the middle east assuming it is countered by an Israel with nuclear weapons. The stakes become so high there is incentive to avoid a certain level of conflict. To draw an analogy to a concurrent post it is less likely that Israel or Iran would encourage conventional military actions that might lead to playing the nuclear option. Neither Israelis, Iranians, Americans nor Arabs would seek to run into the Middle Eastern Fulda Gap and all might begin to see the need to deal with outlaw entities such as Al Qaeda who are dedicated to rush into it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 3 subs commissioned in 1999 and 2000. Evidently called Type 800 by the Israeli Navy. Blom & Voss items? http://www.harpoonhq.com/encyclopedia/HTML...iles/israel.htm 531077[/snapback] Typical German costal boats designed for Baltic work...and suitable for the eastern Med as well, most likely. But again...you going to sail them through the Suez secretly? Or somehow go through the South Atlantic around Africa into the eastern Indian Ocean? And as good as the research for Harpoon is...it's still a computer game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 Do we have the power or capacity to "disallow" Iran to acquire nuclear weapons? or Korea? No...and our braying that we do only further trumpets the fact that we don't. 531103[/snapback] I believe this is called an a priori assumption... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 Typical German costal boats designed for Baltic work...and suitable for the eastern Med as well, most likely. But again...you going to sail them through the Suez secretly? Or somehow go through the South Atlantic around Africa into the eastern Indian Ocean? And as good as the research for Harpoon is...it's still a computer game. 531113[/snapback] Computer game? Never heard of it. I seldom play them. You didn't get the spirit of my original post - what could Israel do if they felt an extreme need? Speculation is what it is - and what is gained by your habit of immediate and subsequent belittlement of an idea tossed out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 We will have to pursue the same strategies as we did during the cold war. Mutual assured destruction, missile defense, alliances, etc. The whole shooting match. Anybody invades anybody, they get nuked. Suicide terrorism is one thing, involving one or a handful of suicides. I don't see a whole nation committing suicide by going after an enemy who has enough nukes to obliterate them. The real problem, a nuclear muslim state with lots of oil decides that with its nukes, it is empowered to jack up the price of gas for the US until its standard of living resembles that found in Inodnesian slums. All our soldiers, weapons, jets, training, etc. will mean zippity doo dah if they can fire off enough nukes. We will have no choice but to pay and pay and pay. The only solution: energy independence, some way, some how. Drilling amongst the reindeer will not do it. 531025[/snapback] What do you do in the case of a nuclear state that comes under power of extremists worse than Iranian mullahs? [broken record ON] Oil is a commodity. US does not get the majority of its oil supply from Middle East. The heightened price for oil that the US pays, is the same heightened price the rest of the world pays. Who do you think would suffer more from that oil disruption, Europe, which gets about 80% of its oil from Mid East, China, or US? That's why people should listen to fBiB, when he says that we're fighting other people's wars, and not getting enough thanks for it. [broken record OFF] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 I believe this is called an a priori assumption... 531114[/snapback] not sure what the "power to disallow" means but it certainly is a tricky one for symbolic notation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 Computer game? Never heard of it. I seldom play them. That doesn't mean you can't vet the site. You didn't get the spirit of my original post - what could Israel do if they felt an extreme need? Speculation is what it is - and what is gained by your habit of immediate and subsequent belittlement of an idea tossed out? 531132[/snapback] What, someone presents an idea that, with my not inconsiderable knowledge of the subject, is clearly ill-informed, and I'm supposed to give it a great deal of thought before I belittle it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 That doesn't mean you can't vet the site. What, someone presents an idea that, with my not inconsiderable knowledge of the subject, is clearly ill-informed, and I'm supposed to give it a great deal of thought before I belittle it? 531153[/snapback] You're a true classic. Your not inconsiderable knowledge has limited avenues of understanding. But I like you, for human behavior baseline purposes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 You're a true classic. Your not inconsiderable knowledge has limited avenues of understanding. But I like you, for human behavior baseline purposes. 531163[/snapback] No I understand. "Why can't Israel blocade the Straits of Hormuz and apply pressure to Iran's nuclear program indirectly and psychologically, instead of bombing the sh-- out of it?" Uh...because of reality. Israel doesn't have a fleet that can stage that far without serious outside (i.e. US) support. How do you suppose the subs would get there, magic? And that's even beyond criticizing your unsupported and boneheaded supposition that applying pressure to Iranian naval interests would somehow affect their nuclear ambitions anyway... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 No I understand. "Why can't Israel blocade the Straits of Hormuz and apply pressure to Iran's nuclear program indirectly and psychologically, instead of bombing the sh-- out of it?" Uh...because of reality. Israel doesn't have a fleet that can stage that far without serious outside (i.e. US) support. How do you suppose the subs would get there, magic? And that's even beyond criticizing your unsupported and boneheaded supposition that applying pressure to Iranian naval interests would somehow affect their nuclear ambitions anyway... 531185[/snapback] Let's recap. Here's the text of my post: "Israel would have difficulty taking out Iran's nuclear facilities, but Iran's port oil facilities would be comparatively easy - the very definition of soft target. Incuding tankers at sea...their small fleet of subs could likely take care of that, or even gypsy surface ships, and I guess only the US and the Russians have the means to stop them. And that would be an interesting situation.. Regardless, high stakes..." I see nothing about the Straits of Hormuz. You are citing someone else, O Superior Intellect. Note that I mentioned surface action. Note that I mentioned the difficulty of action against nuclear facilities. Once...again...extreme need, felt by Israel. Why do you think it so inconceivable that Israeli subs couldn't make a journey into open ocean, and that Israel in the dead of night or whenever, couldn't re-supply them? Why do you assume a sub attack of Iranian oil on the high seas need be performed in the proximity of the Persian Gulf? Whether or not such a "bonehead" thing would affect Iranian nuke ambitions, who can say? I don't think I said that explicitly; only a way to hurt Iran. You should be in a display case with a brass plaque that reads "American Beauty"... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 Once...again...extreme need, felt by Israel. Why do you think it so inconceivable that Israeli subs couldn't make a journey into open ocean, and that Israel in the dead of night or whenever, couldn't re-supply them? Do you even know how diesel-electric subs at sea are resupplied? Why do you assume a sub attack of Iranian oil on the high seas need be performed in the proximity of the Persian Gulf? Probably because when it's at sea it's out of Iranian hands and is the property of the buyer, being carried in a ship that's the property of yet another party. Where else could you hit Iranian oil interests? Whether or not such a "bonehead" thing would affect Iranian nuke ambitions, who can say? I don't think I said that explicitly; only a way to hurt Iran. 531205[/snapback] So if Israel was worried about Iranian nuclear ambitions, they could hurt Iran in other ways, but you're not saying that would impact Iranian nuclear ambitions? In a thread about Iranian nuclear ambitions? Shut up, BF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tennesseeboy Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 I believe this is called an a priori assumption... 531114[/snapback] Sounds like a pretty good a priori assumption. I haven't seen countries standing in line at the United States Department of Allowing Nuclear Arms Development. Fact is that countries (and not just Iran) are developing and will develop nuclear arms. We shouldn't talk about Disallowing any country from doing anything until we figure out what we are going to do if they tell us to poop in our hat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 Do you even know how diesel-electric subs at sea are resupplied? Probably because when it's at sea it's out of Iranian hands and is the property of the buyer, being carried in a ship that's the property of yet another party. Where else could you hit Iranian oil interests? So if Israel was worried about Iranian nuclear ambitions, they could hurt Iran in other ways, but you're not saying that would impact Iranian nuclear ambitions? In a thread about Iranian nuclear ambitions? Shut up, BF. 531211[/snapback] You are losing your normal aplomb and winning charm. Here's something you *might* understand. You build an ugly house next to my open fields, with a high fence and killing dogs patrolling. You make your money by raising and selling said dogs. You have to transport them to market over a long stretch of road through woods. Your underground utilities run a long way to reach you. I, as well as others are not pleased with the thought that someday you might unleash the dogs on the contryside. For purposes of persuasion, your underground utilities mysteriously get disrupted. Tragically, an accident occured while transporting the killer dogs to market. Oh gosh. Land sakes. The money you need to buy feed for the mutts is in short supply. Lesson for you, as well at the Europeans, Russians etc. - just because you can't skin a dog outright doesn't mean you can't affect it's behavior. You would make a lousy Italian... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 You are losing your normal aplomb and winning charm. Here's something you *might* understand. You build an ugly house next to my open fields, with a high fence and killing dogs patrolling. You make your money by raising and selling said dogs. You have to transport them to market over a long stretch of road through woods. Your underground utilities run a long way to reach you. I, as well as others are not pleased with the thought that someday you might unleash the dogs on the contryside. For purposes of persuasion, your underground utilities mysteriously get disrupted. Tragically, an accident occured while transporting the killer dogs to market. Oh gosh. Land sakes. The money you need to buy feed for the mutts is in short supply. Lesson for you, as well at the Europeans, Russians etc. - just because you can't skin a dog outright doesn't mean you can't affect it's behavior. You would make a lousy Italian... 531237[/snapback] That bull sh-- analogy demonstrates precisely how little you understand what you're talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 That bull sh-- analogy demonstrates precisely how little you understand what you're talking about. 531286[/snapback] A sure sign...resorting to obscenities. What about your quote citation, erroneously assigned to me? An admission of error will earn you one extra banana for your display case digs. Honest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IBTG81 Posted December 14, 2005 Share Posted December 14, 2005 What use exactly would you make of the Air Force against an insurgency such as what is going on in Iraq? 530991[/snapback] Destroy it. Destroy it all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts