It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Iran: Consequences of war

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 07:22 AM
link   
For those interested in a reputable resource detailing differing aspects of the present dispute and the implications of a possible coming war/attack I want to recommend the Oxford Research Group's work 'Iran: a Consequence of War'.


Given the risk of a major military confrontation between the United States and Iran, and the possible involvement of Israel in military action, ORG is engaged in a substantial programme of analysis of the risks of war and of its likely consequences.
Following a similar programme prior to the start of the Iraq War in 2003, which turned out to be remarkably prescient in its assessment of the consequences of that war, ORG has held a series of roundtables and published a briefing paper, Iran: Consequences of a War.


Given the risk of a major military confrontation between the United States and Iran, and the possible involvement of Israel in military action, ORG is engaged in a substantial programme of analysis of the risks of war and of its likely consequences. Following a similar programme prior to the start of the Iraq War in 2003, which turned out to be remarkably prescient in its assessment of the consequences of that war, ORG has held a series of roundtables and published a briefing paper, Iran: Consequences of a War. ORG plans to extend its work to a study of alternatives to military action in the context of wider issues concerning the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

ORG's work on Iran is closely integrated with its other programmes, including those concerning global nuclear issues and also relating to the Israeli/Palestinian confrontation. We are also coordinating our work on Iran with other partner NGOs through Crisis Action.

Publications:

- Iran: Consequences of a War
Professor Paul Rogers, February 2006

A Constructive EU-US Approach to the Iran Nuclear Dispute (pdf)
BASIC, December 2005

- Iran's Nuclear Activities
Dr. Frank Barnaby, November 2005

Addressing the Challenge of Iran (pdf)
BASIC/ORG, April 2005

- The Bush Administration, Insurgencies and Iran
Professor Paul Rogers, March 2005

- Endless War: The global war on terror and the new Bush Administration
Professor Paul Rogers, March 2005

- Iran Comes into the Frame
Professor Paul Rogers, July 2004

(See also, our North Korea project
www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk...)

www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk...

- It sure beats some ill-informed partisan radio blow-hard.

[edit on 13-2-2006 by sminkeypinkey]




posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 08:41 AM
link   
definately worth a read. Particularly interesting is the conclusions about how long the scenario would last...

...as the paper views the possibility of actual regime change invasion impossible with current US commitments, heavy airstrikes would lead to a cycle of events whereby the nuclear capability wouldbe putback five years or more, only to have to be challanged at a later date (with a considerably more polarised Iran)... this possibly going on for years...

very interesting.

Q



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 09:52 AM
link   
~~

the bottom line is

in the 'Briefing Paper' by Professor Paul Richards says
~a military response shouldn't be considered any further~
(just a couple clicks from the link you provided) thanks


So, what else may have helped the professor come to his conclusion??

one thing might be found at this link
the long title includes Do The Forces Match The Mission

in the article one can deduce, Iran is not in the cards, yet,
because the QDR (Quadrennial Defense Review) is only just beginning its
projected 5 year and 2-3 trillion $$ overhaul & re-focusing !!

1 important item is to retro-fit 4 Trident submarines to carry cruise missles and/or Trident missles which have nuclear warheads replaced with conventional warheads !!

...this needed tweak of the military is needed as a redundant safeguard to the B-2 bombers and surface ship launched missles which would be needed to target the widespread and fortified nuclear processing facilities of the Iran crisis.

- - I thought that Cheney drew up a Iran plan last year, and both he & Rumsfeld have started the military reorganization, which this QDR is part of...all these recent war-drums are, i think, just propaganda to soften the shock of the 3 trillion $$ revamp (on top of the regular annual military budget!)



posted on Mar, 13 2006 @ 02:02 PM
link   
Let Iran have it's nukes. It's not like they're gonna use them against Israel(I don't think they're that stupid). Nukes would certainly give them more power and would be dangerous, but at least we would avoid a huge conflict and suffering.
An attack on Iran would be very counter effective because it would unify the Iranians under the its islamic leaders and strengthen their hold in power. If we wait, I think the young people of Iran will take power and create a more stable and friendly Iran.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 12:52 AM
link   
Iran should have the ability to obtain nuclear weapons for the reasons of deterrence, the fact is the more countries that have nuclear weapons the less likely thye will be used. For example if Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons then the U.S.A has the option of nuking Iran in a war. If they do have them the U.S.A wouldn't risk a retaliation.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 01:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Born British
the fact is the more countries that have nuclear weapons the less likely thye will be used.


Thats a interesting view. So you think every country should have stock pile of nuclear weapons, because that would make the chances of using nuclear weapons less? That would make the world a safer place?

It might just be me but thats a scary prospect IMHO and would actually increase the chances of some one using nuclear weapons. This is the Basic concept behind the NPT treaty which BTW Iran is still a member of.

[edit on 16-3-2006 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 01:51 AM
link   
IF any country capable of making nuclear weapons is left alone, any one maniac would be capable of starting a nuclear war.
Unfortunaly It looks like that is the way is going to be, Venezuela will very soon look for the same capability and Africa also.
Rough times comming ahead.


How can we tell its ok for some countries to have them and others not.

I know perfectly well their goverments are not as accountable as the ones in Nations that do have Nukes, But try to convince them of that, good luck.


Sep

posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 03:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Thats a interesting view. So you think every country should have stock pile of nuclear weapons, because that would make the chances of using nuclear weapons less? That would make the world a safer place?

It might just be me but thats a scary prospect IMHO and would actually increase the chances of some one using nuclear weapons. This is the Basic concept behind the NPT treaty which BTW Iran is still a member of.



I agree on the points you made although I think a crucial part of the NPT is the section that requires the possessors of nuclear weapons to start dialogue among themselves and gradually begin to disarm. Something that hasn't happened yet, and needs to happen in order to keep the NPT relevant.

I wanted to make a point regarding this section of you post as well, "This is the Basic concept behind the NPT treaty which BTW Iran is still a member of." Do you by any chance know when Iran signed the NPT and who was in government when this was done and if there were any promises the US made to Iran in exchange for it signing the NPT? Just curious.

Regarding the article as I mentioned in the closed thread, it is worth reading even though it fails to mention several crucial aspects of a conflict with Iran it is superior in comparison to most other articles regarding Iran available on the net.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 03:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Born British
Iran should have the ability to obtain nuclear weapons for the reasons of deterrence, the fact is the more countries that have nuclear weapons the less likely thye will be used. For example if Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons then the U.S.A has the option of nuking Iran in a war. If they do have them the U.S.A wouldn't risk a retaliation.


but your forgetting a means of delivery, remember rockets that are accurate and reliable are difficult to produce....

example.....china was unable to put a man into orbit until american rocket technolgy was sold to them....

Iran might have a bomb, but they would still be only able to ship it, or fly it over here



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 03:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sep
Do you by any chance know when Iran signed the NPT and who was in government when this was done and if there were any promises the US made to Iran in exchange for it signing the NPT? Just curious.


Iran signed the NPT in 1968 , and it came into force in March 1970. The Iranian revolution occurred in 1979 so the Shah Reza Pahlavi was in power at the time. Publicly Iran has still agreed to be part of the NPT as late as Aug. 9 2005 Ayatollah Ali Khamenei issued a public fatwa forbidding the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons.

Under Article X of the NPT Iran can still leave the treaty if it "jeopardized the supreme interests" of Iran. They do have to give 3 months notice before hand it which it explains the reasons for leaving to the other member nations

Im not aware of any promises made by the US or any other country concerning Irans membership in the NPT



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 09:38 AM
link   


Im not aware of any promises made by the US or any other country concerning Irans membership in the NPT


Well I don't know how truthfull is this guy but here it goes.




Donald Weadon, an international lawyer active in Iran during that period, points out that after 1972, and the oil crisis, the United States was rabidly pursuing investment opportunities in Iran, including selling nuclear-power plants. He writes that "the Iranians were wooed hard with the prospect of nuclear power from trusted U.S.-backed suppliers, with the prospect of the reservation of significant revenues from oil exports for foreign and domestic investment."



If this is true when militant Iranian students took over the US Embassy in Tehran in 1979 and the US ended diplomatic relations, froze assets, and established a ban on US exports and investments; they did us a favor.



This addiction to oil, got us selling our childrens future for less than $3.00 a gallon.


link

[edit on 16-3-2006 by LoKito]




top topics



 
0

log in

join