Reality Hammer - Iran will have nukes

War is simply a continuation of political intercourse, with the addition of other means.

�Karl von Clausewitz

Iranian declaration of thier intentions to develop Uranium into nuclear fuel is of course their politically correct announcement that they intend to obtain the bomb.

Iran, who has not been part of the West diplomatically or economically for 25 years, would not make this announcement if they felt the diplomatic and strategic conditions were against them.

Now that the US is militarily and politically bogged down in Iraq, they feel they are free to obtain nuclear status. The fact that Israel is calling for UN sanctions against these advances shows that their first recourse - strategic strike - is unavailable.

As shown by the USSR, China, Israel, Britain, Pakistan, and India, the key to self-determination without becoming the proxy of a more powerful state is to prove your country is capable of producing nuclear weapons.

The US invasion of Iraq has considerably changed the balance of power in the Middle East. With the precedent of the Iraq debacle, there is little political support for large-scale military action against Iran domestically, and even less internationally. Iran currently has military options against the United States due to our commitment in the Gulf. Notice that the White House is unable to comment on the possible threats that a nuclear-armed Iran presents, despite their inclusion in President Bush's 'Axis of Evil' trio.

Unless the Iraq situation is stabilized, proving that the US mission has been accomplished and freeing military assets, or unless the US pulls out of Iraq, Iran will likely succeed in their nuclear gambit. Unlike the nuclear development threat presented by the US for Iraq, Iran has the legitamite ability to create usable quantities of fissionable Uranium, and the expertise to assemble atomic weapons. The missile-based delivery method for these weapons is already in their possesion.

If Iran starts processing their nuclear fuel now, the countdown to completion of their bomb is a matter of months. Given the current state of diplomatic and military capabilities, Iran will peacefully obtain nukes.

The politicians who invaded Iraq against the advice of the US military have run out of playtime. Their dreamlike concept of Iraqis dancing in the streets at the sight of the US military in Baghdad and democracy flowing like butter all over the Middle East, followed by quick roundups of Syria and Iran, is about to be smashed open by reality's hammer.

The flaws in your argument are two fold. First, you assume that because Isreal is pursuing peacefull means to end Irans nuclear aspiration that they are unable to perform a surgical strike. Quite the contrary, Isreal wants a peacefull ending because Iran has stated it would counter attack Isreal if Isreal destroyed their nuclear plant. Since Irans military outnumbers Isreals, Isreal does not want to get into a war unless it has to. Do not take this as an unwillingness to attack, as Isreal will not let nukes get into the hands of Iran if it can.

Secondly, you assume that the US would have to invade Iran in order to prevent it from obtaining nukes. Like Isreal, the US can simply attack the nuclear power plant, and has a wide array of low risk methods of doing this. There are cruise missles to start with, along with B-2 and F-117 stealth bombers. Besides, the fact that the US is already in Iraq gives the US a logistical edge that it frankly wouldn't need to invade Iran.

Reality Hammer - Iran will have nukes

who cares? let them enjoy their "brief moment in the sun"...

Ahhh... The Dreaded Republican Double Standard rears its ugly head:

Originally posted by American Mad Man

Secondly, you assume that the US would have to invade Iran in order to prevent it from obtaining nukes. Like Isreal, the US can simply attack the nuclear power plant, and has a wide array of low risk methods of doing this.

Like in Iraq? I guess we could have prevented them from getting nukes and WMDs without invading, then, right? You can't have it both ways, Buster Brown.

There are cruise missles to start with, along with B-2 and F-117 stealth bombers. Besides, the fact that the US is already in Iraq gives the US a logistical edge that it frankly wouldn't need to invade Iran.

Right. The US has the "Logistical Edge." Sophistry at it's best with no details at all. Let's hear how we can be sure that we get all of the WMDs and nukes out of Syria and Iran without invading them (or UN Inspections...) How about North Korea? Brazil? There's a lot more...

Originally posted by American Mad Man
Isreal wants a peacefull ending because Iran has stated it would counter attack Isreal if Isreal destroyed their nuclear plant.

When the Iraqi Osiraq reactor was destroyed by Israeli strike in 1981, no political measures were taken beforehand.

Since Irans military outnumbers Isreals, Isreal does not want to get into a war unless it has to. Do not take this as an unwillingness to attack, as Isreal will not let nukes get into the hands of Iran if it can.

As we all know, pure military size is not an estimate of military capabilities. The Iranian plant presents are far more difficult target than the Osiraq plant, which was 1,100km from Israel. Even after the destruction of the Osiraq reactor, Iraq still posessed the ability to process Uranium instead of Plutonium. The Iraqis had significantly smaller domestic ability to process nuclear fuel than Iran does today. They relied on foreigners, thus the destruction of the French-built Osiraq reactor was critical to their nuclear ambitions.

Secondly, you assume that the US would have to invade Iran in order to prevent it from obtaining nukes.

I didn't say US invasion was necessary. What is required to destroy domestically-supported nuclear production capability is a serious commitment, and if it comes only from aerial bombardment you will need a prolonged, multi-mission campaign.

Like Isreal, the US can simply attack the nuclear power plant, and has a wide array of low risk methods of doing this. There are cruise missles to start with, along with B-2 and F-117 stealth bombers. Besides, the fact that the US is already in Iraq gives the US a logistical edge that it frankly wouldn't need to invade Iran.

Without destroying Iranian air defenses the US would have to rely solely on cruise missiles and stealth attack as you mention. It would have to be a prolonged and extensive bombardment of more than a single reactor. Iranian nuclear development is much more domestic than Iraqi nuclear development ever was, and the ability to root out an indigenous national capability is far more difficult than striking a foreign-made reactor.

Another abject failure by the corrupt and impotant United Nations rife with indecision and seemingly no power to change itself or anyone else.

The UN makes itself more and more irrelevant each day that goes by, eventually it will be the US that cleans up the mess whilst listening to the riff raff that let it get this far complain about our decisive but oh so independent action.

To bad - So sad.






typo

[edit on 22-9-2004 by Phoenix]

Originally posted by oppodeldoc
Ahhh... The Dreaded Republican Double Standard rears its ugly head:

Originally posted by American Mad Man

Secondly, you assume that the US would have to invade Iran in order to prevent it from obtaining nukes. Like Isreal, the US can simply attack the nuclear power plant, and has a wide array of low risk methods of doing this.

Like in Iraq? I guess we could have prevented them from getting nukes and WMDs without invading, then, right? You can't have it both ways, Buster Brown.

There is a difference. Iran has a nuclear reactor - a clear target, above ground that is visable to any country that has spy sats. Thus, all you need to do is destroy the facillity (there is only one) and presto - they can not inrich their material. Iraq qas different - there were stores of WMDs in unknown locations. They could still be there - burried beneath sand that stretches miles on end, or they could have been given to a nieghbor (syria comes to mind) to hold. Regardless, let's keep IRAQ POLITICS out of this - we are talking about IRAN, so if it doesn't have to do with IRAN, then it is irrelevent.

There are cruise missles to start with, along with B-2 and F-117 stealth bombers. Besides, the fact that the US is already in Iraq gives the US a logistical edge that it frankly wouldn't need to invade Iran.

Right. The US has the "Logistical Edge." Sophistry at it's best with no details at all. Let's hear how we can be sure that we get all of the WMDs and nukes out of Syria and Iran without invading them (or UN Inspections...) How about North Korea? Brazil? There's a lot more...

Details? what details do you need? LOOK AT A MAP! They are right next to each other (Iran and Iraq). We (the US) are in Iraq and thus have materials, equipment, men, and a suply network already set up. Thus, there is a logistics system in place if needed. USE YOUR HEAD.

As far as getting WMD out of Iran, we can't without invading. We CAN however provent them from being able to produce a nuclear weapon domestically if we strike that plant. If they are sold a nuke and we don't find out, there is nothing we can do about that.

Again, we are talking about IRAN here - not NK, Brazil, and Syria - make a different thread if you want for those.

taibunsuu,

I agree on the fact that it would be a multi mission commitment, but since when has that ever stoped the US. If Kerry is in office, then I doubt we will do anything, but so long as Bush is in office, I doubt he will let Iran become a nuclear power. He has shown the commitment to using military force if needed, has clearly defined Iran as an enemy, has the ability to strike it. All the cards are in place in order to take out Irans nuclear ambitions - all he needs is the election.

As much as I would hate to see a country like Iran get a nuke, I don't really blame them for trying. We set a bad example by invading Iraq and treating NK with kid gloves because of the possibility of them nuking SK.

Every rogue nation in the world is probably rushing to get one now...it will ensure their safety to a certain degree in the future unless we want to start a nuclear war.

The U.S. and Russia opened this pandora's box during WWII. Regardless of our original intentions, it was only going to be a matter of time before nuclear proliferation became somewhat global.

Mark my words.

Within the next 4 years if Bush is reelected, a 2-3 day long aerial bombardment will destroy Irans nuclear facility and suspected stockpile locations.

Mark my words again.

Iran will do nothing about it and walk away with their tail between their legs.

Originally posted by GODFLESH
Mark my words.

Within the next 4 years if Bush is reelected, a 2-3 day long aerial bombardment will destroy Irans nuclear facility and suspected stockpile locations.

Mark my words again.

Iran will do nothing about it and walk away with their tail between their legs.

Your probably right but they won't walk away with their tails between their legs privately. They will simply start funding terrorist groups even more than they are now.

Your probably right but they won't walk away with their tails between their legs privately. They will simply start funding terrorist groups even more than they are now.

Maybe they will do the exact opposite of what you said. Force is an excellent deterrent. I don't think Iran wants to give any justification for a US led military invasion/military campaign especially if we just annihiliated their one weapon that allowed them to sleep easier at night.

Originally posted by GODFLESH
I don't think Iran wants to give any justification for a US led military invasion/military campaign

With Iraq an absolute debacle that our leaders have no statement about except that we're 'on the path to success,' how do you think the US has the domestic and international support, not to mention the economic and strategic capabilities, to invade a nation of 76 million with a .5 trillion annual GDP and an outdated, but cohesive defense structure, close ties to Russia, with no recent history of foreign aggression?

All to destroy uranium enrichment, which they can rebuild after we end up leaving? That is, unless you think the US can sustain a military presence in Iran.

Risk / Reward does not look like it will give very profitable results if modeled from current scenario.

[edit on 23-9-2004 by taibunsuu]

So many morons posting...

The only way for Iran to get "the bomb" and make it hard for us to stop them, is if they purchase one already built or get the plutonium from some source (assuming they want to make a thermonuclear warhead).

If they don't get a bomb design already tested and assembled, they will have to undergo testing. Enriching the uranium is not the hard part, that's just a gas centrifuge that lets them seperate the U235 from the DU. The hard part is making the plutonium and a controlled implosion perfect enough to set it off. Unless you make an old school bomb like used on hiroshima (slam a slug of U235 into a ball of U235, really large, hard to deploy), it will take them a long time to make a working bomb even after their reactor is working.

Iran is building their breeder reactor. We have plenty of satellite footage of it's underground construction, we know right where it is and we will certainly know when it is operational. it is a simple matter to bomb that reactor into dust. As another poster pointed out, we have the logistical advantage. We are there, right across the border. It's just a matter of tasking a strike. (aside from the politics involved, so wait to see what IAEA and UN say...).

My guess is, we wait till Iran expends a great deal of effort and $$$ to get this reactor built. Then on it's inauguration day, it goes bye bye.

If Iran comes close to becoming a viable nuclear state, will promptly have its nukes rammed down its throat, most likely by Israel. If Bush wins the election, we will most likely help. If Kerry wins... who knows?

Its just not going to happen. Not considering the current state of affairs. The entire western world has been put on notice that it is a target for nuclear attack. No nation with the ability (military, as it is the only option our enemy leaves us), to prevent such an attack, should they perceive its imminence, will hesitate to do so.

Unfortunately for Iran, the nations that currently perceive them as an imminent threat are the strongest in the world, and it sucks, but Iran will be met with harsh action if they choose to build those nukes.

[edit on 23-9-2004 by DeltaChaos]

Wow, same exact responses.

"We will kick their asses, we will nuke them, etc., etc.,"

Same talk. Talking is easy.

How is it going to be done? What are the possible scenarios? What will the results be? Is Iran an economically isolated state with no political allies? What will the effects on oil be? What are our other strategic engagements at the time we'll just simply blow them up?

If it was as simple as just kicking their ass and getting back in time for corn flakes, why isn't that being done now?

Originally posted by taibunsuu
Wow, same exact responses.

"We will kick their asses, we will nuke them, etc., etc.,"

Same talk. Talking is easy.

How is it going to be done? What are the possible scenarios? What will the results be? Is Iran an economically isolated state with no political allies? What will the effects on oil be? What are our other strategic engagements at the time we'll just simply blow them up?

If it was as simple as just kicking their ass and getting back in time for corn flakes, why isn't that being done now?

Israel has ground and air forces that are among the most elite in the world. Just because we haven't seen them in action doesn't mean that they won't use them if they feel that a city of 11 million or so is legitimately threatened. Times have changed, and the enemies that continue to surround Israel are stronger than they used to be, but don't forget that Israel held them all off to victory after they were handed their land.

Remember when Clinton bombed the outskirts of(and somewhat in the city)Sarajevo? I'm thinking something like that. We dropped more ordnance on those artillery positions in a short thirty-three days than was dropped in the entire Vietnam war. And there's plenty where that came from. Since our weapons are basically Israel's weapons, there's no reason to think that wouldn't happen. It would only take a decision on the part of Israeli leadership.

And it really doesn't matter how you and I or anyone on this board feels about it, the decision is in the hands of the leaders of these strong nations. We've seen the result of decisions our leaders have made as of late. No, it's not what most people would prefer, but its apparent that the leaders would prefer such action.

I don't think we or Israel would use nukes against a threat, not only because it wouldn't be in our best interests, but because it simply wouldn't be necessary. Our conventional forces are well enough to get the job done.

Simply because a nation's leadership doesn't talk about the fact that a threat is growing, and may have malicious intent, doesn't mean they don't see it. It also doesn't mean that they don't see it in the way they want to see it, which leadership tends to do sometimes. When Israel approaches the UN about an issue such as this, it certainly doesn't mean that they think the decision to strike isn't ultimately theirs to make, or that they wouldn't make it. Just as Bush made his decision to invade Iraq without the blessing of the UN or most of the major players in the world. Not because they didn't realize that they were actually the biggest target, but because they knew it was an ill-conceived idea that Bush had in the first place. So if the world would allow Bush to make the mistake that he did, why wouldn't they let Israel?

Frankly, I'm not sure at this point that if they were to make that decision, it would be the incorrect one.

Moreover, not making big talk about the threat that they obviously perceive could mean that they are busy with elections, that they don't want to play their hand until they've drawn some more cards. Of course it could mean that they were genuinely concerned about it, and are discussing it seriously behind closed doors, which I believe is what is happening. North Korea poses a similar threat, but we still don't think their missiles could reach us. Israel does know that Iran has missiles that can reach them, so granted, they are planning for such.

As far as results are concerned, I'm of the opinion that our military is effectively pinned down at the moment, and military resources we'd need in the event of an actual threat are incapacitated by the rather pointless endeavor of Iraqi occupation. If we had to deal with an actual threat, we would have to go in half-cocked, and only becomed pinned down more. This is not the case, however, for Israel. They expend very little resources and energy relatively, on their troubles with the Palestineans. Beside that, if Israel were to strike Iran, I believe they would only do so with airpower, and refrain from putting boots on the ground.

Believe me, I wish just as much as anyone that these truths didn't exist, but they do. Of course, our leaders could choose not to make these types of choices, but it is their inclination, for whatever reasons.

[edit on 23-9-2004 by DeltaChaos]

Oh, and I hope the price of oil skyrockets so that America will re-evaluate whether they are purchasing it out of necessity, or out of convenience.

[edit on 23-9-2004 by DeltaChaos]

DeltaChaos those are some excellent observations.

I try my best not to put personal opinion of how I hope things will go into an analysis such as this. I really enjoy reading when someone adds thoughtful insight to a subject like this.

I don't think Israel has the strike capability though. They are built for awesome defense. They'd have to have overt US support.

I wonder what a concerted strike on Iran would do to say world oil prices, and how that could affect overall war aims. I also wonder exactly what Iran has in the Gulf that could threaten the two CBGs we have there. Striking the enrichment facilities alone might not be feasible if they have any means of retaliation.

Also I wonder what the effects would be of overt Iranian contributions to terrorists in Iraq could do. If they feel they might as well go for broke, they could supply money, weapons, troops, etc.

Originally posted by DeltaChaos

Remember when Clinton bombed the outskirts of(and somewhat in the city)Sarajevo? I'm thinking something like that. We dropped more ordnance on those artillery positions in a short thirty-three days than was dropped in the entire Vietnam war. And there's plenty where that came from. Since our weapons are basically Israel's weapons, there's no reason to think that wouldn't happen. It would only take a decision on the part of Israeli leadership.

I just had to correct this complete fallacy. During Vietnam the US dropped between 10-11 million short tons of bombs on Vietnam and ajacent boarder areas with Cambodia and Loas.
Now how can you possibly say that in 33 days more bombs were dropped near Sarajevo ?

Everybody seems to want to bring Israel into the picture. Great way to piss the arabs off since Israel has done such a great job of beating on them and demoralizing them. (not that I like the palestinians that much, they always complain about their "Arab pride" and I have to wonder FOR WHAT???)

Even so, Israel made a strike on a reactor in Iraq in the past and they used an F16 that was so heavily loaded with fuel that it nearly didn't get off the ground. These days, I am sure they could arrange in-flight refueling so range with their current jets not an issue. Bigger issue is whose airspace do they fly over? Syria/Turkey/Iraq? Will Allawi be too happy with Israel flying over his tent? I seriously doubt he will... and if it got out that he "allowed" this I am sure this would weaken the relationship with the US and his own (temporary) seat of power.

The nuclear threat in Iran is not aimed at Israel anyway. The saber rattling their ministry of defense has been doing has been aimed at the US and coalition forces because they are probably scared we mean to invade them next. Regardless, the US will not allow them to target military bases in the region with nuclear tipped shahaab missiles, so I doubt that Israel will even be involved in the response. I think the Iranians are years away from this anyway unless someone helps them. (anyone know if pakistans nukes are capable of flight or not?)

You know, I hope that someday all these children of abraham decide to come together and forget this war fighting. The oil will be gone soon enough and things are gonna get really ugly if you think it looks bad now. At some point, everyone is going to be running nuclear reactors (until that fuel source runs out). Best we learn to stop lobbing the stuff at each other before then.