Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Iran Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: So Many Secrets Are Secret No More
SYSOP    9/9/2012 7:42:19 AM
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2 3 4   NEXT
bikebrains    Baird Interview   9/9/2012 9:11:15 AM
The CBC published "Why Canada severed relations with Iran."   http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/s...

In an interview Saturday on CBC Radio's The House, Baird emphasized his "concern was for the safety of the men and women working at the Canadian mission," but when asked by host Evan Solomon whether there was "something specific" he conceded there was "not a direct threat" or an increased security risk.

"The mission in Tehran is not one of the safest we have," Baird also told Solomon. "It faces a busy road and it could be overrun pretty quickly."

 
 
Quote    Reply

Chris       9/9/2012 6:27:12 PM
Most of the credible sources all seem to say that all attacking Iran will do is make the much despised mullahs into heros - and even the Israelis says that the most successful attack would only delay Iran getting a nuke by two years.  
 
 
@import url http://www.strategypage.com/CuteSoft_Client/CuteEditor/Load.ashx?type=style&file=SyntaxHighlighter.css);" target="_blank">link
 
Quote    Reply

EKAdams       9/9/2012 9:16:52 PM
A two-year delay would be a hell of a lot better than nothing. Especially if it buys enough time to build an unavoidable consensus that something more dedicated needs to be done.
 
I remember when the talking heads made a great deal about how 'the Arab street' would rise up if something was done about Afghanistan and Iraq, too, but it never happened. A two-year delay (or more) of Iran's nuclear programme in exchange for a short-term morale boost to the theocracy, is a relatively small price to pay.
 
Quote    Reply

Chris       9/10/2012 12:33:12 PM
@import url http://www.strategypage.com/CuteSoft_Client/CuteEditor/Load.ashx?type=style&file=SyntaxHighlighter.css);" target="_blank">link

The US Joint Chiefs of Staff seem to disagree for many reasons.   First - one of the assumptions being made by those clamoring for military action against Iran is that Iran will be ready to cease hostilities when its attacker(s) decide they want to stop.   The JCS considers this to be a poor assumption (to be generous).  Second - the damage to the global economy (which is already having its problems) could/would be staggering, considering that Iran could effectively close the Straits of Hormuz (through mining, missiles, and torpedos).    Third, there were serious problems in the results of several war games that were held assuming Iran as the opponent - and the USA took a serious bath (for example:  losing a carrier in the process) causing the games to be stopped.   Fourth, the Iranian people are quite enamored with the USA (and west in general) and detest their mullahs - and it is only a matter of time before they are taken out the same way Mubarak, Gaddaffi, and probably soon Assad will be removed.  An attack will kill that off very quickly.  And, if anyone attacks them - they will if determined get a weapon anyway within two years (time flies when you're having fun!).
 
I find myself agreeing with the JCS on this one. 
 
And no one speaks about Israel's nuclear weapon stockpile and its means to deliver it.  Hence - it isn't like Israel is defenseless.  Iran cannot directly attack Israel with nukes (or anything else) because that will cause Iran to turn into a sea of glass.  Nor can they give nukes away for a third party to use:  radioactive isotopes are easily traceable to their point of origin which would point back to Iran - again ensuring their total destruction.  Iran could get a weapon, have their economy totally crushed, and be left unable to use it - making it a total loss.
 
cheers 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

EKAdams       9/10/2012 9:13:25 PM
1: Why a poor assumption? It's basic logic. If the programme can't be completely destroyed and only set back a few years, then that's still a better alternative than a nuclear-armed Iran. Why is this a "poor assumption"? IF the rest of the world requires more time before being able to justify more effective military action, then that seems to be the only option on the table. Sanctions could have worked, but needed to be applied years ago and reinforced a lot more than they are now. Too many exemptions.
 
2: Of course there will be economic consequences. But that's the price to pay for inaction all these years. There are several reasons floating around for why the Bush administration didn't act as strongly as it could have on this issue, but regardless of motivations, we have to deal with where we are now. The kind of economic disaster which could follow in the wake of Iran gaining access to nuclear weapons (and, by extension, various proxy groups it likes to arm), will be far greater. If you think North Korea's regular bouts of nuclear blackmail are bad, just wait and see what happens if Iran nukes up. It hasn't faced much in the way of consequences for all the weapons and training it's been shown to have provided to militants actively killing coalition troops in Iraq/Afghanistan for years. Why should it think anything bad would happen if it starts handing out its prizes to the likes of Hezbullah and more? Who wouldn't even need a weapons, in any case - they'd just have to make the claim they did, since it would then be vastly more plausible. Same principle with mining a harbour; you force the enemy to exhaust resources on disproving your claim.
 
3: There were many problems which resulted in war games based around Saddam-era Iraq, too. That's the point of carrying them out! Ultimately, when major combat operations were going on, it was relatively bloodless on our end. Certainly nowhere near the levels of catastrophe many warned would ensue. Iran is dangerous, but by no means beyond the capabilities of the US and others to deal with.
 
Quote    Reply

EKAdams       9/10/2012 9:13:38 PM
4: I'd agree that it would be nice to boost the ordinary people, but the Obama administration had that chance and failed to support the uprisings, which then got crushed. But right now, denying Iran access to nuclear arms is clearly a much higher priority. There's no indication that another uprising will soon happen. Wasn't North Korea meant to have fallen, several decades ago? Nothing, so far. If Iran could be enveloped in a Syria-like crisis, that could at least disrupt their nuclear activities, but there's not even that. On the other hand, one or two days of strikes specifically targeting the research facilities aren't the same thing as carpet bombing entire cities. There's no guarantee that a strike would lend the theocracy much in the way of real support, even though I'm sure they'd be rushing to stage lots of street protests. Don't be fooled into thinking they'd necessarily be genuine.
 
5: Why should Israel's arsenal be a part of the equation. They've demonstrated they're responsible users of nuclear weapons. They could counter-attack, yes, but all it takes is one hit and Israel ceases to exist. You point out that Iran would experience instant retaliation, but considering how their President and Supreme Leader seem to embrace apocalyptic desires, I don't see how MAD is meant to be any sort of realistic deterrent. They might well view their own population as unknowing maryrs. Or even be betting that a nuclear counter-strike would be regarded as too distasteful for the US to attempt. As I say, they haven't suffered much in the way of consequences for all the other hundreds, if not thousands of proxy wars and examples of terrorism carried out against Israel and the West. This emboldens them to consider the possibility that they could bunker down, survive and emerge as the Islamic world's champion for having "annihilated the Zionists" or whatever other spin they'd like to put on it.
 
Besides which... You don't need to marry a warhead with a missile. There is every reason to believe Iran could simply put one in a transit van, cargo ship or any other means of delivery, move it to Israel's border and let it off. A horrific amount of carnage would still be caused and they'd simply try to deny all knowledge or, if pressed, claim it was someone who went rogue.
 
You're entitled to assume that a nuclear Iran could be contained, but I do not. Even if they resist the temptation to use any such devices by themselves, it's still going to lead to at least an age of nuclear blackmail, if not proliferation and then far worse.
 
Quote    Reply

WarNerd       9/11/2012 3:40:19 AM
1: Why a poor assumption? It's basic logic. If the programme can't be completely destroyed and only set back a few years, then that's still a better alternative than a nuclear-armed Iran. Why is this a "poor assumption"? IF the rest of the world requires more time before being able to justify more effective military action, then that seems to be the only option on the table. Sanctions could have worked, but needed to be applied years ago and reinforced a lot more than they are now. Too many exemptions.
You are engaging in wishful thinking. 2 years is the BEST CASE. Most likely is less than 6 months. Given the trade-off is that you probably just made the regime totally secure this seems a bad bargain.
3: There were many problems which resulted in war games based around Saddam-era Iraq, too. That's the point of carrying them out! Ultimately, when major combat operations were going on, it was relatively bloodless on our end. Certainly nowhere near the levels of catastrophe many warned would ensue. Iran is dangerous, but by no means beyond the capabilities of the US and others to deal with.
The pentagon did not publish the results of their wargames before the invasion to avoid tipping their hand to the strategies and capabilities they had developed, and the press didn’t care much afterwards. The horrendous predictions were to prepare the public for the worst, just in case.
 
A wargaming group called SPI produced a simplified game for the invasion before Desert Storm that predicted the ‘hail marry’ play as optimal strategy in play testing, but was agreeable to suppressing that information until after the invasion.
 
But to assume that the same thing will happen again is pure hubris.
 
Quote    Reply

EKAdams       9/11/2012 4:29:36 AM
Six months or two years (some even say five or higher), it's still six months/two/five years longer than you'd otherwise have. Time in which the regime is going to be madly scuttling about, making any previous attempts at hiding the stuff non-existent for at least a short while. Therefore, an Israeli strike's just bought extra time and potentially even valuable intelligence for a later, more US-led effort.
 
Either of which are infinitely more preferable than sitting around, doing nothing and simply allowing the supposedly uncrossable red line to be, well... Crossed.
 
Your assumption that allied forces would encounter horrific defeats, with respect, doesn't seem to have a realistic foundation, aside from saying there might have been some war gaming activities which resulted in hypothetical casualties. Iran has proxy groups (which would be empowered by several magnitudes if it ever gets atomic weapons) and ballistic missiles. Of those, it's only really the latter which provide any realistic threat and if they lashed out with them in any significant way after an Israeli strike, the US would be triggered to get involved, regardless. At which point, the vast majority of launchers would be taken out within the first few days of any large air campaign.
 
I'm not saying that taking action doesn't carry risks. But I am saying that inaction could well end up being a lot worse. The time for sanctions to have a meaningful effect on their nuclear programme is already passed (they're uncomfortable, but the nuclear effort shows no sign of slowing down, let alone halting) and there are too many exemptions in even those already authorised. Action is pretty much inevitable. The only question is whether it's taken now or further down the line - and it waits, the harder and riskier that's going to be.
 
Quote    Reply

Chris       9/11/2012 7:58:02 PM
@import url http://www.strategypage.com/CuteSoft_Client/CuteEditor/Load.ashx?type=style&file=SyntaxHighlighter.css);" target="_blank">link
still six months/two/five years longer than you'd otherwise have. Time in which the regime is going to be madly scuttling about, making any previous attempts at hiding the stuff non-existent for at least a short while. Therefore, an Israeli strike's just bought extra time and potentially even valuable intelligence for a later, more US-led effort.

 

Either of which are infinitely more preferable than sitting around, doing nothing and simply allowing the supposedly uncrossable red line to be, well... Crossed.

 



Your assumption that allied forces would encounter horrific defeats, with respect, doesn't seem to have a realistic foundation, aside from saying there might have been some war gaming activities which resulted in hypothetical casualties. Iran has proxy groups (which would be empowered by several magnitudes if it ever gets atomic weapons) and ballistic missiles. Of those, it's only really the latter which provide any realistic threat and if they lashed out with them in any significant way after an Israeli strike, the US would be triggered to get involved, regardless. At which point, the vast majority of launchers would be taken out within the first few days of any large air campaign.

 

I'm not saying that taking action doesn't carry risks. But I am saying that inaction could well end up being a lot worse. The time for sanctions to have a meaningful effect on their nuclear programme is already passed (they're uncomfortable, but the nuclear effort shows no sign of slowing down, let alone halting) and there are too many exemptions in even those already authorised. Action is pretty much inevitable. The only question is whether it's taken now or further down the line - and it waits, the harder and riskier that's going to be.


===============================================================================================
Well, the issue w/r/t Israel's nuclear arsenal remains - they've got a considerable deterrent and the means to deliver it.  Iran wants above all to survive - and they will CEASE to exist is they do anything overt to Israel, or even if they gave a weapon away (unlikely given the extraordinary damage done to their economy, the expense, and the near-instantaneous retaliation that it would cause).
 
I remain on the side of the JCS - they're at a far higher pay grade, and its their business to know this stuff inside and out.  The notion of the pre-emptive strike turned out to be a complete disaster - and the expense was extraordinary.  The previous administration left this nations armed forces at their lowest state of readiness since Viet Nam:  our equipment, forces, and the global economy cannot afford another beating like it took before.
  

 
Quote    Reply

EKAdams       9/11/2012 8:19:18 PM
But, again, if Israel endures a nuclear strike, there won't be anything left  to retaliate with. It's an existential threat for them. It's a tiny country. It's not like the US, which can absorb a number of hits.
 
I don't understand why you consider the notion of pre-emptive strikes to be " a complete disaster".  Israel undertook one against Iraq's nuclear venture and another, much more recently, against Syria's. They were complete successes. This one's a lot less centralised, which makes it a lot more complicated, but that's all the more reason for the US to be need to be involved, not less.
 
If you're fearful of economic catastrophe, then I honestly fail to see how you imagine it's going to remain healthy and stable when the planet's foremost sponsor of terrorist groups (including training, weapons/equipment provision and accommodation) gains access to nuclear weapons. Nor do I see you offering a viable alternative solution - the sanctions are too little, too late and should have been aggressively pursued years ago.
 
Quote    Reply
1 2 3 4   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics