Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
United States Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Poland and Czech kicked in the nuts by the US
YelliChink    9/17/2009 10:33:06 AM
edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/17/missile.defense.shield/index.html [quote] But Biden explained the logic of doing so, saying Iran -- a key concern for the United States -- was not a threat. "I think we are fully capable and secure dealing with any present or future potential Iranian threat," Biden said in Baghdad, where he is on a brief trip. ... "This is catastrophic for Poland," said the spokeswoman, who declined to be named in line with ministry policy. advertisement Poland and the Czech Republic had based much of their future security policy on getting the missile defenses from the United States. The countries share deep concerns of a future military threat from the east -- namely, Russia -- and may look for other defense assurances from their NATO allies. [unquote]
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Hamilcar       11/4/2009 4:32:33 PM


Its actually simple. The problem is WILL.




As to who dies? Those who are guilty of the millions of potential or actual dead, whoever the guilty are, by action and inaction.



 I've become very Russian about that possibility. 
WILL, is not the problem. Between the United States and Israel, if Iran continues to violate the NPT and gets close to an actual weapon, someone will strike. Ideally, it's either the United States or the United States and Israel at a time of our choosing when RESOURCES are available to do the job correctly. A solid strategy for handling Iraq and Afghanistan in the aftermath that takes into account Iranian retaliation must be in place and operational. An appropriate coalition armada that has a heavy emphasis on mine warfare needs also to be ready near the Gulf. We are going to need to apply the lessons of Juniper Cobra and deploy appropriate missile defense forces throughout the region. And, enough resources need to be made available to support a 90 to 180 day campaign that doesn't stress the logistics burden on OIF/OEF. Most importantly, the right intelligence assets need to be in place to verify the results and conduct accurate BDA. 

Because of past and current events, nothing is simple about that. In fact, underestimating this situation and improper execution is as dangerous doing nothing. We have learned this lesson painfully several times already. It's important for everyone to appreciate two things. The complexity of the mission itself. And the timing of any combat operation in the context of what else is going on around the world and the status of the DoD which will necessarily have to do the heavy lifting in any conflict by default.

-DA 

1. Naval mine warfare is a LONG WAR. There is no 90-120 day limit. It could be years before the mine warfare ceases . Tanker war is the working model. 
2. There is no ABM defense in area in place to buy the time you claim in case Iran surprises the US or Europe, as they will.
3. The troops are in the wrong place, for the strategy you claim is in place. Most of them are in Iraq with Iran astride their supply by sea or surrounded in Afghanistan relying on a hostile Pakistan or Russia for their overland supply lines.
4. There are NO allies on board for the strategy you claim is in place.
5. Juniper COBRA 2001 failed. That is why Red Arrow, KEI, and THAAD became urgent, and why the recent Israel/US exercise in progress was held to validate the so-called ABM improvements (Red Arrow and PAC III). It didn't. The Iranians know this. Apparently you don't.       

Lack of WILL and common sense led to 1-5.
 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       11/4/2009 4:45:24 PM







Its actually simple. The problem is WILL.










As to who dies? Those who are guilty of the millions of potential or actual dead, whoever the guilty are, by action and inaction.







 I've become very Russian about that possibility. 





WILL, is not the problem. Between the United States and Israel, if Iran continues to violate the NPT and gets close to an actual weapon, someone will strike. Ideally, it's either the United States or the United States and Israel at a time of our choosing when RESOURCES are available to do the job correctly. A solid strategy for handling Iraq and Afghanistan in the aftermath that takes into account Iranian retaliation must be in place and operational. An appropriate coalition armada that has a heavy emphasis on mine warfare needs also to be ready near the Gulf. We are going to need to apply the lessons of Juniper Cobra and deploy appropriate missile defense forces throughout the region. And, enough resources need to be made available to support a 90 to 180 day campaign that doesn't stress the logistics burden on OIF/OEF. Most importantly, the right intelligence assets need to be in place to verify the results and conduct accurate BDA. 



Because of past and current events, nothing is simple about that. In fact, underestimating this situation and improper execution is as dangerous doing nothing. We have learned this lesson painfully several times already. It's important for everyone to appreciate two things. The complexity of the mission itself. And the timing of any combat operation in the context of what else is going on around the world and the status of the DoD which will necessarily have to do the heavy lifting in any conflict by default.



-DA 





1. Naval mine warfare is a LONG WAR. There is no 90-120 day limit. It could be years before the mine warfare ceases . Tanker war is the working model. 

I wasn't talking about the mine clearing. The mine LAYING and routes through the gulf HAVE TO BE reopened within that time frame for specific reasons. 

2. There is no ABM defense in area in place to buy the time you claim in case Iran surprises the US or Europe, as they will.

Wrong. 

3. The troops are in the wrong place, for the strategy you claim is in place. Most of them are in Iraq with Iran astride their supply by sea or surrounded in Afghanistan relying on a hostile Pakistan or Russia for their overland supply lines. 

Wrong. You need to consider that you may not understand the strategy.

4. There are NO allies on board for the strategy you claim is in place.
 
Wrong.

5. Juniper COBRA 2001 failed. That is why Red Arrow, KEI, and THAAD became urgent, and why the recent Israel/US exercise in progress was held to validate the so-called ABM improvements (Red Arrow and PAC III). It didn't. The Iranians know this. Apparently you don't.       

Herald, welcome back, apparently, you aren't aware of why I referenced Juniper Cobra 2009 and it's significance. It has very little to do with validating ABM technologies.


Lack of WILL and common sense led to 1-5. 


There is no lack of will. However you are free to entertain that if you want. In
 
Quote    Reply

sentinel28a       11/4/2009 9:12:57 PM
I agree with DA on two things:  one, war should be the last resort.  Two, we'd better have a good plan.  Even the most successful airstrike will result in an Iranian retaliation somewhere.  I don't know if the Iranian leadership is dumb enough to try and invade Iraq to get at our units there--they might be, and that would make our jobs much easier in the long run.  But I see a stepping up of Hezbollah attacks (which is less of a problem; the IDF can handle them), terrorist attacks on US interests and troops worldwide, and indeed mining the Straits of Hormuz.
 
However, that is predicated on two things itself.  One, are we going to just sit there and allow Iranian minelayers to close the Straits?  I would guess no.  If we preemptively hit Iran, they're not going to have time to leisurely go out and lay enough mines to close the Straits.  We're going to sink their minelayers.  Any aircraft that try it will die quick.  And if we don't do it, the Gulf Kingdoms will.  Their economy depends on the Straits, and the Saudis and the UAE are a lot less reluctant to kill Persians than we are.
 
Two, closing the Straits means nothing for Iran, either.  Iran imports most of their gasoline, since they lack the infrastructure to make it any longer.  No gas=no movement of the civilian population.  Not a big deal if you live in the cities, but where do the cities get their food from?  The rural population may or may not support the mullahs, but they definitely won't if their crops are wasting in the fields for lack of fuel to harvest them, and if they go broke because there's no way to move the crops to the cities.  In the cities, even the mullah's thugs might get a little nervous if they're facing starving people. 
 
Speculation, I know--the Germans and Japanese took a lot of economic hardship and the Japanese nearly mass famine before their governments cracked.  It is worth noting, however, that in both cases, the government was popular and not facing open rebellion.  Iran is, even with its secret police force.
 
It would be tough on everyone for awhile, though.  Even the threat of the Straits being closed would send gas prices up.  Which could be, of course, what Putin wants.  Europe would have to buy more from Russia then, wouldn't it?  Putin stands to make a lot of profit if war breaks out in the Persian Gulf.
 
Quote    Reply

Hamilcar       11/4/2009 11:10:40 PM

















Its actually simple. The problem is WILL.






















As to who dies? Those who are guilty of the millions of potential or actual dead, whoever the guilty are, by action and inaction.















 I've become very Russian about that possibility. 















WILL, is not the problem. Between the United States and Israel, if Iran continues to violate the NPT and gets close to an actual weapon, someone will strike. Ideally, it's either the United States or the United States and Israel at a time of our choosing when RESOURCES are available to do the job correctly. A solid strategy for handling Iraq and Afghanistan in the aftermath that takes into account Iranian retaliation must be in place and operational. An appropriate coalition armada that has a heavy emphasis on mine warfare needs also to be ready near the Gulf. We are going to need to apply the lessons of Juniper Cobra and deploy appropriate missile defense forces throughout the region. And, enough resources need to be made available to support a 90 to 180 day campaign that doesn't stress the logistics burden on OIF/OEF. Most importantly, the right intelligence assets need to be in place to verify the results and conduct accurate BDA. 







Because of past and current events, nothing is simple about that. In fact, underestimating this situation and improper execution is as dangerous doing nothing. We have learned this lesson painfully several times already. It's important for everyone to appreciate two things. The complexity of the mission itself. And the timing of any combat operation in the context of what else is going on around the world and the status of the DoD which will necessarily have to do the heavy lifting in any conflict by default.







-DA 















1. Naval mine warfare is a LONG WAR. There is no 90-120 day limit. It could be years before the mine warfare ceases . Tanker war is the working model. 




I wasn't talking about the mine clearing. The mine LAYING and routes through the gulf HAVE TO BE reopened within that time frame for specific reasons. 

You should be to be even taken seriously on subject. The fact that you don't even consider that factor shows you do not understand the most obvious elements in the setup.

2. There is no ABM defense in area in place to buy the time you claim in case Iran surprises the US or Europe, as they will.

Wrong. 

Are you sure? I am. The US Army has one battalion stood up for ABM defernse and they are still training. Israel has three firing batteries that are not even weapon qualified. 

3. The troops are in the wrong place, for the strategy you claim is in place. Most of them are in Iraq with Iran astride their supply by sea or surrounded in Afghanistan relying on a hostile Pakistan or Russia for their overland supply lines. 







Wrong. You need to consider that you may not understand the strategy.
I understand it all too well. Talk and hope that the Russians can be coaxed to withdraw their cover so that sanctions can be applied through the UN.. It won't work. Its too late. The Iranians already have the bomb design. All
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    @Herald   11/5/2009 12:05:19 AM

The facts are simple enough. Geography, economics and political will (the lack of it in the US) show that your understanding of what actually occurs is seriously in error.  


Game recognized. The facts as stated by me are the way things are. I'm not going to quibble with you or turn the thread into an argument. So agree to disagree and I'm moving on...NFC

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

Hamilcar       11/5/2009 1:20:16 PM



The facts are simple enough. Geography, economics and political will (the lack of it in the US) show that your understanding of what actually occurs is seriously in error.  







Game recognized. The facts as stated by me are the way things are. I'm not going to quibble with you or turn the thread into an argument. So agree to disagree and I'm moving on...NFC




-DA 













Its useless to discuss with someone who is unable to recognize salient FACTS from his hubris and personal bias. Agree to ignore you as I do Slowman.  Drive on.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       11/5/2009 2:03:36 PM
The shadow behind US-Israeli war games

 

By Paul Wood 
BBC Middle East correspondent 

"We're here for some very specific reasons, some specific threats that the Israelis are interested in, that we're interested in. And that's as far as I want to go down that road."

Com Carl Meuser of the US Navy destroyer Higgins was interrupted at this point by an anxious public affairs officer. The scenario neither wanted to discuss with the circle of visiting journalists aboard his ship was this: Israel bombs Iranian nuclear facilities - and Iran hits back.

In that case, Israel would definitely need the missile shield - sophisticated long-range radars and Patriot anti-missile devices - being tested in joint war games this week.

? The US could do it much better, but an Israeli campaign would be very short ? 
Ronen Bergman, Israeli security analyst 

Operation Juniper-Cobra involves some 2,000 American and Israeli personnel. It is a regular event, taking place every two years, but this year speculation is more intense than ever that Israel is prepared to bomb Iran to stop its supposed nuclear weapons programme.

But how likely are hostilities between Israel and Iran?

The frequent Israeli insistence that "all options are on the table" could just be a means of putting pressure on Tehran. And if there is an element of bluff, then the more we hear about the military option the less likely it will be.

Conversely, says Ronen Bergman, a leading Israeli security analyst and author, if things go quiet that might be time to think Israel is preparing to act.

"I would not expect any signs whatsoever," he said, "if I was planning the attack I would do what I could to lower their alertness."

Air power

"It is not a bluff," said Isaac Ben Israel, a former general, now a professor of security studies at Tel Aviv University. "It is putting pressure on Iran in order than no-one will have to use [force].

"But if Iran will not be pressed, if Iran continues to insist that it has the right to go and enrich uranium as much as it wants, then someone will have to use force. Because in one thing we are serious. We will not let Iran have a nuclear bomb."

Is there an American veto over Israeli action? Ronen Bergman says Israeli has the military capability to go it alone.

"[It would be] a short campaign of air-strikes, focussing on the main facilities," he said. "Of course, the US could do it much better, but an Israeli campaign would be very short, focussing on what Israel sees as the main elements of the project, and using only air power."

Israeli distrust of Iran's nuclear programme and a determination to do something about it forms a remarkably broad consensus across the military, the intelligence establishment, the government and the opposition.

Iran, of course, denies that its nuclear programme is anything other than peaceful. Israeli officials don't believe it. From their point of view, the deal on uranium enrichment is a trap: not enough to stop the construction of a weapon but convincing to the rest of the world - and therefore a block to Israeli military action.

"Using military force is the last option but it should be prepared," said Shaul Mofaz, deputy opposition leader, formerly Israel's military commander and, coincidentally, an Iranian-born Jew.

How long then would you give sanctions to work before Israeli takes military action, I asked h
 
Quote    Reply

Hamilcar    Press releases are not operational facts.   11/5/2009 9:38:32 PM
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy