GLORIOUS SPARTAN: Prelude of upcoming events in the Gulf ? [Archive]

BLACK SHIP

May 24th, 2008, 07:14 AM

GLORIOUS SPARTAN :Prelude of the things to come ?

A large scale exercise started this week named Glorious Spartan between the HAF and IAF.At first it sounded like a usual affair in which the Greek and Israeli Air Forces were involved in the past .However some details are now published which raised some questions of what the real purpose of this exercise is.Usually on previous occasions the exercise took part close or around the island of Crete in Southern Greece.This time around the IAF F16Is escorted by F15Is will fly all the way from Israel ,a 1700+ distance and refueled by B-703s, mock attack an airbase in central Greece and drop live ammo at a nearby firing range and return home and all that on a daily basis. The mission profile of this missions includes low flying over mountainous terrain over Turkey ,Aegean and attack the target which is located in an enclosed of mountains area. This particular airbase is the Headquarters of HAF and heavily defended besides its own air wing by various SAM units which equipment includes Russian systems .
Other aspects of the exercise include CSAR missions involving MH-53 and KC-130 AAR and DACT between various types of ac .The length of the Glorious Spartan will be 2 weeks .
It looks more and more like a general rehearsal of upcoming events in the Gulf Area .What is your assessment ?

chris

May 24th, 2008, 09:50 AM

The mission profile of this missions includes low flying over mountainous terrain over Turkey

Do you have more information on that? I hope that it is not based on my post in defencenet. That was just an hypothesis on how to make the scenario better. I don't want to start that kind of rumours.

BLACK SHIP

May 24th, 2008, 11:43 AM

Do you have more information on that? I hope that it is not based on my post in defencenet. That was just an hypothesis on how to make the scenario better. I don't want to start that kind of rumours.

Nobody starts anything .
This information is just a trickle that comes out of HAF sources at 110 FW .
Putting the bits together is not that difficult .
I simply emphasize the fact that the scope of this particular exercise appears to be far more extensive than previous ones .There is no way to know what how and when they contact the various scenarios and mission profiles of this exercise .I am sure that you are familiar with the various reports on the Greek press of the several "unexpected" intrusions of Athens FIR which surprised the HAF regarding the composition and size of the air groups.

ps. I just read your post. Excellent .

dk706

May 24th, 2008, 01:33 PM

Black ship do not mention scenarios like flying over turkey without official information... In defencenet that was just a proposal on how could the IAF make the scenarios of the exercise more Iran like and it wasnt mentioned as a possibility moreover no SAM systems will be used in the senarios russian or not russian..we even refused to include the Ihawk...

dk706

May 24th, 2008, 01:37 PM

despite all this though I see where you are getting... the summer may indeed be hotter than ever after a final rehearsal...it certainly sends the right message

BLACK SHIP

May 24th, 2008, 02:05 PM

. the summer may indeed be hotter than ever after a final rehearsal...it certainly sends the right message

Yes that's precisely where I want to focus.I have no interest in turning this into what and how the particulars of the exercise will unfold and furthermore I don't think anybody can claim access for the time being to "official information" even on the above mentioned forum .

chris

May 24th, 2008, 03:18 PM

the summer may indeed be hotter than ever after a final rehearsal...it certainly sends the right message

If you also consider the peace talks with Syria, held in Turkey, then Israel sure sends a lot of "messages" out. It could easily be just diplomacy though.

dk706

May 24th, 2008, 03:56 PM

If you also consider the peace talks with Syria, held in Turkey, then Israel sure sends a lot of "messages" out. It could easily be just diplomacy though.

Yep sure thing they do use diplomacy but in the middle east show of power and action have historically been much more effective than diplomacy...

Considering the supposed long range Incursion auditions that the IAF has been conducting in Greek FIR for the past months and that topped up by glorious Spartan.... Israel is certainly showing its teeth...

Aliph Ahmed

June 10th, 2008, 06:26 PM

History is a witness to the fact that where one country is pressurized into not doing something (whatever maybe the means), she doubles her effort. (Iraq, North Korea and Pakistan being one such examples)

It is quite a vague statement which many of us will find quiet open ended for any interpretation.

I will ,therefore, try to remain strictly on Iran. It is to my understanding and I am convinced that Iran going nuclear is simply inevitable.

Following are just some of the facts:

1. Iran has the technical know how. They are building their own centrifuges. They have even moved on to P2s where the rotors are made of carbons. Just recently, they installed another cascade of 159 P2 centrifuges after installing 3,000 or so P1 centrifuges at Natanz. (Their main enrichment location buried deep deep underground)

2. There program is dispersed all over the country with all places well guarded and some heavily guarded.

3. Right now, Iran is enriching Uranium at only a handfull known locations.

4. Iran's population is 66 million as per the CIA handbook making it one of the most populous country in Middle east.

5. Land is very mountaneous.

6. Iran produces quite a handfull of weopons on their own. Most of the weopons they produce are keeping USA Vs Iraq secenario in mind so it seems.

7. Strategically located at the strait of Hormuz. Some 30% of world's oil passes through it. Some estimates put it at even 40%.

8. Navy has 1,000 boats. Few ships and etc.

9. Any attack by Israel will take place with full collaboration from USA and will be seen as such by the world community no matter what the USA or Israel says.

etc etc.

So what do you do with a country like Iran stopp from going nuclear ? There is no denying that any airstrike if any will be successfull but what will that achieve ?

1. Iran will keep quiet. Accept the fact that Air strikes havel only extend the timeframe of Iran going nuclear but has not ended it. Iran will simply walk out of NPT, kick out inspectors and take its enrichment program from a few handfull known locations to unknown unilimted locations. How many of these installations will USA/Israel combo be able to find (no IAEA inspectors on grounds anymore) and destroy ?

Unlikely keeping in mind the Ahmedinijad's statements.

2. Work on 1 and also fire a few missiles (whatever remains after the strikes) at Israel, GCC and take it on USA in Iraq not to mention close strait of hormuz ? Even if one major US or ally ship is sunk. Consider oil supplies to stop and world economy pretty much to a halt.

2 will require a massive injection of USA and allies to invade Iran on ground. They will have a 66 million poople Iran + 25 million Iraq and another couple of million shias in GCC (If GCC gets involved) to take care of. and currently, they are having a hard time controlling 25 million Iraqis only.

So 2 is an unlikely wish scenario for the US and allies.

That leaves quite an interesting choice for George Bush to make because eitherway, the country most effected by Israel-Iran will be USA.

DarthAmerica

June 10th, 2008, 07:58 PM

Aliph Ahmed

June 10th, 2008, 08:06 PM

The points you mentioned have been debated to death. What it all boils down to is this. If the USA wants to stop Iran, it has diplomatic and military means to do so. So it boils down to a choice. Iran has to decide if its worth it. The USA simply has to decide what it's comfortable with. Once that threshold is crossed. The results are inevitable. We have been through it before in the early 1960's. The difference is there are many more options now.

-DA

Please describe "more options".

If it was that easy, Strikes would have been taken place long ago. The 60s you talk about : USA economy was in a much different shape then it is now.

Anything short of a ground invasion will not do and that is something USA and allies are not capable of at this time.

DarthAmerica

June 10th, 2008, 08:22 PM

Please describe "more options".

If it was that easy, Strikes would have been taken place long ago. The 60s you talk about : USA economy was in a much different shape then it is now.

Anything short of a ground invasion will not do and that is something USA and allies are not capable of at this time.

I didn't say easy. What I mean is Iran is not in a position of advantage. It has exploits that could have catastrophic effects and have to be considered unless you believe the Iranians are suicidal. When I say options, I mean the full range of options. Iran could be cut off from the global economy and spun into collapse. Iran is a net importer of oil and it exports a very low quality oil that it's currently being stored in tankers because no one wants to buy it. An embargo could seriously hurt them. A blockade would definitely hurt them and they would be incapable of a direct challenge. There is sabotage. There is coerced regime change. There are bombing campaigns. There is even the option of precision nuclear attack on Iran. There is no need to invade.

The last time the US was in a lengthy war and faced the prospect of having to invade in order to conclude the conflict it choose to destroy two cities. In the end, Iran is faced with responses that are beyond it's means to resist. Iran also has several other nuclear powers, including Russia, who don't want to see it go nuclear due to proximity and past grievances.

-DA

Aliph Ahmed

June 10th, 2008, 08:34 PM

I didn't say easy. What I mean is Iran is not in a position of advantage. It has exploits that could have catastrophic effects and have to be considered unless you believe the Iranians are suicidal. When I say options, I mean the full range of options. Iran could be cut off from the global economy and spun into collapse. Iran is a net importer of oil and it exports a very low quality oil that it's currently being stored in tankers because no one wants to buy it. An embargo could seriously hurt them. A blockade would definitely hurt them and they would be incapable of a direct challenge. There is sabotage. There is coerced regime change. There are bombing campaigns. There is even the option of precision nuclear attack on Iran. There is no need to invade.

The last time the US was in a lengthy war and faced the prospect of having to invade in order to conclude the conflict it choose to destroy two cities. In the end, Iran is faced with responses that are beyond it's means to resist. Iran also has several other nuclear powers, including Russia, who don't want to see it go nuclear due to proximity and past grievances.

-DA

I hope you do consider the adverse effects that will greatly harm the USA if USA ends up leaving/Kicked out of Middle East.

and yes, I belive(maybe wrongfully) that Iranians have been preparing for the USA ever since USA invaded Iraq and that there maybe segments who are suicidal.

I am not suppose to discuss economy in this thread but I assure you that economy of USA will touch bottom like it has never done before.

......offcourse at a great cost to Iran itself. (probably nuked like you mentioned).

DarthAmerica

June 10th, 2008, 09:05 PM

I hope you do consider the adverse effects that will greatly harm the USA if USA ends up leaving/Kicked out of Middle East.

and yes, I belive(maybe wrongfully) that Iranians have been preparing for the USA ever since USA invaded Iraq and that there maybe segments who are suicidal.

I am not suppose to discuss economy in this thread but I assure you that economy of USA will touch bottom like it has never done before.

......offcourse at a great cost to Iran itself. (probably nuked like you mentioned).

The US economy is well over 13 trillion dollars a year. There is a lot of room to absorb temporary crisis. It has before many times. The Iranians don't have that. Also, national security interest independent of Iran require US military involvement in the ME. The US isn't going to leave so long as that is the case. I'm sure there are radical elements of the Iranian leadership, thats nothing new. All nations have radicals. Of course the Iranians have prepared for the US since OIF. Those plans have stagnated.

The bottom line is militarily Iran doesn't represent a threat beyond what the DoD is prepared to deal with one way or another. This is nothing new. I still remember Saddam saying that the "Mother of all Battles" was underway. I remember similar speculation about threats to oil and the Iraqi scorched earth policy. What I'm getting at is that when conducting a military analysis it's important to not allow the political rhetoric and media commentary to cloud your judgment.

Nothing is new about this scenario.

-DA

Aliph Ahmed

June 10th, 2008, 09:37 PM

The US economy is well over 13 trillion dollars a year. There is a lot of room to absorb temporary crisis. It has before many times. The Iranians don't have that. Also, national security interest independent of Iran require US military involvement in the ME. The US isn't going to leave so long as that is the case. I'm sure there are radical elements of the Iranian leadership, thats nothing new. All nations have radicals. Of course the Iranians have prepared for the US since OIF. Those plans have stagnated.

The bottom line is militarily Iran doesn't represent a threat beyond what the DoD is prepared to deal with one way or another. This is nothing new. I still remember Saddam saying that the "Mother of all Battles" was underway. I remember similar speculation about threats to oil and the Iraqi scorched earth policy. What I'm getting at is that when conducting a military analysis it's important to not allow the political rhetoric and media commentary to cloud your judgment.

Nothing is new about this scenario.

-DA

I truly agree to what you are saying. I myself said that any stirke if any will be successfull. The question is who will blink because at the end of the day, USA will be the one fixing the mess as Iran will be in no shape.

It will be interesting to see how the USA handles couple of Iraqs (All bombed to stone age) with over 100 million people having not so positive wish/thoughts for the USA or the USA interests.

DarthAmerica

June 10th, 2008, 09:52 PM

It will be interesting to see how the USA handles couple of Iraqs (All bombed to stone age) with over 100 million people having not so positive wish/thoughts for the USA or the USA interests.

Iraqi opinions aren't going to change over this. There will always be those who want us out. They are offset by those who understand our role and superior firepower where applicable. Again, this is a known quantity.

-DA

Feanor

June 11th, 2008, 01:24 AM

Nothing is new about this scenario.

-DA

I disagree. Something is new. Russia and the U.S. are on the same page for once (which means no more major foreign support). Russia joined in on the U.N. sanctions on Iran recently. Their position is actually weaker then it seems.

fantasma

June 13th, 2008, 05:15 AM

According to greek defencenet the drill has been completed.
The task for the IAF was to maintain airsuperiority over the said bombardier area, SEAD, and CSAR missions. The concept was that IAF planes from Israel should fly over 1600 km distance supported by air-refueling tankers KC-130 and AEW in order to conduct air-bombardments to the military field of Kranea and also M-53 hellos after sunset conducted CSAR missions. The target area for IAF was a few km from greek city of Larissa in Thessaly were stands and Greek Air Command headquarters. Every single day about 50 IAF jets approached the said area.

DarthAmerica

June 13th, 2008, 06:19 PM

I disagree. Something is new. Russia and the U.S. are on the same page for once (which means no more major foreign support). Russia joined in on the U.N. sanctions on Iran recently. Their position is actually weaker then it seems.

That isn't new. I've been telling people for years that Russia isn't interested in what happens to Iran. Russia's interest in Iran was only to keep the USA occupied in Iraq with the majority of it's combat troops so that Russia could consolidate and pressure FSU states without fear of serious military opposition from the United States. Other than that Russia has never supported an Iranian Nuclear weapons program. Russia and Iran have historic grievances. Take a look at a map. Moscow is only 2500km from Tehran. Tehran used to openly refer to the Russians as the "Lesser Satan". They have as much to fear from Iranian nuclear weapons as anyone else.

-DA

DarthAmerica

June 13th, 2008, 06:21 PM

Feanor

June 14th, 2008, 03:26 AM

Here's a link: http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/is3104_pp007-033_raas_long.pdf

Chrom

June 14th, 2008, 10:24 AM

That isn't new. I've been telling people for years that Russia isn't interested in what happens to Iran. Russia's interest in Iran was only to keep the USA occupied in Iraq with the majority of it's combat troops so that Russia could consolidate and pressure FSU states without fear of serious military opposition from the United States. Other than that Russia has never supported an Iranian Nuclear weapons program. Russia and Iran have historic grievances. Take a look at a map. Moscow is only 2500km from Tehran. Tehran used to openly refer to the Russians as the "Lesser Satan". They have as much to fear from Iranian nuclear weapons as anyone else.

-DA
The ironic thing, Russia also refer to nuclear Iran as "Lesser of 2 evils". For Russia nuclear Iran is bad, but better than USA-controlled Iran...

From here arise all uncertainness in Russian politic toward Iran..

DarthAmerica

June 14th, 2008, 04:46 PM

The ironic thing, Russia also refer to nuclear Iran as "Lesser of 2 evils". For Russia nuclear Iran is bad, but better than USA-controlled Iran...

From here arise all uncertainness in Russian politic toward Iran..

That isn't true. The US doesn't have the desire or means to occupy Iran with the current conflicts going on and a nuclear Iran is far more dangerous militarily than an Iran occupied by anybody.

-DA

Fritz

June 15th, 2008, 04:47 AM

The US economy is well over 13 trillion dollars a year. There is a lot of room to absorb temporary crisis. It has before many times. But US economy isnt anywhere close to the economy it has had before. According to the first US accountant, GAO General David Walker, USA will be bankrupt in 30 years if nothing is done, but it may even be a quicker route. Many countries has allready reduced their stock of US dollar, Iran no longer accept payment in US dollar, soon the dollar may well be replaced with EURO or Yuan as a world currency, and thats the end of USA. YouTube - US Government Immorality Will Lead to Bankruptcy - English

Chrom

June 15th, 2008, 01:14 PM

That isn't true. The US doesn't have the desire or means to occupy Iran with the current conflicts going on and a nuclear Iran is far more dangerous militarily than an Iran occupied by anybody.

-DA
1. Did i said "occupy Iran"?

2. In the current situation USA indeed do not have means or desire to occupy Iran. And Russia try to do everything to preserve exactly that situation...

3. Dangerous to whom? Why? Everyone like to repeat these words, but few actually think about what they repeat... As i see, Iran is no more dangerous than most other nuclear users. Moreover, it is certainly less unstable than some of them - i.e. Pakistan for example, or even Israel for that matter.

DarthAmerica

June 15th, 2008, 03:22 PM

But US economy isnt anywhere close to the economy it has had before. According to the first US accountant, GAO General David Walker, USA will be bankrupt in 30 years if nothing is done, but it may even be a quicker route. Many countries has allready reduced their stock of US dollar, Iran no longer accept payment in US dollar, soon the dollar may well be replaced with EURO or Yuan as a world currency, and thats the end of USA. YouTube - US Government Immorality Will Lead to Bankruptcy - English (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIpNKO1W4eU)

Fritz,

The US economy has become stronger and stronger and has grown to an unprecedented size. Please don't make assertions like this. The Dollar is in no danger from the Euro or the Yuan. Iranian financial lunacy is just that. Just remember the number 13 trillion.

-DA

DarthAmerica

June 15th, 2008, 03:40 PM

1. Did i said "occupy Iran"?

2. In the current situation USA indeed do not have means or desire to occupy Iran. And Russia try to do everything to preserve exactly that situation...

3. Dangerous to whom? Why? Everyone like to repeat these words, but few actually think about what they repeat... As i see, Iran is no more dangerous than most other nuclear users. Moreover, it is certainly less unstable than some of them - i.e. Pakistan for example, or even Israel for that matter.

Chrom,

Disagree. Russia would love nothing more than for the US and Iran to entangle themselves in a protracted conflict of any kind. They have done everything to encourage it. And a nuclear Iran would be extremely dangerous to anybody who understand anti-access strategies and logistics. It's good that you mention Pakistan. Perhaps you need to study the differences between how Pakistan has been treated vs Iraq and Afghanistan and ask yourself why. Then you need to look at what resources of global importance would be in danger. You also need to think about the regional consequences if Iran were nuclear armed. Think Saudi Arabia can't afford nukes?

You really need to think these post through because your views are not what the rest of the world sees. No one wants a nuclear Iran. NO ONE. And before you respond, consider logistics and how a nuclear capability in a regional foe complicates things. Think about the Straight of Hormuz irradiated, Saudi Oil Fields destroyed, No Ali Al Salem, No Arifjan, No Doha, No Balad, No Talil, No Tel Aviv, Heavily Damaged Moscow/Paris or worse. Again you really need to think about this from a military point of view without the bias or rhetoric. Think about what $250+ dollar a barrel oil means from a military point of view. Who does that affect the most. Hint, it's not the USA.

-DA

Chrom

June 15th, 2008, 04:38 PM

Chrom,

Disagree. Russia would love nothing more than for the US and Iran to entangle themselves in a protracted conflict of any kind. They have done everything to encourage it. And a nuclear Iran would be extremely dangerous to anybody who understand anti-access strategies and logistics. It's good that you mention Pakistan. Perhaps you need to study the differences between how Pakistan has been treated vs Iraq and Afghanistan and ask yourself why. Then you need to look at what resources of global importance would be in danger. You also need to think about the regional consequences if Iran were nuclear armed. Think Saudi Arabia can't afford nukes?
Yes, i know all these excuses. However, they dont deny 1 single most important thing - Iran is not worse than other nuclear powers. Yes. for some of us nuclear Iran is bad. But objectively, from 3rd point of view - Iran is as good / bad as everyone else.

Iranian leaders are not some crazy megamaniacs, and so far they behavior, actions and even public speeches are no worse than these of even most democratic countries.

You really need to think these post through because your views are not what the rest of the world sees.
You, again, mistake West with the "rest of the word". WEST DO NOT EQUAL rest of of the word.

No one wants a nuclear Iran. NO ONE.
Yet i answer you.
1. Who want nuclear America? I assure you, even most close allies will celebrate if entire USA arsenal go puff.

2. Who want nuclear Russia? Guess, we know it...

3. Who want nuclear India / Pakistan / France / China ... to tell the truth, i dont know any country who really want them to be nuclear. I mean, just for nothing.

And before you respond, consider logistics and how a nuclear capability in a regional foe complicates things. Think about the Straight of Hormuz irradiated, Saudi Oil Fields destroyed, No Ali Al Salem, No Arifjan, No Doha, No Balad, No Talil, No Tel Aviv, Heavily Damaged Moscow/Paris or worse. Again you really need to think about this from a military point of view without the bias or rhetoric. Think about what $250+ dollar a barrel oil means from a military point of view. Who does that affect the most. Hint, it's not the USA.

-DA

I always hear that apocalyptic scenarios. But true thing is, Iraq wasn't nuclear - yet we see it destroyed, and millions of its citizens died. Pakistan, India and China all having "friendly" clashes in the past - yet, with nuclear status, they dont even dare to look at each other. History lessons teach us, what MAD work EXTREMELY well.

Whereas constant threating someone sovereignty for whatever reason - very often end up very bad.

DarthAmerica

June 15th, 2008, 08:24 PM

Yes, i know all these excuses. However, they dont deny 1 single most important thing - Iran is not worse than other nuclear powers. Yes. for some of us nuclear Iran is bad. But objectively, from 3rd point of view - Iran is as good / bad as everyone else.

Iranian leaders are not some crazy megamaniacs, and so far they behavior, actions and even public speeches are no worse than these of even most democratic countries.

You failed to understand the logistics once again...sigh. Iran IS DIFFERENT because it sets beside one of the most critical SLOC in the world. Iran would also be able to threaten key oil throughout the region THE REST OF THE WORLD NEEDS TO FUNCTION. Iran is also neighboring Iraq, Kuwait and Qatar which you must know support U.S. troops and key logistics and C4ISR infrastructure. A functioning deliverable nuclear weapon in Iranian hands is much more of a threat to global interest than say a N Korea, South African or even Pakistani warhead due to economic and logistics associated with geography. Then there is Israel who's densely packed population is dangerously vulnerable to WMD again due to geography. Then there is Europe and Russia who's capital cities could be under duress. This is why I stressed to you to study the logistics so that you might not respond with some ill thought out ideological response.

I always hear that apocalyptic scenarios. But true thing is, Iraq wasn't nuclear - yet we see it destroyed, and millions of its citizens died. Pakistan, India and China all having "friendly" clashes in the past - yet, with nuclear status, they dont even dare to look at each other. History lessons teach us, what MAD work EXTREMELY well.

Whereas constant threating someone sovereignty for whatever reason - very often end up very bad.

Please lets leave Iraq out of this. With your demonstrated misunderstanding of logistics and geography it's not likely anything I have to say would get through to you about Iraq and frankly I don't want to digress. In fact I'll ignore anything you say about Iraq hence forth unless it relates to GLORIOUS SPARTAN or it has some sort of coherent military significance to the current topic. Other than that I no longer debate people about the reasons for OIF and I'm happy to let people make their own minds up since that's already done apparently and particularly by certain people. Thank You.

-DA

Feanor

June 15th, 2008, 08:33 PM

You really need to think these post through because your views are not what the rest of the world sees. No one wants a nuclear Iran. NO ONE. And before you respond, consider logistics and how a nuclear capability in a regional foe complicates things. Think about the Straight of Hormuz irradiated, Saudi Oil Fields destroyed, No Ali Al Salem, No Arifjan, No Doha, No Balad, No Talil, No Tel Aviv, Heavily Damaged Moscow/Paris or worse. Again you really need to think about this from a military point of view without the bias or rhetoric. Think about what $250+ dollar a barrel oil means from a military point of view. Who does that affect the most. Hint, it's not the USA.

-DA

That would be an orgasm for Russian oil companies. As for hitting Moscow, I'm pretty sure Iran has nothing that can pierce the ABM around Moscow (much less a reason to conduct such a strike). Remember what's bad for American consumers might be wonderful for the Russian government. Don't forget Iran is also a major natural gas source. Which means another spike in gas prices. Not to mention that the instability would increase demand for weapons in CAR and even the Trans-Caucus region, which (in terms of weapon sales) are traditional Russian fiefdoms. 250 dollars a barrel is a dream come true for Russia the worlds second largest oil producer, and with Saudi Arabia nuked, the first.

Aliph Ahmed

June 15th, 2008, 09:32 PM

I think it all comes down to to post strike planning as there should be no doubt that any strike if any will be successfull.

I liked the link DearthAmerica mentioned about Osrrak Redux and yes it not perfect but makes a lot of sense.

Not only the strike objectives must be met but also post strike contingency plans and most likely US/Israel and allies are planning just that. The latter, that is.

Either way, it is very likely that Iran will try to block strait of Hormuz unless US plans include landing troops and seize the shores untill the climax comes down.

DarthAmerica

June 15th, 2008, 09:51 PM

That would be an orgasm for Russian oil companies. As for hitting Moscow, I'm pretty sure Iran has nothing that can pierce the ABM around Moscow

VBIED and civ air can. Think outside the box. 9/11 and Lebanon validated these methods. So did Entebe.

-DA

stigmata

June 16th, 2008, 02:37 AM

I wonder if a salted nuke could plug the gulf of Oman, so that noone would sail through it for years ?

DarthAmerica

June 16th, 2008, 04:49 AM

I wonder if a salted nuke could plug the gulf of Oman, so that noone would sail through it for years ?

I don't know how long, but I do know irradiated saltwater is very bad as far as fallout goes. This is one of the worse possible things Iran could do in a scorched earth attack. World oil prices are based on the long held view that oil is reliably available and secured by the U.S. Military ultimately. An attack like this would remove major portions of the supply in a very high demand market for considerable time and destroy the credibility of U.S. security guarantees. It would undermine a lot of regional FDI as well as global FDI in heavily industrialized developing nations like China and India who count on the oil and NG. The worse would not be for the more established nations who could afford to buy oil even at much higher prices. The worse would be for poorer nations who would be effectively priced out of the market due to speculation. This would kill millions during the years it would take for the markets to recover. An absolute disaster of the 1st rate and I only described the best case.

Every financial chief around the world would confirm this and this is why Iran would be fiercely opposed if it were to ever get nuclear weapons. Officially or unofficially the US and Israel would have carte blanche to prevent something like this. Yet at the same time, this would also give Iran a lot of deterrent power to negotiate with even during a conflict. Even more than Pakistan has now.

I can't emphasize enough how bad this would be globally. Even the threat of it.

-DA

chris

June 16th, 2008, 05:14 AM

It would undermine a lot of regional FDI as well as global FDI in heavily industrialized developing nations like China and India who count on the oil and NG. The worse would not be for the more established nations who could afford to buy oil even at much higher prices. The worse would be for poorer nations who would be effectively priced out of the market due to speculation. This would kill millions during the years it would take for the markets to recover. An absolute disaster of the 1st rate and I only described the best case.

Every financial chief around the world would confirm this and this is why Iran would be fiercely opposed if it were to ever get nuclear weapons. Officially or unofficially the US and Israel would have carte blanche to prevent something like this. Yet at the same time, this would also give Iran a lot of deterrent power to negotiate with even during a conflict. Even more than Pakistan has now.

I can't emphasize enough how bad this would be globally. Even the threat of it.

-DA

What about an attack on Iran, to prevent it from going nuclear? Should shutting down Iran's oil production be treated differently from the world economy?

DarthAmerica

June 16th, 2008, 05:30 AM

What about an attack on Iran, to prevent it from going nuklear? Shuting down Iran's oil production would be treated differently from the world economy?

Yes. The U.S. would be fulfilling it's obligations as global security guarantor as far as financial markets are concerned. Speculators in particular. There would be spikes and opportunism of course but ultimately this would be seen as maintaining the balance and regional status quo. The USN can guarantee the safety of the SLOC and there is enough excess production on the market to make up for the Iranian contribution which is quite a difference from OPEC who would all be affected by a radiological disaster.

Also, Iran exports a very cheap low quality crude that isn't as much in demand. Right now they are storing a lot of it because there is less demand than there is output for their oil. NG is a different story but again this is something the US military can secure.

In financial terms USA vs non-nuclear Iran represents potentially up to ~500 billion dollars a day disruption accounting for every barrel Iran outputs which is wildly high and can be made up for by other suppliers. This is compared to World vs Nuclear Iran ecological/economic attack in choke point that would disrupt 2.2 trillion in oil a day that cannot be made up for immediately. That buys a lot of casus beli.

In some ways wars are ran by bankers and investors as much as they are by generals and admirals and any modern study or discussion of war is incomplete without a consideration of the military-market link.

-DA

Reading:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cabs/World_Oil_Transit_Chokepoints/Full.html
http://tradingadvisor.wordpress.com/2008/05/16/oil-demand-iran-storing-about-25m-barrels-of-crude-in-tankers-official/

Feanor

June 16th, 2008, 06:14 AM

VBIED and civ air can. Think outside the box. 9/11 and Lebanon validated these methods. So did Entebe.

-DA

I am so confused. Please explain further. :unknown

DarthAmerica

June 16th, 2008, 06:26 AM

I am so confused. Please explain further. :unknown

Nuclear weapons, or any weapon for that matter aren't credible unless they can be reliably delivered to a target. You mentioned Russians ABM. Now, if you had only a few nuclear warheads and wanted to put one in Moscow, would you waste it by strapping it to a primitive V-2 technology rocket and throw it into an active ABM defense system protective that city when you lack the mass to saturate the system? Or would you do something a bit more "stealthy" like Mathius Rust did as an example?

-DA

stigmata

June 16th, 2008, 07:30 AM

Russia would not be a target, Europe wouldnt either.
The way i see it
1) Sending it to Israel, among with a lot of conventional ballistic missiles, to assure saturation and a really good chance, stealth is unreliable against mossad.
2) Smuggling it to USA, unreliable against US intelligence recources.
3) Strait of Hormuz, easy no matter what delivery method.

Chrom

June 16th, 2008, 09:54 AM

You failed to understand the logistics once again...sigh. Iran IS DIFFERENT because it sets beside one of the most critical SLOC in the world. Iran would also be able to threaten key oil throughout the region THE REST OF THE WORLD NEEDS TO FUNCTION.
How the hell rest of the word so need it? There are a lot of oil outside Middle East. Besides, about EVERY country and region on the Earth have something what is very important for the rest of the world short-term - be it food, water , oil, microchips or even simply cloth (cough, China!)
Also, i dont see why Iran would like to threat key oil throughput... at least to higher degree than everyone else do to concurrents (cough, USA!)

Iran is also neighboring Iraq, Kuwait and Qatar which you must know support U.S. troops and key logistics and C4ISR infrastructure. A functioning deliverable nuclear weapon in Iranian hands is much more of a threat to global interest than say a N Korea, South African or even Pakistani warhead due to economic and logistics associated with geography.
YES! Finally! Here it is! Threat to USA (hell, let it even be whole WEST) interests! But from OBJECTIVE point of view, why we should take USA interests as more important that Iranian, Chinese, Indian or Russian interests? Yes, i know, for me personally it is better if Iran sell its oil freely and cheap and Germany sells in return its microchips high, embargoing Iran from best tech... but objectively, from the rest of the world point of view - Iranian interests are about is important as American interests.

Then there is Israel who's densely packed population is dangerously vulnerable to WMD again due to geography. Then there is Europe and Russia who's capital cities could be under duress. This is why I stressed to you to study the logistics so that you might not respond with some ill thought out ideological response.

And? Why should Iran suffer cause of others paranoia? The ironic thing, others have nuclear weapons... who should be paranoid? THIS IS NOT FAIR. Yes, i know, world is not fair. But here, we are discussion abstract view, NOT our personal (as USA, Germany, Indian, Russian, Brasilian citizen) view.

Also, let me remind your - if one dont take other interest in account, dont try to reach some agreement, always take own interest over someone everything else - this sooner or later ends bad, and often with blood.

Dont deny foreign country the right do anything your own country also do.

Yes, i understand you are extremely pro-West (and even pro-USA). But try to understand others point of view. Try to understand, they and they country have exactly same rights as yours.

DarthAmerica

June 16th, 2008, 11:23 AM

How the hell rest of the word so need it? There are a lot of oil outside Middle East. Besides, about EVERY country and region on the Earth have something what is very important for the rest of the world short-term - be it food, water , oil, microchips or even simply cloth (cough, China!)
Also, i dont see why Iran would like to threat key oil throughput... at least to higher degree than everyone else do to concurrents (cough, USA!)

Because oil is a finite resource, production & refining capacity is limited and oil is a easy blackmail. Regime survival is the reason. It was done before. It doesn't matter what side of the pool you drain the water from it affects the whole pool!

YES! Finally! Here it is! Threat to USA (hell, let it even be whole WEST) interests! But from OBJECTIVE point of view, why we should take USA interests as more important that Iranian, Chinese, Indian or Russian interests? Yes, i know, for me personally it is better if Iran sell its oil freely and cheap and Germany sells in return its microchips high, embargoing Iran from best tech... but objectively, from the rest of the world point of view - Iranian interests are about is important as American interests.

How naive. Iran doesn't manage global events. Iran doesn't have a 13 billion dollar interconnected economy. Iran can protect Saudi Arabia or other OPEC members. If Germany is threatened again, Iran isn't going to deploy military force to ensure it's safety.

And? Why should Iran suffer cause of others paranoia? The ironic thing, others have nuclear weapons... who should be paranoid? THIS IS NOT FAIR. Yes, i know, world is not fair. But here, we are discussion abstract view, NOT our personal (as USA, Germany, Indian, Russian, Brasilian citizen) view.

No one is discussing any abstract view. This is a real world problem. In the real world things aren't fair. Thats why America has such a huge military advantage. So it's never fair.

Also, let me remind your - if one dont take other interest in account, dont try to reach some agreement, always take own interest over someone everything else - this sooner or later ends bad, and often with blood.

Dont deny foreign country the right do anything your own country also do.

This statement suggest complete ignorance of the global security environment since the advent of the atomic bomb.

Yes, i understand you are extremely pro-West (and even pro-USA). But try to understand others point of view. Try to understand, they and they country have exactly same rights as yours.

NO they don't have he same rights. Countries have a right to defend their interest. Some nations interest extend far beyond their borders. Outside of some utopian world, things will never be fair.

Whats not fair is that Iranian nuclear weapons would have the potential to significantly impede established US military and global logistics infrastructure in the middle east. In addition it would seriously undermine the balance of power in the middle east and provoke a nuclear arms race there in a notoriously violent and war torn society. This is a direct threat to billions of lives globally since the world is living on a oil based economy. Start seeing things as they are and not how you wish them to be. Start arguing logic and not emotion. Think.

-DA

Feanor

June 16th, 2008, 08:15 PM

DarthAmerica

June 16th, 2008, 08:51 PM

Sneaking it into the U.S. is easy. Just disguise it as a shipment of cocaine :roll:

On a more serious note I don't see any reason for Iran to strike Russia, or Paris for that matter. If Iran got nukes it would hoard them as a last resort defensive weapon. Just like the DPRK is doing right now. A U.S. invasion might prompt a nuclear attack on oil fields, or an attempt to block the straights, definetly at least an attempt to use it against the US forces. But I don't see any way that they would attack Moscow. So again we're back to the same scenario. Oil at 250+ a barrel. The U.S. entangled in another war. Russia making money. :)

I'm speaking in a military context. The politics don't matter. Defense leaders have a responsibility to protect against threats regardless of the likelihood. This has to be balanced against the consequences of not doing so. Iran getting conventional ballistic missiles with GPS accuracy isn't in the same category as nuclear weapons. The consequences of a mistake are far greater.

I personally don't believe the Soviets would have initiated nuclear war with MRBMs from Cuba in the 1960's if left alone. I don't think the President at the time believed they would either. But the mere existence of the threat and consequences demanded a response. This is no different except that it directly threatens many more nations including Russia.

-DA

stigmata

June 17th, 2008, 01:43 AM

I'm speaking in a military context. The politics don't matter. Defense leaders have a responsibility to protect against threats regardless of the likelihood. This has to be balanced against the consequences of not doing so. Iran getting conventional ballistic missiles with GPS accuracy isn't in the same category as nuclear weapons. The consequences of a mistake are far greater.

I personally don't believe the Soviets would have initiated nuclear war with MRBMs from Cuba in the 1960's if left alone. I don't think the President at the time believed they would either. But the mere existence of the threat and consequences demanded a response. This is no different except that it directly threatens many more nations including Russia.This is not correct, Politics is everything. War is just a continuing of politics, but with other means (Clausewitz). That means war is just a tool among other tools to carry out foreign politics. The only exeption to this rule i'm aware of was the 30 years war, where at times the decision making left politicians, and the war made political decisions. i.e to carry on the war because of starvations and muteny.

Regarding the Cuba crise, Khrushchev had a difficult time to make up his mind if he should wage war or not, and sent two different messages with different interpretation. Fidel urged Khrushchev to nuke USA with everything he got on Cuba soil, -in spite of knowing Cuba would be wiped out the next few minutes! In the movie 'Fog of war' McNamara concluded that mankind is not allways rational. It was cheer luck that prevented war that time.
Lastly, Iran is no more of a threat to Russia and Europe then USA, i believe you are mixing in politics in that suggestion ;)

Feanor

June 17th, 2008, 01:59 AM

Oh I completely understand the rationale behind a response to Iranian nukes, and Darth that's a perfectly valid point. My point was that Russia would only benefit from it.

DarthAmerica

June 17th, 2008, 03:24 AM

This is not correct, Politics is everything. War is just a continuing of politics, but with other means (Clausewitz). That means war is just a tool among other tools to carry out foreign politics.

Read what I said. I'm not talking about policy. This is strategy. From a military point of view, ie defense chief who advises policy makers, a potentially unstable Theocratic mullacracy with nuclear weapons capable of reaching your capital in minutes is unacceptable militarily regardless of what politicians say. Russian defense ministers and generals would have a military duty regardless of the politics to advise the Russian president of their inability to defend against such a threat. The policy maker then takes that information and develops policy.

We are talking about two separate things.

-DA

DarthAmerica

June 17th, 2008, 03:38 AM

Oh I completely understand the rationale behind a response to Iranian nukes, and Darth that's a perfectly valid point. My point was that Russia would only benefit from it.

No, not even the Russians benefit from that. Thats Myopic in the extreme. The world is governed by a lot of unspoken rule-sets. Rule-sets like not using nuclear weapons except for the United States. Changing that rule-set would fundamentally alter the world in ways we cannot predict. Someone just made it ok to use nuclear weapons. The only reasons nations like South Africa, S Korea, Japan, Germany, Poland, Italy, Taiwan and a whole of others including FSU states don't deploy nukes is because the United States has exported nuclear security to them and the rest of the non-nuclear world in return from aggressive counter proliferation and protection. Something like this would immediately make this past arrangement null and void and those nations capable of providing their own nuclear defense would since the USA is no longer reliable in that regard. That isn't in Russian interest or anybody else in the civilized world.

-DA

Feanor

June 17th, 2008, 06:08 AM

I doubt that a one time use of rather limited amounts of nuclear weapons by Iran, in response to a U.S. invasion, would lead to the destabilization you predict.

EDIT: I doubt the U.S. would invade if Iran acquired operational nuclear weapons.

stigmata

June 17th, 2008, 06:43 AM

Nuke trading would cause a tsunami in every market on the world, stocks, real estate, you name it. If it on top of that messes up oil supply in the critical gulf, destabilization would be an understatement. Riots and revolutions world wide is more like it.
DarthAmerica has had many exellent posts, but this one is his masterpiece
I don't know how long, but I do know irradiated saltwater is very bad as far as fallout goes. This is one of the worse possible things Iran could do in a scorched earth attack. World oil prices are based on the long held view that oil is reliably available and secured by the U.S. Military ultimately. An attack like this would remove major portions of the supply in a very high demand market for considerable time and destroy the credibility of U.S. security guarantees. It would undermine a lot of regional FDI as well as global FDI in heavily industrialized developing nations like China and India who count on the oil and NG. The worse would not be for the more established nations who could afford to buy oil even at much higher prices. The worse would be for poorer nations who would be effectively priced out of the market due to speculation. This would kill millions during the years it would take for the markets to recover. An absolute disaster of the 1st rate and I only described the best case.

Every financial chief around the world would confirm this and this is why Iran would be fiercely opposed if it were to ever get nuclear weapons. Officially or unofficially the US and Israel would have carte blanche to prevent something like this. Yet at the same time, this would also give Iran a lot of deterrent power to negotiate with even during a conflict. Even more than Pakistan has now.

I can't emphasize enough how bad this would be globally. Even the threat of it.Our civilization runs on oil, and we havnt got a backup.

Chrom

June 17th, 2008, 08:00 AM

Read what I said. I'm not talking about policy. This is strategy. From a military point of view, ie defense chief who advises policy makers, a potentially unstable Theocratic mullacracy with nuclear weapons capable of reaching your capital in minutes is unacceptable militarily regardless of what politicians say. Russian defense ministers and generals would have a military duty regardless of the politics to advise the Russian president of their inability to defend against such a threat. The policy maker then takes that information and develops policy.

We are talking about two separate things.

-DA

I assure you, Russian generals care about NATO bases 300km from Moskow 100 times more than some mythical Iranian A-Bomb. EVERYTHING what could slow down NATO development and encircling around Russia is very good and worth it in Russian generals book.

Cooch

June 17th, 2008, 09:26 AM

I assure you, Russian generals care about NATO bases 300km from Moskow 100 times more than some mythical Iranian A-Bomb.

Are you in a position to offer such assurance?

DarthAmerica

June 17th, 2008, 11:00 AM

I assure you, Russian generals care about NATO bases 300km from Moskow 100 times more than some mythical Iranian A-Bomb. EVERYTHING what could slow down NATO development and encircling around Russia is very good and worth it in Russian generals book.

Chrom,

Somehow, I just don't think that's something a country with a strategic nuclear arsenal really worries about...

http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=55.462641,32.116747&z=6&t=h&hl=en

...especially when it's not possible for a NATO base to be 300km from Moscow. Unless you are suggesting NATO is going to establish this base on Russia proper.

Quiz: What's more mythical

1. Iranian A-bomb when it's been known that Iran has the materials, plans and relationship with two nuclear allies, A Khan and N Korea.

2. NATO base on Russian territory 300km from Moscow.:onfloorl:

-DA

stigmata

June 17th, 2008, 11:40 AM

kato

June 17th, 2008, 12:07 PM

... and from North-Eastern Ukraine we're getting around 630 km.

swerve

June 17th, 2008, 12:15 PM

... and from North-Eastern Ukraine we're getting around 630 km.

From the nearest point of Belarus, I think maybe 500 km, in a straight line. And that's the absolute minimum.

Chrom

June 17th, 2008, 02:14 PM

Cities located close to Helsinki ... Current local times and distance from Helsinki .... Russia - Moscow *, Mon 11:28 PM, 898 km, 558 miles, 485 nm

Irrelevant data though, Russia has enuff nukes to wipe out NATO, and vice versa. The luckiest guys dies first.

Here is the surprise for you - Russia (and USA) also have some spare nukes to wipe out Iran. Tell us again, why Iranian nukes are more dangerous than USA, Chinese or Russian ones?

P.S. Ok, ok. Not 300 km from Moskow. But rather 0 km from Russian border, and extremely close from some major russian cities (St. Petersburg..). Either way, Iran is still much, much father and much less capable. Again, why Russia should fear nuclear Iran at even 1/10 rate of NATO or China?

DarthAmerica

June 17th, 2008, 03:52 PM

Here is the surprise for you - Russia (and USA) also have some spare nukes to wipe out Iran. Tell us again, why Iranian nukes are more dangerous than USA, Chinese or Russian ones?

P.S. Ok, ok. Not 300 km from Moskow. But rather 0 km from Russian border, and extremely close from some major russian cities (St. Petersburg..). Either way, Iran is still much, much father and much less capable. Again, why Russia should fear nuclear Iran at even 1/10 rate of NATO or China?

Because the Iranians are not a part of the core nations who have all agreed to generally follow common sets of rules. The Iranians also have a very negative history with the Russians. That's on top of the fact that the Iranian government is not stable.

It's the same as giving a gun to a person pre-desposed to violent crime and drug use compared to a normal law abiding citizen. Denying this would be naive.

Also, nuclear weapons cause damage far out of proportion with conventional weapons of similar size. In 1991 Iraq launched over 80 SCUDs and about 38 of those at Israel. Of those 38 many landed near enough to populated areas that if they carried nuclear warheads Israeli would have been destroyed as we know it today. SCUDs landed near enough to US military facilities in the Persian Gulf that with nuclear payloads Operation Desert Storm would have been seriously disrupted. This disruption would have given time for the Iraqis to exploit. Granted the US and France probably would have obliterated Iraq in retaliation, the resulting economic and ecological damage would have had the kinds of global consequences I mentioned before. MAD only works when both sides buy into it. If not you still get the destruction no matter what you do in return.

Ballistic missiles have proven ability to saturate defenses. Nukes have a proven capability even i small yields to cause widespread irrecoverable destruction. This is a completely unacceptable situation. Especially for Israel and many Gulf states that don't have the strategic depth or population to withstand nuclear warfare.

-DA

swerve

June 17th, 2008, 04:29 PM

...
P.S. Ok, ok. Not 300 km from Moskow. But rather 0 km from Russian border, and extremely close from some major russian cities (St. Petersburg..). ..

The problem with not wanting potential enemies on your borders is that to move them further away means extending your borders. Then you find a new potential enemy on the new border . . . Where to stop?

BTW, St. Petersburg was built where it is because it was near other countries. It was meant as a channel to the West, to open up Russia. You can't complain because that particular city is near the people it was built to be near to.

Chrom

June 17th, 2008, 05:18 PM

Because the Iranians are not a part of the core nations who have all agreed to generally follow common sets of rules. The Iranians also have a very negative history with the Russians. That's on top of the fact that the Iranian government is not stable.
Hmm? I mean, WHAT rules ALL nuclear nations commonly agree to follow, and which of these rules Iran DONT want to follow? Please, explain it!

It's the same as giving a gun to a person pre-desposed to violent crime and drug use compared to a normal law abiding citizen. Denying this would be naive.
I dont see how Iranian government is worse in that regard than most other nuclear countries. Name me even 1 (one) deed what was exclusively done by Iranian goverment and wasnt done by, oh well, let it be USA government. See, i make it easy for you. Not Pakistan... not even China...

Also, nuclear weapons cause damage far out of proportion with conventional weapons of similar size. In 1991 Iraq launched over 80 SCUDs and about 38 of those at Israel. Of those 38 many landed near enough to populated areas that if they carried nuclear warheads Israeli would have been destroyed as we know it today. SCUDs landed near enough to US military facilities in the Persian Gulf that with nuclear payloads Operation Desert Storm would have been seriously disrupted. This disruption would have given time for the Iraqis to exploit. Granted the US and France probably would have obliterated Iraq in retaliation, the resulting economic and ecological damage would have had the kinds of global consequences I mentioned before. MAD only works when both sides buy into it. If not you still get the destruction no matter what you do in return.
Well, this is the whole purpose of nuclear weapon, MAD? I dont see all these dread things stopped other nuclear countries to acquire it.

Yes, i understand it. Guns are very dangerous. Mans with the guns should by all means prevent other peoples to acquire own guns... because, you know, guns in foreign hands - dangerous. Gun in own hand - good and secure.

Only problem, sooner or later such "rights management" usually lead to revolution and big blood.

Ballistic missiles have proven ability to saturate defenses. Nukes have a proven capability even i small yields to cause widespread irrecoverable destruction. This is a completely unacceptable situation. Especially for Israel and many Gulf states that don't have the strategic depth or population to withstand nuclear warfare.

-DA

Yes, i know. As i said, it is perfectly ok for Israel to threat anyone with nuclear weapon (even if unofficialy) , but god forbid any Israel's neighborhood to acquire same capabilities!

MAD, and only MAD can end current world madness with countless "peacekeeping" bombardments, constant bullying and blackmailing from stronger countries toward weaker. MAD stopped major world power post WW2 to go all crazy, MAD saved hundreds millions lives at very least.

The only alternative - is inventing and strictly enforcing so-called "international law". But so far most powerfull countries do everything in they power to NOT give up they "sovereignty" - means to give up they rights to bully weaker countries.

P.S. I see EU as very promising in that regard. Even by all double-standards they EU-wide laws application experience, it is still great example how different countries could give up a part of they sovereignty to actually build some form of common and enforceable "international law", even if only between EU countries.

Grand Danois

June 17th, 2008, 05:23 PM

Chrom

June 17th, 2008, 05:31 PM

But you need thousands upon thousands of warheads to achieve MAD to be destructive and reliable enough. Less than a few hundred is limited deterrence. Limited deterrence ultimately doesn't deter MAD capable powers as the power with limited deterrence is deterred by total annihilation as opposed to holding a few targets at risk.

But that bring stakes high enough so in absolutely most cases it doesnt worth to directly attack said country. Take, for example, Iran or NK.

I dont think IRANIAN oil is important enough for USA to actually risk New-York or Los-Angeles. Iranian have all right to do anything with they oil, same as USA have all rights to do anything with USA oil or USA microchips - which is current world are even more important than oil.

I also dont think USA hate toward word "communism" (because, lets face it, NK is not communistic by any mean) are high enough to risk Detroit or Tokyo. And if USA try it - they will get a nice diplomatic storm from Japan or SK.

Grand Danois

June 17th, 2008, 05:36 PM

But that bring stakes high enough so in absolutely most cases it doesnt worth to directly attack said country. Take, for example, Iran or NK.

I dont think IRANIAN oil is important enough for USA to actually risk New-York or Los-Angeles. Iranian have all right to do anything with they oil, same as USA have all rights to do anything with USA oil or USA microchips - which is current world are even more important than oil.

I also dont think USA hate toward word "communism" (because, lets face it, NK is not communistic by any mean) are high enough to risk Detroit or Tokyo. And if USA try it - they will get a nice diplomatic storm from Japan or SK.

It's not about what the US is risking - it's about what Iran or NK risks.

Assume Iran is armed with a handful of nukes plus delivery systems. US drops a nuke on some facility and lets Iran know that if it responds in kind, it will face end-to-end annihilation.

What will Iran do?

They're deterred, because if they act in kind, they can't escalate.

DarthAmerica

June 17th, 2008, 05:44 PM

Hmm? I mean, WHAT rules ALL nuclear nations commonly agree to follow, and which of these rules Iran DONT want to follow? Please, explain it!

Chrom,

It's called the nuclear non-proliferation treaty which Iran agreed to and got caught violating. You should read about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty#Iran

Iran has legally agreed to follow these rules. Also, I did not say all nuclear nations. I said core nations.

-DA

Chrom

June 17th, 2008, 06:31 PM

Chrom,

It's called the nuclear non-proliferation treaty which Iran agreed to and got caught violating. You should read about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty#Iran

Iran has legally agreed to follow these rules. Also, I did not say all nuclear nations. I said core nations.

-DA
1. As with any agreement, Iran have all rights to EXIT or change its stats within treaty. Iran may change own status within treaty as nuclear-weapon user in the future - and this will be very legal move. IF Iran actually sometime decide to develop nuclear weapon of course...

2. This treatment DO NOT prohibit independently acquire nuclear weapon. It is however illegal to transfer technology.
Plus, any country which forfeit nuclear weapon development theoretically enjoys (however useless) invulnerability against nuclear weapon use of other nuclear powers.
But even that last and most useless point was openly compromised by both Russia and USA in they military doctrines, where they reserve to employ nuclear weapon even first and even against non-nuclear countries "if they threat national interests".

3. Even by most strictest interpretations, Iran still have all rights to build nuclear reactor and enrich uran or plutonium for it.

4. Other nuclear powers have a-bomb. Iran also have all rights to do it. Note, this will be possible bad for national interests of Russia and USA. Hell, probably for the rest of the world also. But all what really matters in current world - only own national interests. Other countries, however democratic or tyrannic , clearly and constant show it.

This is the same concept as with individual human rights for person.

chris

June 17th, 2008, 07:16 PM

Well, this is the core of the problem in my humble opinion. A simple "what if"

Also, nuclear weapons cause damage far out of proportion with conventional weapons of similar size. In 1991 Iraq launched over 80 SCUDs and about 38 of those at Israel. Of those 38 many landed near enough to populated areas that if they carried nuclear warheads Israeli would have been destroyed as we know it today. SCUDs landed near enough to US military facilities in the Persian Gulf that with nuclear payloads Operation Desert Storm would have been seriously disrupted. This disruption would have given time for the Iraqis to exploit. Granted the US and France probably would have obliterated Iraq in retaliation, the resulting economic and ecological damage would have had the kinds of global consequences I mentioned before. MAD only works when both sides buy into it. If not you still get the destruction no matter what you do in return.

What if Saddam had nuclear weapons back then? Is there a possibility that we would have an Operation Desert Storm? We would probably ended up in UN talking sanctions. Well, this is what everybody out of the norm seeks. We put "rogue" states in the corner and ask them to bow or perish. We ask a political elite either to bow and die in civil flames (leading maybe to something worse) or try the only way out. If Iran seeks nukes, is to protect itself (the ruling elite) from west aggression.

There are better ways. Target the elite. There are lots of peaceful ways to do so. If they are out of touch with their people then you will win. Unless you believe that every Iranian is a suicidal fanatic.

Grand Danois

June 17th, 2008, 07:29 PM

....(leading maybe to something worse) or try the only way out. If Iran seeks nukes, is to protect itself (the ruling elite) from west aggression...

No. Iran - or rather elements of the Iranian ruling class - seek nukes in order to gain regional prestige and regional hegemonic reasons. Deterring the evil, aggresive West is way down the list: they deter little and invite aggression. ;)

chris

June 17th, 2008, 07:34 PM

No. Iran - or rather elements of the Iranian ruling class - seek nukes in order to gain regional prestige and regional hegemonic reasons. Deterring the evil, aggresive West is way down the list: they deter little and invite aggression. ;)

I fail to see anything more than an opinion. I respect it but it is just your opinion. As is mine... I'm maybe wrong but so are you.

Grand Danois

June 17th, 2008, 07:36 PM

I fail to see anything more than an opinion. I respect it but it is just your opinion. As is mine... I'm maybe wrong but so are you.

You think this is opinion?

Iran is playing the long game, as they always do. ;)

chris

June 17th, 2008, 07:44 PM

You think this is opinion?

Iran is playing the long game, as they always do. ;)

Isn't about time that the west must learn to play the long game as well? The short game seems to lead to one disaster after another ;)

Chrom

June 17th, 2008, 07:45 PM

Well, this is the core of the problem in my humble opinion. A simple "what if"

What if Saddam had nuclear weapons back then? Is there a possibility that we would have an Operation Desert Storm? We would probably ended up in UN talking sanctions. Well, this is what everybody out of the norm seeks. We put "rogue" states in the corner and ask them to bow or perish. We ask a political elite either to bow and die in civil flames (leading maybe to something worse) or try the only way out. If Iran seeks nukes, is to protect itself (the ruling elite) from west aggression.

There are better ways. Target the elite. There are lots of peaceful ways to do so. If they are out of touch with their people then you will win. Unless you believe that every Iranian is a suicidal fanatic.

"Target the elite" you says? Is it not that a terrorists way? Is this any different from some Al-Kaeda guys blowing up USA elite in 9/11, or sending off disease briefs to White Haus?

chris

June 17th, 2008, 07:51 PM

"Target the elite" you says? Is it not that a terrorists way? Is this any different from some Al-Kaeda guys blowing up USA elite in 9/11, or sending off disease briefs to White Haus?

There are lots of peaceful ways to do so.

Ohh, I'm going to bed. Goodnight people :)

Chrom

June 17th, 2008, 07:53 PM

Isn't about time that the west must learn to play the long game as well? The short game seems to lead to one disaster after another ;)

Exactly. World progress, and so the means to destruct it. 50 years ago only 2 countries could realistically damage the world. 30 years ago 2 countries could destroy it, and another 5 - damage. Now there are probably 3-4 more of them, and another 10-15 can get such capability withing several years at most if they wish.

In another 50 years just about every half-decent country will have similar nuclear (or comparable to nuclear) capability with current GB or China. I think, we should learn to live in multi polar world, build under rule of international law - the SAME law for everyone, NOT the rule of strongest.

We should slowly let the steam out, and not further restrict the rights of weaker countries. This will only lead to explosion - sooner or later.

Grand Danois

June 17th, 2008, 07:55 PM

Isn't about time that the west must learn to play the long game as well? The short game seems to lead to one disaster after another ;)

That's right. I just don't agree that any move done by Iran is "because the West gave Iran no other choice." They have their own agendas and must acknowledge responsibility for own actions.

DarthAmerica

June 17th, 2008, 08:08 PM

That's right. I just don't agree that any move done by Iran is "because the West gave Iran no other choice." They have their own agendas and must acknowledge responsibility for own actions.

They are gambling that they can go nuclear regardless of our actions, bombing or sanctions and then be in a position where regime survivability is assured through nuclear blackmail. Following that they will seek to dominate the Gulf. They don't expect any attempts to actually invade and occupy. They probably don't expect preemptive nuclear strike and they are confident their program would survive any limited bombing campaign. There is extreme danger here and I see some of it personally. I really hope Dr. Rice can solve this rather than SecDef Gates.

-DA

kato

June 17th, 2008, 09:02 PM

"Target the elite" you says? Is it not that a terrorists way? Is this any different from some Al-Kaeda guys blowing up USA elite in 9/11, or sending off disease briefs to White Haus?

"Terrorism" is always a relative term. The White House (and, for 9/11, the Pentagon) are - without much room to argue - legitimate military targets. Saddam's palaces were legitimate targets. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate targets.

Feanor

June 18th, 2008, 04:46 AM

Because the Iranians are not a part of the core nations who have all agreed to generally follow common sets of rules. The Iranians also have a very negative history with the Russians. That's on top of the fact that the Iranian government is not stable.

It's the same as giving a gun to a person pre-desposed to violent crime and drug use compared to a normal law abiding citizen. Denying this would be naive.

What you mean like Pakistan or North Korea? Oh wait........ :rolleyes: Come on. We have a very clear precedent here. The DPRK's nuclear program. They're part of the club. But we have yet to see Seoul go up in a lake of fire. It's not likely that Iran will go on a nuclear offensive, and the idea of Iranian instability is in my opinion unfounded. If we trust Pakistan with nukes, and they have an active insurgency in the country, we can trust Iran with a handful of ancient a-bombs.

The problem with not wanting potential enemies on your borders is that to move them further away means extending your borders. Then you find a new potential enemy on the new border . . . Where to stop?

BTW, St. Petersburg was built where it is because it was near other countries. It was meant as a channel to the West, to open up Russia. You can't complain because that particular city is near the people it was built to be near to.

It wasn't when we owned Finland and Poland. And the rest of Eastern Europe. Which is what this is really all about. The problem with NATO bases is that those areas are practically irrecoverable to Russian influence. Hence why the tooth and claw fight over every country and every base.

Well, this is the core of the problem in my humble opinion. A simple "what if"

What if Saddam had nuclear weapons back then? Is there a possibility that we would have an Operation Desert Storm? We would probably ended up in UN talking sanctions. Well, this is what everybody out of the norm seeks. We put "rogue" states in the corner and ask them to bow or perish. We ask a political elite either to bow and die in civil flames (leading maybe to something worse) or try the only way out. If Iran seeks nukes, is to protect itself (the ruling elite) from west aggression.

There are better ways. Target the elite. There are lots of peaceful ways to do so. If they are out of touch with their people then you will win. Unless you believe that every Iranian is a suicidal fanatic.

Absolutely correct. The reason that "rogue" (translation: anti-American) states want nukes is to make sure that ODS doesn't happen to them. A perfectly legitimate concern in my mind.

swerve

June 18th, 2008, 06:02 AM

...
It wasn't when we owned Finland and Poland. And the rest of Eastern Europe. Which is what this is really all about. The problem with NATO bases is that those areas are practically irrecoverable to Russian influence. Hence why the tooth and claw fight over every country and every base.
....

When St. Petersburg was built, Finland, Estonia & Latvia were still Swedish. Finland remained so for the next 100 years, & it was several years before Estonia & Latvia would be seized from Sweden. Poland was independent, owned Lithuania & parts of Latvia, & would remain so for almost a century. It was, quite deliberately, built near the western borders.

Those areas are irrecoverable to Russian influence because of current & past Russian behaviour. Treat them differently & they might, in time, begin to feel differently about Russia. But it'll take a long time, & at the moment, Russian behaviour is convincing them that turning to the West was the right decision. Remember the cyber-offensive against Estonia? A good way to convince them to snuggle further under NATOs wing.

Oh dear. I've succumbed to the politics urge. I won't pursue this further.

not_so_sis

June 18th, 2008, 06:14 AM

The current worldwide nuclear deadlock really means developing nuclear powers may perhaps be very inconvennient in many forms but, not particulary that threatening.
Nuclear deterrance is applied under the basis that no one could acheive first strike capabilites upon the countries in question, however this is not restricted to the actual countries via the means of submarines driving around without their lights on in the murky depths of the world oceans.
It will take a country like Iran many years to catch up with USA and Co and Russia, of which I see the strongest concerns between.
The current build up of tension between Russia and USA & Co has forged a new cold war. However with the current picture still being reliant upon the fact no country could acheive a nuclear strike that could take out all opositions nuclear facilities, nuclear war is out of the question, however tanking arund the middle east is more realistic (and making new friends) , beyond the disaster talk, there are real problems in the middle east which the west is doing some good, all be it at a cost of allied forces life's.
so what I am saying with all this really is, it comes down to the strategic applications and lets face it, it is by no coincidence that america is the super power it is, it is only through history that they have built it upon proving themselves in the battlefields and political expertise and yeah albeit it with help, oh and the same goes to russia!!

stigmata

June 18th, 2008, 07:08 AM

Chrom
I share your view of international law and equal rights for each country, or at least i did at the beginning of this thread.
But there is a catch: A Theocratic mullacracy with God as employer may well interpret His will as to stop the flow of oil, the very engine of civilization. They are well aware He will revard them soon after.
That would be a world wide disaster, and how fair is that ?
I for one start to wonder how many would die in starvation and riots, and try to compare with how many will die by repeated US air strikes against Iran.
I think Bush believe he is on a holy mission too, but at least in his case, there is voters, congress, and if need be, psychic hospital, to prevent nukes.
I just dont trust fanatics.

Ozzy Blizzard

June 18th, 2008, 07:32 AM

What you mean like Pakistan or North Korea? Oh wait........ :rolleyes: Come on. We have a very clear precedent here. The DPRK's nuclear program. They're part of the club. But we have yet to see Seoul go up in a lake of fire. It's not likely that Iran will go on a nuclear offensive, and the idea of Iranian instability is in my opinion unfounded. If we trust Pakistan with nukes, and they have an active insurgency in the country, we can trust Iran with a handful of ancient a-bombs.

Nk & Pak are bad examples. I'm pretty sure the Koreans are a fair way away from a deliverable warhead. The only test they have conducted produced a significant sub-yield (sub kiloton) detonation. Therefore even if they wanted to, i doubt they could burn Seoul in a lake of nuclear fire, they could however raise the city with conventional arms.

Pakistan is held in check by India and AFAIK its delivery systems are not capable of reaching other major powers (apart from PROC, their ally).

Neither of them have any real opportunity (or motive in Pakistan's case) to use said nuclear arms to aggressively dominate their respective geographical area. Iran does.

Absolutely correct. The reason that "rogue" (translation: anti-American) states want nukes is to make sure that ODS doesn't happen to them. A perfectly legitimate concern in my mind.

For the most part i disagree with this statement. In order to be an effective deterrent vs the US/West you don't just need to build a few nukes. You need redundant delivery systems capable of reaching the west. Achieving that goal is arguably comparable to building a nuke in the first place. Even powers the like of India have not achieved that (not that they feel the need), so i seriously doubt Iran will in any reasonable time frame.

Therefore the motive is most likely regional hegemony in Iran's case. Look at what nuclear arms did for Israel's security...

Chrom

June 18th, 2008, 07:32 AM

Chrom

I think Bush believe he is on a holy mission too, but at least in his case, there is voters, congress, and if need be, psychic hospital, to prevent nukes.
I just dont trust fanatics.

In Bush case, voters cant stop him from gong crazy and nuke everything around.

Iranian mullahs in that sense are about as good as USA congress - i just dont understand why everyone paint them as religious fanatics. Yes, they are generally religious. But so is 90% of USA congress - or at least they pretend so. And even if not - i'm hard pressed to believe what mullahs hate USA/West more than USA elite hate everything with word "communist" near it.

Mullah were chosen by somewhat different procedure - but so what? It is internal Iranian matter. Dont paint mullahs as something unite - there are internal discussions just like in USA congress, and any mullah going crazy will end up exactly there - in psychic hospital. So far mullah showed about as sane behavior as every other country rulers - why should they suddenly became crazy? I dont see any sense here.

Besides, you overestimate the importance of mullahs. Yes, they are powerful and even somewhat prevalent politically. But formally, they have even less power than Iranian president and parlament. Mullah power mainly inherited exactly from they, not voters, they supporters and believers.
This political construction have much quicker response than common West democratic procedure - as soon as peoples stop supporting mullah they instantly lose power, as formally they dont have that much power anyway.

stigmata

June 18th, 2008, 08:14 AM

Interesting, i immedietly come to think of McNamaras advice -empathize with your enemy. Find out what goes on in the mind. Look at it from his perspective.

Aliph Ahmed

June 19th, 2008, 12:03 AM

Redeployments of US carriers from the Persian Gulf to the open sea will be the main tell tale signs of an impending strike. USA will need two carriers to maintain and support 24 hours of operations which are already there.

What about the 82 tons of enriched Uranium that Russia just completed delivering ? Can that be enriched further if some part of it survives the airstrikes ? Will Iran walk out of NPT and keep it ? Will Iran take her program underground ? Afterall, they do have the knowlege as oppose to the case of Iraq.

There are just too many targets. So much can go wrong.

.....and please dont compare Iran with Pakistan. Both countries' leaderships have very different ideas. Pakistan's program is defensive in nature and guarantees as a deterrant without any hegemonic designs.

DarthAmerica

June 19th, 2008, 02:01 AM

Redeployments of US carriers from the Persian Gulf to the open sea will be the main tell tale signs of an impending strike. USA will need two carriers to maintain and support 24 hours of operations which are already there.

Look at a map. That's clearly not true. We didn't do OIF just because.

What about the 82 tons of enriched Uranium that Russia just completed delivering ? Can that be enriched further if some part of it survives the airstrikes ? Will Iran walk out of NPT and keep it ? Will Iran take her program underground ? Afterall, they do have the knowlege as oppose to the case of Iraq.

Iran still has to get to the device stage. After that, the weaponization stage. These are tremendous challenges. Given the time, perhaps a decade or longer, they will do it. Sooner with help/espionage.

There are just too many targets. So much can go wrong.

Things always go wrong. Thats just Murphy's contribution. But the amount of targets is simply a matter of ISR and proper planning.

.....and please dont compare Iran with Pakistan. Both countries' leaderships have very different ideas. Pakistan's program is defensive in nature and guarantees as a deterrant without any hegemonic designs.

Yes quite different. However, the USA should take any opportunity to peacefully declaw the Pakistanis IMHO. Those weapons are hindering the GWOT right now. Does anybody think the Coalition would be tip toeing after Taliban on the Pak side of the border if it didn't have nukes? Not a chance. Pakistan is a very delicate issue with regard to nukes. I could just imagine the contingency plans! As bad as Pak nukes are this pales in comparison to the consequences of even a single Iranian "device".

-DA

Chrom

June 19th, 2008, 10:39 AM

Redeployments of US carriers from the Persian Gulf to the open sea will be the main tell tale signs of an impending strike. USA will need two carriers to maintain and support 24 hours of operations which are already there.

What about the 82 tons of enriched Uranium that Russia just completed delivering ? Can that be enriched further if some part of it survives the airstrikes ? Will Iran walk out of NPT and keep it ? Will Iran take her program underground ? Afterall, they do have the knowlege as oppose to the case of Iraq.
Yes, it can. But Iran have very own uranium natural resources, so this is more or less irrelevant. And no, Iran cant do anything with delivered uranium. It is strictly controlled. However they can, theoretically, build secret enrichment facility and enrich own uranium from own natural resources.

There are just too many targets. So much can go wrong.

.....and please dont compare Iran with Pakistan. Both countries' leaderships have very different ideas. Pakistan's program is defensive in nature and guarantees as a deterrant without any hegemonic designs.

And? And Iran program us surely offensive? I dont see any difference there. Both countries have border disputes with neighborhoods. Both are threatened by large powers. Both are not "western standard" democracy. So, in essence, they are same beast.

radiosilence

June 19th, 2008, 12:12 PM

Yes quite different. However, the USA should take any opportunity to peacefully declaw the Pakistanis IMHO.
Not likely to happen unless neighboring states agree to denuclearized.

DarthAmerica

June 19th, 2008, 04:32 PM

Not likely to happen unless neighboring states agree to denuclearized.

Agreed. The international community should have never allowed that situation in the first place. But it's a lot more manageable than a ME nation near crucial SLOC and oil fields.

-DA

DarthAmerica

June 19th, 2008, 04:39 PM

swerve

June 19th, 2008, 05:35 PM

Agreed. The international community should have never allowed that situation in the first place. But it's a lot more manageable than a ME nation near crucial SLOC and oil fields.

-DA

Pakistan is near crucial SLOC & oil fields.

Aliph Ahmed

June 19th, 2008, 05:52 PM

And? And Iran program us surely offensive? I dont see any difference there. Both countries have border disputes with neighborhoods. Both are threatened by large powers. Both are not "western standard" democracy. So, in essence, they are same beast.

Iran going nuclear will have resonating effects on whole of Middle East and military balance of power will greatly change.

Other Middle Eastern countries will feel threatened and likely arm themselves further which will be not a good scenario for Israel.

Pakistan going nuclear didnt change much. India remained checked by Pakistan.

So yes, you can not compare the two countries.

and yes, there are two US carriers there at Persian Gulf now.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/04/30/america/LA-GEN-Mexico-Gates-Iran.php

DarthAmerica

June 19th, 2008, 05:54 PM

Pakistan is near crucial SLOC & oil fields.

No, not in this context, it isn't. Show me a Strait of Hormuz equivalent? Are you going to say the Arabian Sea? Also show me where Pakistan is in competition with an OPEC equivalent over dominance of the middle east? Pakistan is geographically limited in it's options there. Although I do see that Pakistan could threaten shipping there, it's in a much more limited capacity compared to Iran.

Also, the USA has a much closer relationship with Pakistan in addition to having troops actually on Pakistani soil. So yes, ultimately you are right. Pakistan is near crucial SLOC and oil. If I suggested otherwise, I should not have. But Pakistan is not in a position to threaten those SLOC or oil fields the way Iran could under present conditions.

-DA

DarthAmerica

June 19th, 2008, 06:10 PM

Iran going nuclear will have resonating effects on whole of Middle East and military balance of power will greatly change.

Other Middle Eastern countries will feel threatened and likely arm themselves further which will be not a good scenario for Israel.

Pakistan going nuclear didnt change much. India remained checked by Pakistan.

So yes, you can not compare the two countries.

and yes, there are two US carriers there at Persian Gulf now.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/04/30/america/LA-GEN-Mexico-Gates-Iran.php

No, there are not. Check the date of your article. Right now, there is one CSG(CVN-72) in the gulf itself and two ESG, LHA 4 and LHA 5, in the Arabian Sea.

-DA

Aliph Ahmed

June 19th, 2008, 06:17 PM

No, there are not. Check the date of your article. Right now, there is one CSG(CVN-72) in the gulf itself and two ESG, LHA 4 and LHA 5, in the Arabian Sea.

-DA

The newest of US carriers, the RONALD REAGAN, left San Diego on May 19th for the Persian Gulf.

That gives two US carriers with an overlap of three months.

http://watchthecarriers.blogspot.com/2008/05/conundrum-war-by-fall.html

But then you maybe right since your location says Cenctom.

kato

June 19th, 2008, 06:19 PM

Plus the French Mistral ESG.

DarthAmerica

June 19th, 2008, 06:57 PM

The newest of US carriers, the RONALD REAGAN, left San Diego on May 19th for the Persian Gulf.

That gives two US carriers with an overlap of three months.

http://watchthecarriers.blogspot.com/2008/05/conundrum-war-by-fall.html

But then you maybe right since your location says Cenctom.

CVN-76 is in the Philippine Sea. Be careful of blogs. They aren't that accurate a lot of times, full of political bias/rhetoric and in several instances factually inaccurate in this case. So biased is the writer that he missed errors Google could have cleared up.

-DA

swerve

June 19th, 2008, 07:06 PM

No, not in this context, it isn't. Show me a Strait of Hormuz equivalent? Are you going to say the Arabian Sea? Also show me where Pakistan is in competition with an OPEC equivalent over dominance of the middle east? Pakistan is geographically limited in it's options there. Although I do see that Pakistan could threaten shipping there, it's in a much more limited capacity compared to Iran.

Also, the USA has a much closer relationship with Pakistan in addition to having troops actually on Pakistani soil. So yes, ultimately you are right. Pakistan is near crucial SLOC and oil. If I suggested otherwise, I should not have. But Pakistan is not in a position to threaten those SLOC or oil fields the way Iran could under present conditions.

-DA

Who said anything about being "in competition with an OPEC equivalent over dominance of the middle east"?

Yes, Pakistan is geographically limited. It is not in a position to directly threaten the oil fields of the Persian Gulf, except with nuclear or other area effect (e.g. chemical) warheads on ballistic missiles. But it is in a position to threaten traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, although not during its passage of the strait itself. Pakistan can cover the entire width of the mouth of the Gulf of Oman (i.e. what the Strait of Hormuz opens into) with fighter-bombers, & the relatively deep waters of the Gulf of Oman are less perilous for submarines than the clear, shallow waters of the Persian Gulf.

The close US relationship is not immutable. Imagine Pakistan taken over by the local equivalent (& friends) of the Taliban. It's not an impossible prospect.

DarthAmerica

June 19th, 2008, 07:39 PM

Who said anything about being "in competition with an OPEC equivalent over dominance of the middle east"?

Well we were discussing GLORIOUS SPARTAN and implications so that kind of minimizes Pakistan's relevance IMV.

Yes, Pakistan is geographically limited. It is not in a position to directly threaten the oil fields of the Persian Gulf, except with nuclear or other area effect (e.g. chemical) warheads on ballistic missiles. But it is in a position to threaten traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, although not during its passage of the strait itself. Pakistan can cover the entire width of the mouth of the Gulf of Oman (i.e. what the Strait of Hormuz opens into) with fighter-bombers, & the relatively deep waters of the Gulf of Oman are less perilous for submarines than the clear, shallow waters of the Persian Gulf.

Yes but so could a lot of nations. But we are talking about the nation most likely to do so and that isn't Pakistan.

The close US relationship is not immutable. Imagine Pakistan taken over by the local equivalent (& friends) of the Taliban. It's not an impossible prospect.

The most likely military consequence of that would be a Pak civil war rather that coordinated anti-shipping against civilian trade. Although a civil war there poses its own set of issues too! Not the least of which is security of a functional nuclear arsenal...:shudder

-DA

Feanor

June 20th, 2008, 04:56 AM

Nk & Pak are bad examples. I'm pretty sure the Koreans are a fair way away from a deliverable warhead. The only test they have conducted produced a significant sub-yield (sub kiloton) detonation. Therefore even if they wanted to, i doubt they could burn Seoul in a lake of nuclear fire, they could however raise the city with conventional arms.

Pakistan is held in check by India and AFAIK its delivery systems are not capable of reaching other major powers (apart from PROC, their ally).

Neither of them have any real opportunity (or motive in Pakistan's case) to use said nuclear arms to aggressively dominate their respective geographical area. Iran does.

Iran has American-occupied Iraq on one side, Pakistan on another and CIS member states up north, with Russia patronage. Who is it going to dominate?

For the most part i disagree with this statement. In order to be an effective deterrent vs the US/West you don't just need to build a few nukes. You need redundant delivery systems capable of reaching the west. Achieving that goal is arguably comparable to building a nuke in the first place. Even powers the like of India have not achieved that (not that they feel the need), so i seriously doubt Iran will in any reasonable time frame.

Therefore the motive is most likely regional hegemony in Iran's case. Look at what nuclear arms did for Israel's security...

No, you just need a few dozens warheads used as nuclear landmines against advancing U.S. forces. :) How would you feel about going to war, if the casualties were likely to be 1-2 brigades incinerated by multiple nuclear landmines, detonated by suicide bombers, or even regular soldiers sitting in deep bunkers with underground land-line cables to send the detonation signals.

The most likely military consequence of that would be a Pak civil war rather that coordinated anti-shipping against civilian trade. Although a civil war there poses its own set of issues too! Not the least of which is security of a functional nuclear arsenal...:shudder

-DA

My point exactly. There are more dangerous hands then Iranian, in terms of nuclear weapons.

swerve

June 20th, 2008, 05:05 AM

..
Yes but so could a lot of nations. But we are talking about the nation most likely to do so and that isn't Pakistan. .

-DA

No, not a lot. Apart from the Arab Gulf states (i.e. those whose oil routes we're discussing), only Iran & Pakistan are in that position. Nobody else can interdict all possible carrier routes out of the Persian Gulf using fast jets based on their own territory.

This all started because you made a specific, erroneous statement, about Pakistan & SLOCs. Whether or not other countries are more likely to do anything doesn't make that statement correct.

I have a strong suspicion that for you, this is about process, not substance. I'll stick to the substance. You were wrong, I've corrected you. Point over.

DarthAmerica

June 20th, 2008, 06:50 AM

No, not a lot. Apart from the Arab Gulf states (i.e. those whose oil routes we're discussing), only Iran & Pakistan are in that position. Nobody else can interdict all possible carrier routes out of the Persian Gulf using fast jets based on their own territory.

This all started because you made a specific, erroneous statement, about Pakistan & SLOCs. Whether or not other countries are more likely to do anything doesn't make that statement correct.

I have a strong suspicion that for you, this is about process, not substance. I'll stick to the substance. You were wrong, I've corrected you. Point over.

You've corrected nothing. We have simply given context to the discussion. However if you insist on pursueing this I'll easily rebut. Pakistan having fast jets doesn't make them capable of a serious attempt at interdicting the SLOC. You suggesting that is simply incredible and even suicidal for at least half a dozen reasons not the least of which being survival is dependent on those SLOC remaining open. The Pakistani military is in alliance with the U.S. Military and is involved in a joint combat operation against a common foe. Moreover, the political situation in Pakistan does not make any such maneuver even remotely possible. By that standard we should worry that Russian Tupolevs are a threat as well since they could fly that far! Add to that any nation with an carrier. Should we worry about British and French carriers in the region too? What about the Indians? They have land based air that could easily reach there. Hopefully you see the inconsistency in your response.

I deal in real world crisis not hypotheticals. When I make a statement saying Iran is uniquely a threat then you should know it's because I've thoroughly studied the situation. Before you assume you are reading an erroneous statement you should inquire about it first to be sure you understand the context.

-DA