GLORIOUS SPARTAN: Prelude of upcoming events in the Gulf ?

[Chrom]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[swerve]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Plus the French Mistral ESG.

 

[DarthAmerica]

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]

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]

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]

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]

..
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]

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