DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: BSB on February 29, 2012, 01:22:59 PM
-
Briefing: Attacking Iran
Up in the air
The probability of an attack on Iran’s nuclear programme has been increasing. But the chances of it ending the country’s nuclear ambitions are low
Feb 25th 2012 | from the print edition
THE crisis has been a long time coming. Iran started exploring paths to nuclear weaponry before the fall of the shah in 1979. Ten years ago the outside world learned of the plants it was building to provide “heavy” water (used in reactors that produce plutonium) and enriched uranium, which is necessary for some types of nuclear reactor, but also for nuclear weapons. The enrichment facilities have grown in capability, capacity and number; there has been work on detonators, triggers and missile technology, too.
http://www.economist.com/node/21548228 (http://www.economist.com/node/21548228)
-
Attacking Iran would not end Iran's nuclear program. It would solidify Iranian opposition to US efforts to bring about a regime change. And the US invading Iran, with three times the population of Iraq, with the goal of deposing the regime and replacing it would be far too expensive and utterly insane.
'
-
This piece in The Economist is mostly concerned with a possible Israeli air strike not an American air strike, and certainly not a US ground attack. Panetta is not stupid, nor is Obama. Panetta rightly suggests that an air strike by Israel would only hold Iran back by "maybe one, possibly two years".
I would say that one of Israel's problems since its inception has been that it's shortsighted. Or, more strongly put, they're easily spooked. How many nuclear warheads has the United States had pointed at it over the years? Thousands probably. Israel needs to stop thinking they're special. They're not.
BSB
-
No question we could defeat Iran very cheaply,very quickly.
Then what?
An occupation couldn't be cheap, couldn't be short.
If we were desprate we could supress Iran and make them very miserable without spending much or really getting close.
Not necessacerily a good idea, we would be decimateing one threat and producing the cradle of its replacement threat.
I really think what we should do is invest a lot in spys and turncoats, then not waste the next oppurtunity to support revolt the way we wasted the last one.
-
That is bogus.
We did not defeat Iraq cheaply.
We did not defeat Afghanistan cheaply.
I do not think that on a per capita basis we defeated Grenada cheaply.
The US could defeat the Iranian Air Force, sink the Iranian Navy and prevent the Army from attacking. Following that, anarchy would prevail, the oil exports would end, and the price of gasoline would soar. At this point, a majority of the American people would like to see the heads of the imbeciles who started the war on a stick.
The US could not manage an occupation in Iran any better than they managed the occupation of Iraq or Afghanistan.
The Israelis like to think of themselves as victims. I say that there is no more reason to support their occupations and aggression than to support Georgia or Armenia or South Ossetia. Let them defend their own damn selves. We have paid enough.
-
We haven't defeated anyone in Afghanistan period, let alone cheaply. We killed a load of Al Qaeda, and senior Taliban, yes, but we're trying to broker a deal with the general Taliban movement at this very moment.
BSB
-
That is bogus.
No Plane is spot on.
We did not defeat Iraq cheaply.
We did not defeat Afghanistan cheaply.
We won the war in Kosevo relatively cheaply,
and even though obviously no two combat theaters are exactly the same
the same basic Kosevo strategy could be used in Iran to reach several of our goals.
-
The tecniques that lay waste are cheaper and faster than discriminating methods.
Mass production of dumb bombs, mass delivery and massive colateral damage would lay Iran low quickly.
Would have worked in Iran too, their climate and infrastructure would make firebombing very effective and the results incredably cruel and hard to recover from.
Iran is much more vunerable than Iraq.
But,
If we break it have we bought it?
Defeating the government of Iraq was not difficult nor expensive, Iran is not better prepared in any respect.
But,
Managing the result has been incredably expensive, while knocking Saddam over caused us hundreds of casualtys, occupying ,repairing has cost us thousands.
I think that a concentrated campaign could ruin Iran's ability to resist in a few hours, not a full day.
But then could we afford to carry our own victims?
No I don't think so, we would be stuck with just observing their rot.
This won't happen untill we are truly desprate, perhaps never, none of us should want it.
But none of our friends or critics should think it can't happen, our enemys shouldn't think that their success depends on our fear.
Rather, the continued habitability and civilisation of their enemy citys and territorys depends on our desire for a good result , if we learn to fear enough that we no longer care we can amd might create Hell on Earth.
This is our worst alternative, not loosing , but winning so ugly.
Isreal is another question, I don't think they can mount as heavy a barrage as we could , but they might be more likly to strike hard and never repair anything, in Isreal the fear is closer and the possibility of being on the loosing end of hell on earth is less unlikly.
-
Kosovo was won by bombing Serbia incessantly. Neither Serbia nor Kosovo were needed as a source of essential products. Bombing Iran would involve eliminating Iranian oil from the market. Even though we may not use their oil, taking it out of production would cause a major inflation in the price of oil. We may produce a lot of oil in the US, but that oil does not belong to the US: it belongs to a few big oil companies, who will always demand the world price.
Israel needs to be told that we will not supply them with weapons, support, spare parts or money for an attack on Iran.
-
I don't think Iran could stand as much bombing as Serbia did.
And we didn't try to repair the damage as soon as we had inflicted it .
Stomping an enemy is not as expensive as nationbuilding, esxpecially if the nationbuilding is resisted.
I can't see why knocking Iran over would be difficult , or expensive , or take very long.
Especially if we quit after ruining the economy and the fighting force.
The oil from a ruined Iran would not be more expensive than the oil from a crazy Iran, unless we actually blast away the Earth down to the natural level of the oil , it will remain availble, about the same as if we did nothing.
-
Oil would not be flowing at all from Iran for months. This would cause a major world crisis. And it would not prevent Iran from eventually getting nukes. They would be more dedicated to this than ever.
It would be insanity. Total insanity.
And for what? Iran has done little to the US to justify this.
Israel is not worth it.
-
Canada by itself could replace Irans oil output.
Canada plus Russia plus Saudi Arabia could increase production to restore supply quickly.
Prices would rise , but I think that higher gas prices are an objective of Obama administration policys anyway.
A single bomb delivered to Irans single refinery could ground their airfleet and park their supply trucks.
Consider that Iran fought Iraq to a standstill for more than eight years, casualtys were heavy expenditures were extreme.
All for a draw.
Give Saddam a coupple years to recover and we knock him over in a few weeks of fight.
Given all this, Iran really needs diplomacy more than we do.
I wonder why they still like the fighting idea?
-
I wonder why they still like the fighting idea?
=====================================
They don't. They like to rattle sabers and sound dangerous.
Iran has not threatened to attack the US or even Israel. The Iranian government uses the Palisrael conflict to get the lumpenproletarians, yokels and Islamic bubbas on the side of the government, which has two opposing factions: Amedinejahd and the Ayatollah, both of whom are amazingly incompetent at managing the economy and both of whom are corrupt.
The big talk about military attack is coming from Israel and its flunkies in our government.
We do NOT need a war with Iran. Neither does Israel.
-
I wonder why they still like the fighting idea?
=====================================
They don't. They like to rattle sabers and sound dangerous.
Iran has not threatened to attack the US or even Israel. The Iranian government uses the Palisrael conflict to get the lumpenproletarians, yokels and Islamic bubbas on the side of the government, which has two opposing factions: Amedinejahd and the Ayatollah, both of whom are amazingly incompetent at managing the economy and both of whom are corrupt.
The big talk about military attack is coming from Israel and its flunkies in our government.
We do NOT need a war with Iran. Neither does Israel.
Arn't they sending tonns of real rockets to the borders of Isreal?
Didn't they send munitions into Iraq for blasting Americans?
I think there might be better alternatives than an attack on Iran, but leaving them in peace is not a better alternative unless they are truly willing to leave us in peace .
-
The rockets used by Hamas are built in Gaza by Hamas. Israel killed dozens more Lebanese in Lebanon when they invaded in 1982 and stayed around until 2000.
Israelis killed 1200 Lebanese. Hezbollah, under 30 Israelis.
The US did not have any right to invade Iraq, so complaining that the Iranians had no right to annoy a few Americans is hardly a big deal.
The US shot down an Iranian civilian airliner filled with Iranians flying to Dubai in 1988 (flight 655) killing 290 people.
If anything, Iran has been less warlike towards the US than vice versa.
-
You are a bit behind the times on each of these facts.
Lebanon is thick with rockets, not homeade rockets, artillery grade rockets.
Lots of our casualtys in Iraq were struck with wepons sent from Iran for the purpose.
Do you feel annoyed when you get a grevious wound?
Iran seems determined that untill it can win , war will not cease.
-
Yeah right, lots of American troops in Iraq were killed by rockets from Lebanon.
I know this: no rocket in Lebanon is any threat to ME.
-
MAD, Mutual Assured Destruction, is still alive and well in the world when it comes to nation states. It may not hold when we're talking about non state sponsored terrorism, but when it comes to nation states like Iran and Israel it does.
If Iran got the bomb what would stop them from using it on Israel? Even if they wiped the state Israel off the map Israel could return the favor with nuclear strikes from their submarines. Is the Iranian leadership so fanatical that they'd do it anyway? I highly doubt it. They've shown no evidence of that kind of fanatical behavior.
BSB
-
The Iranians are not insane. The Ayatollah & Co. are simply trying to stay in power. Since they have elections, they much appeal in some way to the citizens. They do this by touting the very real injustice of the Zionists to the Palestinians. Iranians feel that Israel cannot be attacked because Israel has the bomb. Iranians are fearful of war: they had a disastrous experience in the 1980's in the war with Iraq (started by Iraq) and more recently, they have US troops on both their Eastern and Western borders. Probably a majority of Iranians feel that they are less likely to be attacked if they have nukes. There is also a realization of the scarcity of oil because there is a shortage of gasoline in Iran. Iran has oil, but it lacks refinery capacity.
The reason why Israel is disliked by Iranians is because the US used Israelis as proxies to manage the Shah's military. Iranian pilots normally were not permitted to take off in the fanciest fighter aircraft: an Israeli would normally have to accompany any Iranian pilot. The Iranians fee sorry for the Palestinians. Of course, nuking Israel would kill lots of Palestinians as well as lots of Jews. Therefore a nuclear attack would be unlikely by Iran.
Israelis are paranoid about Iran, which outnumbers them 10 to 1. Netanyahu exploits and encourages this paranoia.
Bombing Iran to prevent nukes would most likely make the Iranians more determined to get nukes. The only way to prevent Iran from not getting nukes is a mutual agreement. Such an agreement should include some concessions from Israel.
-
Is Iran having elections that the incumbents can't fix?
-
I doubt that an election in which the ruling group got 10% of the vote would fool anyone.
Iran is a first world country in Teheran and several other large cities, but distinctly Third World in the small towns, villages and countryside. There is the belief that the victory of the incumbent is the Will of Allah, which is diminished when the villagers discuss the election and find that nearly everyone voted for the opposition. Then they get on their cellphones and find that no one in any of the neighboring villages voted for the government, either. That is what happened to the Shah, that and the rumors, which turned out to be true, that he was dying of cancer.
Note that Ayatollah Kalmeinei and Amedinejahd have serious disagreements, even though Amedinejahd was vetted by the Ayatollah's panel and supported by them. Iran is NOT a dictatorship by a single person: the governmental structure is quite complex, and probably not understood by anyone in this country but the experts.
There must be at least the appearance to a large number of the people that the election COULD have been won by the incumbents, or it is useless, like the election Batista held in 1958, or the one that Assad recently held in Syria.
War is not going to stop Iran from trying to build a bomb. Iran is too large to be forced to do anything. The way to prevent Iran from having the bomb is to negotiate with them. They must feel that they are getting something important in return for their concessions beyond the lifting of the sanctions, like an end to Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem. Of course, the one thing that would really be effective would be the removal of all nukes from Israel.
Note that Israel has no more right to have a bomb than Iran.
-
How would negotiaions work to reduce or delay the Iranian push twards having atomic wepons?
-
Iran would agree not to build nuclear weapons and would open its facilities to regular inspections in return for concessions from the US and Israel. Especially Israel.
Attacking Iran could delay Iran a bit, but it would intensify their resolve. Iran has oil, and will sell it, and therefore has a means of paying for the research a lot more easily than North Korea, that has almost nothing that anyone wants that it could profit from.
Negotiations are the best way by far to deal with this. War is not.
-
Iran would agree not to build nuclear weapons and would open its facilities to regular inspections in return for concessions from the US and Israel. Especially Israel.
Attacking Iran could delay Iran a bit, but it would intensify their resolve. Iran has oil, and will sell it, and therefore has a means of paying for the research a lot more easily than North Korea, that has almost nothing that anyone wants that it could profit from.
Negotiations are the best way by far to deal with this. War is not.
We have better leverage in North Korea.
It requires two to tango.
Peace is like a Tango.
War can be because just one side is stupid.
-
I do not think we have better leverage in North Korea.
After the current sanctions, the value of the Iranian rial went down by 50%. That is major leverage.
We are not really threatened by North Korea. South Korea and Japan have a minimal threat, but there is little to the US.
Iran is not much of a threat to the US, either.
War is not the solution. It would be monumentally stupid.
-
North Korea is living day bto day on gifts of American food Japaneese cash and North Korean dry goods.
If they were left alone they would starve, they are underfed inspite of the gifts.
This isn't leverage?
Not if we stupidly keep giving and negotiating , they have no respect for US brainpower.
How are they wrong?
-
North Korea lacks food, but not everyone would starve without aid.
It appears that Kim Jung Un becoming the new leader is likely to result in better relations. There have been none of the acts of aggression that happened under Kim Jong Il, at least so far.
How do you think they should properly respect "US brainpower"?
-
"they have no respect for US brainpower. How are they wrong?"
How are they wrong? Just for starters, they're starving and we aren't.
BSB
-
North Korea lacks food, but not everyone would starve without aid.
It appears that Kim Jung Un becoming the new leader is likely to result in better relations. There have been none of the acts of aggression that happened under Kim Jong Il, at least so far.
How do you think they should properly respect "US brainpower"?
There hasn't ever been much problem with their leadership starving , that is true, but they have had a famine or two in recent years.
They take the brainpower of our present leadership to be weak, I don't think they are wrong.
-
"they have no respect for US brainpower. How are they wrong?"
How are they wrong? Just for starters, they're starving and we aren't.
BSB
They are woefully ignorant on running an economy.
But they seem to be pretty good at tricking a long series of US presidents into feeding them at a subsistance level while they work on wepons that can realisticly threaten us.
-
I suppose McCain was ever so much smarter. And Palin, she was a true genius. Please.
Foreign policy has been far better with Obama. Juinorbush screwed damned near everything up.
Of course to the Kloset Kluxers, all darkies is stoopid, right?
Under Juniorbush, there were attacks on a South Korean Island and S. Korean ship. Under Obama, there were no attacks.
The North Koreans simply have a couple of bombs. They would have them if we did not send them aid as well.
-
I suppose McCain was ever so much smarter. And Palin, she was a true genius.
I guess even you gotta be right twice a day.
Foreign policy has been far better with Obama..
Please.Juinorbush screwed damned near everything up..
Of course to the Kloset Kluxers, all darkies is stoopid, right?.
Who do you know who thinks this?.
Under Juniorbush, there were attacks on a South Korean Island and S. Korean ship. Under Obama, there were no attacks. .
Error of fact.
The North Koreans simply have a couple of bombs. They would have them if we did not send them aid as well.
How can we know?
We could at least have saved that much for ourselves, as you say feeding them has been as useless as talking to them has been.
-
On the North Korean "leadership" and their opinion of our leadership.
North Korea is under the control of a personality cult. They are a nation without leadership. Any opinion those who run the personality cult have of our leadership is irrelevant until they decide to actually lead the nation of North Korea. Our goal is to try and coerce them into undertaking that role.
BSB
-
North Korea is more of a warped variety of Confucionism rather than a Communist dictatorship of the proletariat. They are singularly incompetent, as their main goal is squelching dissent rather than leading the people in such a way as they can feed themselves.
Until recently, the regime prosecuted city people for raising chickens in the city, because they thought that hearing roosters crowing would cause the few foreigners in Pyongyang to think of the DPRK as a Third World country. So depriving the favored people allowed to live in Pyongyang of protein was less important than impressing a handful of foreigners.
Being as one will hear roosters in Taipei, Shanghai, Peking and Hong Kong, they seem to have stopped punishing chicken raising a couple of years ago, but they still will take away your camera if they catch you photographing a city chicken.
The most influential country in the near future of the DPRK is China, since China has the most porous border and China has more economic importance: the few hotels are staffed by Chinese guest workers, lest tourists pollute the minds of North Korean citizens.
-
Interesting.
This is the remaining question.
Is giving food to North Korea a good idea?
Are we preventing the failure that would crash the regime that the Koreans would be betgter off without long term.
Are we aleviateing death and suffering short term, at the cost of propping up a strange god king?
I beleive that if we simply stop feeding them we are blamless and the Chineese will pick up the diffrence, giving the thrifty Chineese government a good reaqson to encourage change in North Korea.
-
If it prevents people from starving, and I believe it does, then it is a good idea.
Starving people do not bring down governments. They raid food markets at most.
The people of North Korea are not responsible for their government, and have no means to overthrow it.
Chaos in North Korea would not benefit anyone.