Iran Threatens U.S. With 'Harm and Pain'
 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/nuclear_a...kxBHNlYwN0bQ--

Expect a lot political bullshit that will end in embargos and threats of war for the next month or so.

Moved to Political Palace for being Political Palace material.

Iran reminds me of a WWF promo.."We're gonna kill ya..." blah blah blah..unfortunatley, its becoming obvious that they're going to have to be dealt with sooner or later. They have missles that can hit most parts of Europe, and even with conventional warheads this can wreak havoc. Their Su-24 Fencer bombers are very effective low level attack jets that can esily hit Israel and beyond, not to mention U.S. carrier groups. They on't be the pushover that Iraq was.

*sigh* Sounds like another day at the office for this big old world of ours. It is obvious that Iran is intending to make nukes. I just hope the UN can do the right thing and slap a rock soild, non-compromising embargo on Iran before it is too late.

Of course the UN will do it right. America wants something done.

Three years of war, occupation and civil war with no prospect of peace.

Coalition Casualties: 2,511 (2,302 US)
Coalition Wounded: 16,653

What a pushover. Better luck with Iran.

Figures from DoD.

As if we could occupy Iran. Wesker was speaking militarily, that Iranian armed forces wouldn't be as easy to defeat as the Iraqi Army and Republican Guard.

19,000 in total casualties after 3 years of war is rather generous, compared to what past wars have wrought.

Where's the point? Defeating the Iranian army gets whatever job done?

The US also has laods of weaponry specifically designed for conventional warfare, especially agianst Svoiety equipment. A B-2 can take off in the US, bomb multiple targets and land without ever stopping for refuelling. As for B-52's, with proper escorts...well, you thought Dresden was bad...

That fact of the matter is, even if Iran had nukes, the US has several thousand warhaeds and ICBMs. Good luck to Iran.

When it comes to fighting conventional warfare (read: army vs. army, navy vs. navy, air force vs. air force), America reigns supreme.

The fundamental difference between Iran and Iraq is that the threat from Iran is explicit and almost everyone is united against them. So if Iran tries some shit, it won't be just America dropping bows so to speak.

When it comes to bragging about military power, America reigns supreme.

I wouldn't bet on the U.S. Army, Navy and Air Force to be superior to, say, what China will be capable of soon. Their "defense" budget is already suspected to be thrice as high as the U.S.'

Plus, they don't engage in pointless wars or costly occupation of and presence in foreign countries nor do they have a Democracy to get in their way.

There will probably be a war against Iran within the year. As Bush has shown us, dipshit leaders do whatever the hell stupid stuff they want without any regards to logic.

Amen to that, Rock. Except for one thing. The U.S. is a corporately sponsored Dictatorship with Democratic tendencies employed to project the image of representation. Either way. We're all going to die.

Irrelevent. Whejn it comes to training and technology, US forces are far superior to those of China. The US also has what is known as power projection - the US can move lots of trips very far distances in a short amount of time, and they're only going to get better at it. The US Navy is capable of sinking the Chinese navy, the USAF is the largest air force in the world, with more training and FAR better equipment than the Chinese. Without air or sea power, I'd like to see how China does against stelath bombers, attack helicopters and huge logisitical problems.

After all of that, they'd have to face not just US forces, but porbably all of those velonging to NATO as well. All of this without their economy being help up by a massive trade defecit and unfair marketing practices.

And I thought I was cynical.

And I'd like to see how the U.S. does without the powerhouse manufacturing cache that is China.

You are right that America has much more capability to fight a war then Iran, but in the end, does that make much of a difference? In Vietnam, America had superior air, sea, and army power and they still lost terribly. I think that having a modernized army definitely gives America an advantage, but in the end it all comes down to who you are dealing with.

The goal here isn't occupying Iran, the goal would be to remove the nuclear threat, however, I doubt Iran would sit idly by and allow its facilities to be destroyed without a response. They could esily launch missiles at Israel and Europe or attack US forces in Iraq or hit Saudi oil areas. The size of Iran would make it difficult to take out all of their airbases and missile sites, but any attack on their nuclear facilities would have to include any known missile sites and airbases or their promise of "harm and pain" could be true for some.

Thats exactly why the US would be looking forward to invade Iran eventually... that place as the whole region is an oil field

Even assuming that China has a defense budget three times as big as that of the United States, is that Per Capita? Would China be reducing the size of its Armed Forces to meet Americans on limited fronts? China, in case you haven't noticed, is pretty fucking big. The focus of the People's Army is to defend said big fucking country, not to become a projecting force. If anything, a modern Chinese Army would be one designed to protect itself from Western aggression, and their interests in South Asia. (particularly concerning India)

That said, an Amero-Chinese war would hurt both sides economically, but where America has a huge domestic market, China doesn't. Without anybody to buy the stuff that they make, the Chinese economy would tank. America, on the other hand, would still be in relatively good shape assuming the Chinese didn't invade Vietnam and Taiwan.

The problem concerning Iran, as Wesker pointed out, is ending their nuclear capability, and since the Iranians aren't nearly as close to getting the bomb as people think they are, it's simply a matter of locating all of their nuclear facilities, and taking them out from the air. Not the easiest of tasks, but it's not as if we wouldn't have enough time.

Wesker voiced concern that the Iranian Air Force would be capable of resisting the USAF somewhat, as well as being capable of delivering some nuclear weapon to Israel or Europe. Israel is all that counts, though, since they've got warheads pointed at everybody.

That said, I really doubt that the Iranians would ever be able to acquire the money, planes, or training to ever go toe to toe with the USAF, or even the Russians.

yeah because attacking iran would make oil prices go down... wait no. Similary, anyone who says we went into iraq for oil is first, a complete idiot, and second obviously never takin an economics class. But, thats beside the point.

Whats up with all the talk about the US. Doesn't Europe care at all what iran is doing? They try to act like that do but it seems they never have any threats to back it up. They're at more risk anyways. I really hope we don't attack Iran unless Europe agrees to help out. Not send 50 troops and call it quits but really help.

Invading Iraq for Oil is as the (American) Civil War was fought over slavery. No matter what incentives, causes, or objectives anybody has doesn't change the overriding circumstance, that we wouldn't have invaded Iraq if it wasn't for oil.

It'll be interesting to see if China and Russia go along with sanctions against Iran or veto. They are both political and economic allies however it's believed that in the long-term Russia would lose benefits from not going along with the sanction and most don't seem to think that China would stand up alone for Iran.

One thing I've read that really bugs me too is that Iran feels that it is part of the NPT, but didn't a revolution happen after the treaty? Wouldn't it technically be a different nation?

I read somewhere that Russia would use its power of veto to protect Iran, which makes sense because Russia has significant interests in that country.

The Iranians are full of shit IMO, as is all governments. But according to them, they'll have a bomb on the 8th of next month... :rolleyes:

Source:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...5/165149.shtml

Another bullshit story or not? Who knows! But, Iran is becoming a joke to most people here in the states I think, because they come off like all talk with no substance... :eyebrow:

How much you want to bet that their bomb opens up with a flag that says "Boom" when it enters Israeli airspace?

Don't really care one way or another! I am all for them keep shooting themselves in the foot until someone does take action against them for not knowing when to shut up. Whether it's militarily or sanctions...

Seems there's way too many people with their heads in the sand, trying to think there's nothing seriously wrong with those nutjobs! Well, the nutjobs with power over in Iran. The people themselves seem okay, but really, everything that their government says just screams insane! :(

EDIT: Not to say my government is any better. But shit, those in Iran seem to need a straight jacket or something...

America didn't lose 'terribly' - America lost because the politicians who were telling the military what to do wouldn't allow the military to do what it needed to do to cripple the enemy, which it was certainly capable of doing with great ease.

The U.S. Army was never defeated militarily by the Vietnamese, but rather, it was defeated by the politicians and civillian protesters at home.

Morale is a motherfucker.

Sound's familiar. "Dolchstosslegende" anyone?

What I really don't get is why western politicians didn't accuse Iran of producing nukes (which the Non-Proliferation Treaty they signed does not allow) right from the start, instead of voicing concerns about the civil nuclear program (which Iran has every right to mantain). They want us all scared and out of our minds about oh-so-evil Islam and WMDs anyway, why the foreplay?

While you could make an emotional comparison to Dolchstosslegende, Vietnam was not the same situation, and placing the blame is a matter derived from observable evidence rather than the scape-goating of a non-nationalist ideal.

Vietnam was ultimately a war that politicians commited American resources to, without actually committing themselves to winning said conflict. The concerns, then, would be that the escalation of said conflict outside of Vietnamese borders would potentially start World War 3 as the Russians directly intervened on behalf of the North Vietnamese, or the Laoations. Keep in mind, that Cassus Belli for the United States was that the existance of a recognized government (South Vietnam) was under threat of invasion, and that it required protection.

The resulting problem, then, was that Americans were forced to engage in a limited conflict where they could not win, yet were forced to continue engaging in said conflict because politicians did not want to seem soft on the spread of Communism. Does that sound familiar?

The US dooes most of its defence manufacturing in the US, does it not?

I think he meant economy in general, you know, all that offshoring by US firms.

@ Bradylama
Yes, the way you put it is conclusive and I agree with you, but Phoenix' argument sounded more like "we would have won if the civilians had know their place and kept quite", which for one thing is half of the truth at most (since after a victory in 'nam, WWIII might have been next) and was very remnicent of aforementioned mentality in Germany after WWI.

Night Phoenix is right. The U.S. won the battle of the Tet offensive, but civilians, such as Walter Cronkite, painted the tet offensive as a picture of doom and gloom, portraying the image of a defeated US military, which in turn fed the anti war crowd red meat, causing opinion to turn against the war. There is no real comparison the post WWI germany, a nation which was soundly defeated by its foes, a nation in deep economic and mental depression. The US was never close to being defeated in this way.

What ultimately led to the Dolchstosslegende was that Germany was never invaded. While they were on the losing side of the war at the time of Germany's surrender, the people still held out a hope of resistance and stalemate. Yet, despite never being invaded, the Germans were divided and marginalized by the Treaty of Versailles. This was inconceivable to the Germans, as to those at the home front, the war wasn't lost.

question... what make Russia and China give support over US to bring Iran over security council? I feel there is a missing link here. I couldnt understand why Russia and China turn their back on Iran. Perhaps US pressed them over certain issues?

Or perhaps adding a nuclear power to a region strife with social unrest doesn't serve the purposes of Russia and The People's Republic. Keep in mind, the Russians have been bending over backwards to try and convince the Iranians to preserve a civil nuclear program by refining all Uranium used in Iran on Russian soil. That way, Iran could transition to a nuclear economy while circumventing the ability to develop nuclear weapons.

That's not what Iran wanted. When push comes to shove, the Russians and Chinese can't afford a nuclear Iran.

Its not like its a one way thing either. It might even be worse to china to lose the US as a trading partner, but lets be realistic, its not going to happen.

Russia is the deal-breaker here in my opinion. Iran supports Islamic Fundamentalist terrorism which in the long run is not in Russia's best interests. With the Chechnya region so close to Moscow, they have much to worry about in the case of a strong Islamic fundamentalist terrorist movement. There are also the neighboring countries which could grow to be a threat. Also, the western nations are pretty united in regards to imposing sanctions against Iran. Russia does not want to be in bad relations with them in the long-term. At the same time they have to worry about trying to keep balance in eurasia and positive relations with China. So Russia doesn't want to alienate the west and they don't want to alienate Iran or China either. I expect that they will try to abstain on most decisions and sit on the fence. Any action whatsoever will likely lead to negative long-term effects for them. The question is though, which has a better future? Will Iran, with its current regime, still be a good ally after everyone has their guns pointed at them?


Then there is China, if Iran has no other major powerful allies then what would China have to gain from supporting them? The current Chinese government would support the best business decision in this case which would likely be to eat the hefty investment that they put in Iran's oil. This is unfortunate for China as they will need that oil to continue their growth at a rate which they are comfortable with. However, their growth cannot continue if there is nobody to buy their products. Their economy is tied heavily to US consumerism as well as many other nations. Basically, China is going to take a hit on costs of their overall production but it's better to do that than to lose all of their clients.

Wow, and I always thought that the US was defeated because the GIs were not trained in jungle and were no match for the hit and run tactics of the Viet Cong and their local knowledge.

Invading Iraq was very easy, since the country is only a flat desert, but the Iran has many mountains which is great for hit and run tactics.

Here you can see a topographic map of the Middle East.
http://vlsi.ee.duth.gr/~nkroup/mypage/iran/map.jpg

Powerful as many world power may be, no one is invincible! Remember:
We thought that the US was invincible, but they were defeatet by the Viet Cong in Vietnam.
We thought the Soviet Union was invincible, but they were defeated by the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Weak as the Iran may be, do not underestimate her!

I know, those Mullahs there may be wackos, but I think that even they know that if they nuke America, that Ameica would nuke 'em back.

That was the case in the beginning of the war, but as the Army began focusing on small, coordinated unit tactics, they began beating back the Vietcong every time. Of course, what was ultimately the problem was that there could never be enough troops to secure every village, every road, and every jungle.

Militarily, we had the Vietnamese beat. The AK-Ms were much better infantry weapons at the time, but what American troops lacked in small arms they made up in air power, artillery, and mobility. It wasn't necessary to kill the enemy directly when you could pin them down and call in a fire mission to destroy an entire acre. The Viet Cong were destroyed as an effective fighting force during the Tet offensive.

Further historical corrections:

America was defeated by limited conflict. It was like sending the military into a war with their hands tied behind their back, and the Army was never able to defeat the enemy at its roots, i.e. North Vietnam.

The Soviets were defeated by the combined facts of low cost effectiveness, and the inability of the Russians to project air power as the Afghans were supplied Stinger missiles by the CIA. They were never defeated by the Taliban. In fact, the Taliban was only one of a myriad of guerilla groups fighting the Russians, and when the Russians left, Afghanistan descended into a civil war between these armed factions. It was ultimately the Taliban, though, that rode into Kandahar and declared themselves the ruling faction of Afghanistan. People supported the Taliban because they would rather have theocratic order than warring chaos.

In the scenario presented by destroying Iran's nuclear capability, the only concern for the West is Iran's air power, which compared to NATO, is practically non-existant. An occupation of Iran is absolutely unfeasable.

No Iranian missle will ever touch an American carrier group. Our carriers are far to well defended for that to happen. The anti-missle defense systems on those ships can shoot down planes or missles at more than 1 mile out.

Iran is going to get put in her place, one way or another. They are weak compared to any of the other military powers in the world, especially so compared to the United States. Besides, if Iran were stupid enough to actually use that nuclear weapon on Israel or any other world power they would seal their own fate. Anyone remember the Samson Option?

You seem very sure of this. It might be justified if Iranian missiles were of an Iranian design. Unfortunately for that ever-so-sure premise, the Iranians have probably been sold Russian SS-N-22 Sunburn anti-ship missiles, which are designed specifically to get through the anti-missile defenses of American carrier battle groups.

Also, when talking about planes and missiles in this Jet Age we live in, one mile isn't really all that far.

Source Here

These systems have proven to be extremely effective inconjuction with each other in defending our carriers. As for my reference to 1 mile that is the range of the gatling guns.

Not to mention that the rest of the battle group is designed to protect the carrier. That's why they exist. They'd never touch our carriers, don't kid yourselves. (Yes, before someone brings up the USS Cole, I'm talking about conventional warfare.)

And what if the warhead was detonated outside of the intercept range? The explosion and turbulent waters may not be enough to sink the battle group, but the threat of Fallout is certainly enough to force it to withdraw.

Use of a nuclear weapon on a CBG? Right, that's very conventional warfare.

In case you haven't noticed, sir, the very source of this dilemma would be the Iranian's desire to acquire nuclear weapons.

You must be in the realm of fantasy to think that a nation would use a nuclear weapon to force the withdrawal of a carrier group via fallout. Besides the cost in building a nuclear weapon, the ecological effects to the countries own region would be horrible. They maybe crazy but they aren't that stupid.

Besides nuclear weapons are not conventional weapons, their main purpose is used as a deterrent. No country outside of the United States has anything close to a conventional nuke.

Perhaps that's why a nuclear deterrent would keep American CBGs out of the Persian Gulf.

Seeing as how Wesker was talking about Iran's capability to deliver nuclear arms, we're apparently talking about two entirely different things.

Let me put this bluntly: Nukes are not used to halt a CBG, and it would be ridiculous of Iran to waste a nuclear warhead on trying to stop ONE single CBG on a manuever that probably will not work.

Assuming that the Iranians lack the ability to reach the continental United States, what other strategic US assets would be within reach? Why do you assume that they would only have one warhead?

I'm assuming they wouldn't be using two warheads on a single battle group. Not to mention destroying a CBG wouldn't stop the US from crushing Iran.

I'll just stop humoring you. Nobody would use a nuclear weapon in a conventional style attack against a CBG. It's just not worth it.

Again, unless Iran has a death wish they will not use a nuclear weapon unless it is used on them first... In fact any aggressive military movement against the US or Israel is suicide.

The use of a nuclear weapon against a strategic US asset would be a calculated risk by the Iranians, made to show that they mean business in the event that Western powers moved against them.

The purpose being, to see if the Americans would blink, and back off. In any normal case, the US would simply nuke the Hell out of Iran, but since the ruling Iranian regime would be destroyed anyway, what do they have left to lose?

This may not be a realistic situation, but it is a grave concern to the Iranians, which is why they want that nuclear deterrant.

No, that would be suicide and open war.

No shit? It's a calculated fucking risk. A last-ditch attempt made by a desperate government that can't hope to beat its opponent conventionally. When those in power have no chance of survival, what is there for them to lose?

You've got to be kidding... That isn't calculated risk, that is putting a time delay bomb to your fucking head and waiting for it to go boom.

I don't expect them to launch any thing against our military. No that isn't Irans style. They would give a dirty bomb to a terrorist group and smuggle it into the US to get us that way.

Either way, they lose in the end.

Well, in order for anyone to 'lose', you first have to define what their goals are.

We don't even know what "Iran's style" is yet, because they don't have a nuclear bomb to speak of. If they wanted to hand off a dirty bomb to terrorists, they already would have, and a major American city would have been evacuated due to unsafe radiation levels. This is because the key component in a dirty bomb is radioactive material, not a nuclear warhead. Stuff that the Iranians already possess in significant quantities.

Why would Iran even announce that they intend to develop a nuclear weapon if they didn't intend to have it used by Iranians? It's a matter of ego to them. They want us to know that they'd have nuclear weapons, because the prospect of a nuclear Iran acts as a deterrent. Yet, how significant is an Iranian nuclear deterrent to, say, the US, when they are incapable of delivering a warhead to nuclear soil? They would have to target the only strategic American assets within their reach, which would be Carrier Battle Groups.

Unconventional delivery methods such as a suitcase bomb do not act as a deterrent.

They lose because they die. None of the middle eastern countries will ever have a hope in a conventional war against the US, which is why they resort to suicide bomber attacks.

Bradylama: The Iranians aren't going to try and missile attack a carrier group... You've been told again and again how stupid that is. Stealth was right, there is no point in humoring your ignorance. If we attack Iran we will remove any nuclear threat prior to any forces being in danger.

"Unconventional delivery methods such as a suitcase bomb do not act as a deterrent." No that is not a deterrent, to which you are correct. This is what they are going to do once their major nuclear abilities are removed.

And yet it is not the Iranian people who have their finger on the button. If you don't think that the desperation of an endangered government could lead to a nuclear exchange, then it is you who is ignorant to the situation.

You and Gumby are so damn sure that a carrier battlegroup isn't vulnerable to antiship missiles. Just what justifies this confidence? AEGIS, however good a system it is, isn't perfect. It can be beaten, and the Soviets designed the Sunburn missiles specifically to beat AEGIS. Sunburns have speeds approaching Mach 3, and they cut the maximum response time available to a defending vessel to a quarter of what is available against something such as an Exocet (25-30 seconds as opposed to 120-150 seconds). That's not a lot of time to respond, and the more there are, the more likely some will get through.

Yes, the rest of the battlegroup is there to protect the carrier. I know that. The Soviets knew it, too. That's why they developed weapons capable of dealing with the ships in a battlegroup.

No, but I'm damn sure nobody in their fucking right mind would nuke a CBG. Also, Iran aren't the soviets. They aren't completely militarized, and have a weak fighting force. Do you really think they would be able to hurt a CBG with anything they currently have at their disposal? But hey, if it happens, you can call me on it.

Considering they have a bunch of those Sunburn missiles I've been talking about at their disposal, I wouldn't rule out the possibility.

Have a source on that? You brought up the issue has "Russians have probably sold". I hardly consider that evidence. But I welcome any info you can find on it.

This is probably the best article I could find, as it specifically mentions the Sunburn, along with this chart.

You can find specs for the Sunburn itself here and here, if you're interested. The missile exists, and the fact that it does renders false Gumby's and your statements to the effect that USN carrier battlegroups are invulnerable to missile attack.

So the real question is - how would the Iranians deliver the Sunburn?

If I'm a battle commander, my first priority is to neutralize the Iranian's ability to deliver the weapon. That means seeking out and destroying any naval vessels and eliminating airfields where bombers with this weapon can be launched from.

This whole situation screams this...
http://www.anyoldicon.com/gallery/im...l-pistol-2.jpg

These carrier groups are watching for missiles of this type and should it get to close for the effective use of anti-missiles they can rely on the rather large radar guided chain guns. Do remember that Iran is not our friends; we are watching them for this sort of activity. So it isn’t like they can spring a large missile attack on the United States forces. Which is what it would take for even the possibility of getting one missile through our defense. We would see it coming and have our defenses ready.

BTW Lord Styphon I never said they were invulnerable to missile attack however I still stand by my prediction that Iran will never land a hit on an American ship, Russian equipment or not.

Besides the fact that one of these missiles has next to no chance of getting through our defense, even if it did hit a ship it would not destroy it. This would not force the withdrawn of American forces, no quite the opposite. My guess is that Iran knows this, so the whole premise of a missile attack again our carrier group is flawed.

Wouldn't you rather overestimate than underestimate your opponent at war?

David & Goliath?

The question isn't 'Should we launch a preemptive strike on Iran', the real question is: 'Will the world support this decision?'

To answer the former, yes, we should. Not an all out invasion, but we need to target their nuclear facilities. Either that or utilize Night Phoenix's strategy.

Considering the latter question, the reason I brought it up is because - quite frankly - I highly doubt the average citizen would jump on the: "Let's go after Iran!" bandwagon. I just see the similarities of what is happening today with what occurred in Vietnam. While war is inevitable and there are always casualties, the support of the citizens seems to play a major role in influencing war as a whole. Now, there's a major difference between the right decision and the people's decision. At times, both decisions become one, but usually it isn't the case.

Currently, I don't think people would support it. Iraq is on the public's mind, and they aren't interested in another war, even if the war on Iraq was justified (at least for my reasons), people won't support it.

I could be wrong, but just ask anyone if we should go in and take care of the problem. I think we should; Iran threatened us with nuclear fire. I'm not the type to just sit and wait for someone to attack me. I prefer to hit them first; however, not everyone shares this outlook - and it seems as if the majority disagree, but whatever.

That's my two cents.

Iran makes a lot of threats, if everyone thought like you did they would have long since been wiped off the face of the earth.

Tomzilla: People just don't have the stomach for what it takes to win a war.

Polls of our war.
2002
2003
2004
2005

Since when? This whole issue is about preventing Iran getting a nuke. They only said 'harm and pain'.

Iran doesn't have to launch a nuke to really hurt us. They've remained quite passive on Iraq and could stir up a hornet's nest with that. As if Iraq needs it in it's current state. They could reduce or even refuse to export their oil, causing oil to spike well above 100 USD a barrel. People think current gas prices are bad, that would make it all the more worse.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/ips...it-cartoon.gif
This was in today's paper. (sorry for the picture quality)

I don't think that the American people are ready to support another war so soon, regardless of how out of hand Iran is getting.

Let's look at it like this:

Iran wants to get a nuke. It also wants to inflict 'harm and pain' upon the United States. If we add these two facts together, what'll be the result? It's not a perfect equation, but you can see where I'm going with this, and how I can interpret as a threat involving 'nuclear fire'.

I realize I may be stretching it a bit, but really, what else is Iran threatening us with that could inflict 'harm and pain'? There is oil of course, but I see it simply as a threat involving the exchange of nuclear weapons.


Well, there was a time of when people did have it, but even then, it took a big 'push' to snap 'em into it.

The "harm and pain" threat was only a threat in retaliation for a threat of being dragged before the Security Council and being put under sanctions by the UN.

So many threats, it's like a game of chicken.

Yeah, just a tad too many "ifs" for me. Plus I think like an economist. Supposively the CIA thinks the Iranians are 3-10 years from a nuke. When oil is a ever present concern without the threat of war. Nuclear or otherwise.

Actually, that may be how Iran views the situation as well -- America as a stocky bully. I wonder if that was intended.

I think so. The Canadian media tends to not like the U.S. so much.

No foreign press likes the US. We're like this big fat target or something. That make's me sad. :(

The terrain of Iran in addition to the size both in terms of land and population, could make a conventional attack difficult and an occupation impossible when you consider the ethno-cultural makeup of the population, and the current difficulties the U.S. has encountered in occupying Iraq, which would likely reoccur in Iran in much greater magnitude if a theoretical invasion were to take place.

One thing is for sure: Any war with Iran would be unprecedented because of the amount of multinational support needed to pacify a country of this size and the risk of a nuclear fallout against U.S. interests in the region. Furthermore, the full effect that an invasion would have on oil prices would have to be factored into the potential risks of war, although the full scale of that effect is difficult to assess, but under no circumstances will it be positive.

An embargo on Iran might do wonders to their temperament. The surrounding countries and Europe have far more to worry about than the United States does in this case.

And those surrounding countries you neglected to mention; India, Pakistan, and China. One of which has a permanent veto on the Security Council. All of which are starved for oil, particularly Iran's oil.

I don't see a embargo working at all. Even if China didn't use their veto, they could still do something far worse to retaliate. Dump their dollar reserves. No country is stupid enough to fight a conventional war with the US. Economic warfare is something else entirely.

Furthermore, what's Venezuela going to do? Chavez is tight with Iran, and he's not exactly considered a friend to the US government. That'd just give him a opportunity to follow through with any of his crazy threats.

You have to look at the big picture. Either way, this doesn't bode well for the US.

Soooo, assuming that our national security advisors actually take advice from online gaming/audio forums, what would you people suggest that the USA should be doing here?

Compromise. Or start dusting off the nuke launch codes.

*edit* Hopefully the world isn't that insane for the second option. Surely someone else has a better idea.

Did you just ask that question in the GFF Political board? Are you kidding me? Nobody here is going to be able to answer that one because it is far to easy to criticize without offering a better solution to the problem. It's one thing I've noticed on this forum, people love to bitch but rarely are able to give better workable solutions.

Isn't that true for every person discussing politics, including politicians?

I smell a draft comming.

I doubt that will happen in the near future. The military has said it frankly that it doesn't want people who don't want to be there and truth be told I wouldn't want to serve next to some asswipe that doesn't want to be there and didn't have the brains to get into college.

Iran is a problem. But see, we have this OTHER unneeded problem in Iraq...

And before anyone says I'm totally anti-war, I have no problem with the war in Afghanistan. But Iraq is ridiculous. Unnecessary and ridiculous.

edit: If there's a draft, this country will go apeshit. Parents and children across the nation will be protesting damn near violently. Believe it.

No there are a good number of reasons why we went to war with Iraq, I don't really care if you agree with them but the fact is we are there and will finish what we started before we leave.

Iran is making themselves a large thorn in the side of a number of large and powerful countries with all of the things they have been saying. Shit rolls down hill, sadly for Iran it will probably roll over them. They will reap what they sow.

Y'know, I actually heard an interesting idea on NPR a few nights ago while I was delivering pizzas. Basically, it involved Bush threatening the Iraqi government with pulling out if they didn't shape up. It made sense in a strange sort of way (the people in power need the U.S. troops in order to maintain power, remove troops, remove power, they want to maintain power, thus they will want to keep troops in Iraq).

That's be a great way to piss off more Iraqis, democrats, and pretty much everyone else. :rolleyes:

Perhaps on this matter it would be more prudent for us to let the EU take the brunt of the negotiations with us simply nudging them onwards making sure the issue doesn't die down. But if Iran does so much as flinch towards actually using one of their black market bought nukes ('cuze we all know when they say they're enriching uranium purely for peaceful purposes that they're telling the truth) then we'll step in and take whatever drastic action required, provided the EU and UN hesitates, which they probably will.

Oil?
How would you justify the occupation of Iraq?

You seem to be new at PP, so let me just tell you to pipe down before opening a can of worms. We've all argued to death on the implications of the Iraqi War. This thread is about Iran now.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Just because he doesn't know what he's talking about doesn't mean he can't pretend that he knows what he's talking about.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v5...and2/teach.gif

As for compromise, what if the other side isn't willing to compromise? What’s more, why should they when they know they can get away with whatever they want? I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Iran in the wrong by violating a number of treaties with its current actions, actions with which there shouldn't be a need to compromise on as the treaties weren't supposed to be violated to begin with?

I laugh whenever I hear about people say that China will attack the US or vice versa. It will NEVER happen. Their economies rely TOO MUCH on each other. It's not going to happen. Ever.

You have pretty much no evidence to make such a claim, other than dependent economies. Right.

Iran is beginning to show the world just how off their rocker they really are. I don't think they are capable of backing down because their delusions of grandeur.

Do any of us have real hard evidence? No, only speculation.

He does make a point though. China has a reliable business partner in the US.
China makes all kinds of things we use, from computer chips, tools, toys, and they're getting even larger than than now. Soon they will be rolling out new cards with a pricetag set at the same as ~$8,000-10,000 USD. They need us and, in a weird way, we need them.

Expect gas prices to just keep on rising, too. China is booming, and 10 years from now, lots of people are going to have cars. So they'll be tapping into the oil market as well.

Here's the thing. China is growing at an alarming rate. Sooner or later, at the rate our the American Economic decline, and China's growth, they won't be as dependent on us as we are on them. Saying that China will never attack the US because they need us is beying ridiculous.

Kind of like how Germany outstripped Britain's industrial capacity but could not get past the Royal Navy camping out in the English Channel.


Good luck with the Pacific.

Before we act rashly towards Iran, we should perhaps consider our other adventures in the Middle East and South Asia. Surely Afghanistan is now a moderate haven of democracy where religion is respected and tolerated. The same would most likely happen in Iran.

Oops.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4823874.stm

The Taliban and the Revolutionary Guard would be proud. Democracy, the tool that lets the masses oppress the minorities.

Who knows. I don't think I'm smart enough to answer that question really. Compromise could be anything from the Russian deal to handle the enrichment of uranium, to having Israel get rid of it's suspected nuclear arsenal and declaring the Middle East a nuclear free zone.

Technically I don't think there's any international law against the development of peaceful nuclear technology/energy. But which country has done that without building itself a few nukes? None that I know of.

America nor Israel can afford, nor will risk a "MAD"-like situation with Iran.

Canada comes to mind at first, I'm not positive but I think Japan as well. There may be others as well, (Germany?).

Slightly different situation. I don't think any of those countries have a nuclear reactor that's capable of pumping out weapons-grade plutonium.

Nuclear physics is not my area of expertise. I think there's a difference between the two kinds of reactors and processes applied. Something to do with how the uranium is enriched and processed by the reactor. Plus those countries allow IAEA oversight of their operations. Iran hasn't been forthcoming.

They don't use a reactor to gather weapons grade uranium. Most reactors use less than 20% U235 where as the rest of the Uranium is U238. Weapons grade Uranium is usually greater than 90% U235 even though much lower percents can be used to make a bomb. There are several process' used to separate the two different isotopes of Uranium, however none of them require a nuclear reactor. Most methods rely on the slight differences in physical properties of the two isotopes. Did I mention that it is extremely expensive to enrich Uranium? I believe U238 is what we use in our DU ammunition.

List of countries with nuclear weapons.

Uranium isn't such an attractive fuel for a nuclear bomb anyway. True, it allows for the construction of simple gun-triggered devices, something plutonium doesn't allow (technically speaking, it's not so much the plutonium as other impurities which are a by-product of the process used for plutonium production, but let's not go into details) and is perhaps slightly easier to handle, but otherwise it offers little advantage over plutonium. Plutonium, on the other hand, happens to be one of the major by-product of the nuclear reactions that happen in nuclear reactors and is created from U-238 which is plentiful. Thus it's easier to generate large quantities of plutonium than highly enriched uranium. Even "better", reprocessing is a legitimate activity in the peaceful nuclear fuel cycle, allowing to extract plutonium from spent fuel and later use it again in reactors.

With that said, there are plenty of countries which could easily enough get the bomb if they so much as wanted to. Canada, Japan and Germany are the most obvious examples, simply because they happen to have a mature nuclear industry, producing their own reactors designs and equipment, the necessary knowledge, often a complete nuclear fuel cycle and a strong industrial base in general. On top of that, they're trusted by most countries, and missing plutonium would likely not be that much of an international concern. Who'd believe someone saying "The Canadians are getting the bomb!"?

Other countries with a lesser technological and industrial base could get the bomb as well, but with a bit more difficulty. It essentially comes down to whether or not they already have at least one nuclear reactor, and whether they already have, or could reasonably easily build a reprocessing plant. With that taken care of, sure, you still have the theoretical side of things to take care of, but first of all, you're not looking at a H-bomb, making things much simpler, and the knowledge needed isn't exactly "cutting-edge" these days. And your average desktop computer likely has more computing power than was available at Los Alamos back in the forties.

The reason Iran is using uranium, or, well, is suspected to be using it for bombs, is simply that they happen to have a uranium enrichment plant and reconfiguring it for highly-enriched uranium production is easier than building a reprocessing plant. Other nations would likely follow North Korea's path and go with reprocessing.

The first computer, ENIAC, was capable of processing I believe three thousand calculations per second. Today's processors make billions each second.

Understatement of the year.

I know that. Though as far as I know the ENIAC wasn't used for anything related to A-bomb development, anyway. However I do know they used various mechanical calculating machines made by IBM at Los Alamos. Not that those are exactly powerful either.

Okay, I stand corrected by some very knowledgeable people.

:D

So very true.