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

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.

How ya doing, buddy?

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

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.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

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

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

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?

I was speaking idiomatically.

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.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

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.

FELIPE NO

Quote:

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.

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:

Quote:

We thought that the US was invincible, but they were defeatet by the Viet Cong in Vietnam.

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.

Quote:

We thought the Soviet Union was invincible, but they were defeated by the Taliban in Afghanistan.

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.

Quote:

Weak as the Iran may be, do not underestimate her!

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.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

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

There's nowhere I can't reach.

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.

Most amazing jew boots

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 am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

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.

I was speaking idiomatically.

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?

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

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.

FELIPE NO

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.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?