View Poll Results: Who Will Win? That is, in possession of the land?

Voters
10. You may not vote on this poll
  • Israel

    3 30.00%
  • The Palestinians

    1 10.00%
  • Two States

    4 40.00%
  • Neither, some other State or people rule.

    0 0%
  • Neither, mutual destruction.

    1 10.00%
  • One State, two peoples

    1 10.00%
  • One State, one people (intermarriage)

    0 0%
Page 21 of 27 FirstFirst ... 111920212223 ... LastLast
Results 401 to 420 of 535

Thread: War between Israel -v- Iran & Co (merged threads)

  1. #401
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rex Brynen View Post
    China would be extraordinarily unhappy with any unilateral strike against Iran--it's been hard enough getting them onside with mild sanctions. In the Chinese view it would highly the dangers of self-interested Western military adventurism.
    Why may I ask would the Chinese need to be happy about a strike?

  2. #402
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    1,602

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
    Why may I ask would the Chinese need to be happy about a strike?
    It was, as you'll see, a comment on the previous post.
    They mostly come at night. Mostly.


  3. #403
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rex Brynen View Post
    It was, as you'll see, a comment on the previous post.
    It all a bit strange really. One minute the US acts as if it does not care what China thinks or might do - naval exercises off the Chinese/North Korean coast - and the next seems to quiver with fear as to what China might think or do - a strike on Iranian nuclear facilities. Will the real USA please stand up?
    Last edited by JMA; 08-03-2010 at 07:04 PM.

  4. #404
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bourbon View Post
    Few things are more important than oil in international relations. And in this case nuclear programs and unstable regimes are intricately connected to the oil issue.

    Secure sourcing and supply is important, but unless you are plundering the oil, it still has to be paid for. And when Iran is choking-off the supply of Middle East oil, the price is going to be in the hundreds of dollars per barrel.
    Speaking from out here in the colonies I must let you know that we see this US oil crisis (or potential oil crisis) a somewhat of an own goal. It appears you have oil reserves at home or close to home which for environmental reasons you are not tapping and have steadfastly refused to push for the development of alternative fuel and renewal energy systems.

    So if you (the US) had thought this whole thing through and acted many years ago there may have been no need to go into Iraq and now no need to worry about Iranian oil supplies.

    Then again right nearby the Chinese seem to be grabbing the local oil. China Lends Venezuela $20 Billion, Secures Oil Supply. Someone asleep at the wheel again?

  5. #405
    Council Member bourbon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    903

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
    Why may I ask would the Chinese need to be happy about a strike?
    The United States is operating on a $1.5 trillion budget deficit this year, and as such it is dependent on foreign investors to purchase this debt. China is the leading purchaser of this debt.

  6. #406
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default The shortsightedness is due to the 535 Imperial Legates

    Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
    ...Someone asleep at the wheel again?
    Who do a great deal of that sleeping at the wheel. Mostly not napping so much as being more concerned with their re-election than the nation's business...

    Thus my continued plea: Vote all incumbents out of office!!!

  7. #407
    Council Member Dayuhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Latitude 17 5' 11N, Longitude 120 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
    Posts
    3,137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
    Speaking from out here in the colonies I must let you know that we see this US oil crisis (or potential oil crisis) a somewhat of an own goal. It appears you have oil reserves at home or close to home which for environmental reasons you are not tapping and have steadfastly refused to push for the development of alternative fuel and renewal energy systems.
    More about politics than energy, I fear. Thee's no evidence to indicate that untapped US reserves are large enough to make a significant difference, and while the alternative and renewable side looks wonderful on green party powerpoints, they're a long way from a meaningful contribution, despite large investments.

    Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
    Then again right nearby the Chinese seem to be grabbing the local oil. China Lends Venezuela $20 Billion, Secures Oil Supply. Someone asleep at the wheel again?
    Short of invading Venezuela, there's not a great deal the US can do to stop them from dealing withe the Chinese. Again, though, this is about poliotics, not energy. Hugo has chafed for a long time at sending so much oil to his enemy and raison d'etre, and deals with the Chinese are useful propaganda for him. The bulk of Venezuela's production will continue to flow north; geographic logic demands it. When Venezuelan oil goes to China, who do you think eats the premium imposed by shipping costs and tanker turnaround times? I'm betting it's not the Chinese.

    Iran's presumed ability to close the Straits of Hormuz and otherwise disrupt Gulf shipping is of course a significant obstacle to war with Iran. Of course we don't know how much they can do or for how long, but they wouldn't have to do much to spike the price of oil and cause a lot of grief for a lot of people.
    Last edited by Dayuhan; 08-03-2010 at 10:29 PM.

  8. #408
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    137

    Default

    As some of you may have seen, some thoughts on this issue were recently published originally at SWJ. LINK

    "The calculus is simple. A strike that neutralizes Iran‟s nuclear program has the highest chance of success if it is orchestrated by the Americans. It has the lowest chance of success if the Israelis launch unilaterally."

  9. #409
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bourbon View Post
    The United States is operating on a $1.5 trillion budget deficit this year, and as such it is dependent on foreign investors to purchase this debt. China is the leading purchaser of this debt.
    If they don't want to upset China then why are they (the US) insisting on holding naval exercises in the Yellow Sea?

    Its all very confusing.

  10. #410
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by huskerguy7 View Post
    As some of you may have seen, some thoughts on this issue were recently published originally at SWJ. LINK

    "The calculus is simple. A strike that neutralizes Iran‟s nuclear program has the highest chance of success if it is orchestrated by the Americans. It has the lowest chance of success if the Israelis launch unilaterally."
    ... and absolutely no chance of success if everyone just sits on their hands.

  11. #411
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Perhaps...

    Define success.

  12. #412
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    Define success.
    In this case it would be the complete destruction of the physical nuclear weapons infrastructure in Iran.

  13. #413
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Ah. I see. Without considering things like fallout

    Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
    In this case it would be the complete destruction of the physical nuclear weapons infrastructure in Iran.
    or blowback (much less the possibility of their rebuilding sans occupation) and just looking at what it would take to do that and what would be accomplished or gained, have you done a cost benefit analysis?

  14. #414
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    have you done a cost benefit analysis?
    I've seen enough simulations on an Israel strike. What I think people need to see now are simulations of Iran's retaliation. As discussed in this thread, Iran has many different options. Whether it's unleashing it's fury on the Strait of Hormuz, Israel, Coalition troops in Iraq or Afghanistan, or something on home soil, Iran has different options available. Don't get me wrong, it's very important to measure Israel's strike capabilities. However, I think we understand the idea and need to examine the retaliation part more closely. I think a cost benefit analysis should be included (in-depth).

  15. #415
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    or blowback (much less the possibility of their rebuilding sans occupation) and just looking at what it would take to do that and what would be accomplished or gained, have you done a cost benefit analysis?
    Lets look at it this way.

    What is the real risk if some Iranian nutcase gets to have access to nuclear devices?

  16. #416
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by huskerguy7 View Post
    I've seen enough simulations on an Israel strike. What I think people need to see now are simulations of Iran's retaliation. As discussed in this thread, Iran has many different options. Whether it's unleashing it's fury on the Strait of Hormuz, Israel, Coalition troops in Iraq or Afghanistan, or something on home soil, Iran has different options available. Don't get me wrong, it's very important to measure Israel's strike capabilities. However, I think we understand the idea and need to examine the retaliation part more closely. I think a cost benefit analysis should be included (in-depth).
    OK, may a suggest we view this something like this.

    If pre-emptive strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities take place what are the possible Iranian retaliatory actions?

    What are these options and what would be the most likely to damage the US or Israel?

    Its got to be a double whammy. Take these threat assets out at the same time as the nuke sites.

    Can the US, can Israel, can the world afford to have an itchy Iranian finger on a nuclear trigger?

  17. #417
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default I suspect about the same as if someone got hold

    Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
    What is the real risk if some Iranian nutcase gets to have access to nuclear devices?
    of a Pakistani, Russian, Israeli, British, French, US, Chinese or Indian nuke. Noting that all those nations also have nutcases and that a number of other nations are known to have the capability of developing their own nukes -- nations that also have nutcases in the population...

    That answer of yours, BTW, is not a cost benefit analysis, far from it. But, then, you knew that.
    If pre-emptive strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities take place what are the possible Iranian retaliatory actions?

    What are these options and what would be the most likely to damage the US or Israel?
    That's a very superficial start. Before you assess that, consider the attitudes of both US and Israeli voters; all the voters...

    You may also wish to add an assessment of the probability of success of those strikes -- and consideration of world reaction -- to that. In addition to Iraniha retaliation, consider the effect on world oil trade to any brouhaha in the Gulf and concomitant economic impacts. Then go from there...
    Its got to be a double whammy. Take these threat assets out at the same time as the nuke sites.
    Likelihood of success? Don't forget that Iran is three times as large and almost as rugged as Afghanistan and that it has more than double the population...
    Can the US, can Israel, can the world afford to have an itchy Iranian finger on a nuclear trigger?
    The Mullahs are nuts but they aren't stupid. Thus on a world aspect, I'm not particularly concerned. For Israel, they can take care of their own interests.

    My concern is US interests. We could possibly do what you suggest but I'm quite convinced the long term political fallout for us would be far from beneficial, I strongly doubt it would be in our interest to perform such an attack. That's not to say we would not, could not or will not depending on circumstances, merely that it's easy to suggest "The US must do something about this..." as so many who want something done they cannot do seem to wish -- then rant about how evil the US was / is for doing it. Easy to ask someone else to do a job but the guy who does it has a responsibility for the job, all ancillaries and effects thereunto pertaining and ideally he consider those factors in great detail before applying a knee jerk reaction. Particularly someone else's knee jerk...

    In any event, I'm inclined to be more worried about the prognosis for Africa than I am about Iranian nukes. Nutcase obtains and pops one, doing some damage somewhere in the west and Iran becomes a parking lot. Khameini and his successor aren't dumb. The Iranis were being devious and scheming in palaces while our ancestors were chasing wild pigs in the forests of Europe. Iranian nukes are more than likely and will be no big thing. Neither will those of the Saudis, the Turks or Brazilians.

  18. #418
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
    Its got to be a double whammy. Take these threat assets out at the same time as the nuke sites.
    The chance of success for completing this is slim, if not impossible. Knocking out Iran's reaction force is impossible because it's quite concealed. How do we know that there aren't Quds Force operatives in Mexico ready to infiltrate the US and cause damage? Are we even sure that we can prevent an Iranian blockade in the Strait of Hormuz (anyone remember General Paul van Riper's wargames)? You're overestimating US capabilities.

    It sounds good in theory, but it is not in the least bit practical.

  19. #419
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    of a Pakistani, Russian, Israeli, British, French, US, Chinese or Indian nuke. Noting that all those nations also have nutcases and that a number of other nations are known to have the capability of developing their own nukes -- nations that also have nutcases in the population...
    OK then let me rephrase that to read... no more nut cases!

    There is some progress in the direction of nuclear disarmament but there is still a long way to go. So I say again no more nuclear powers.

    That answer of yours, BTW, is not a cost benefit analysis, far from it. But, then, you knew that.That's a very superficial start. Before you assess that, consider the attitudes of both US and Israeli voters; all the voters...
    It has a cost benefit. To prevent the madmen in Iran and North Korea from obtaining nuclear weapons at any cost.

    You may also wish to add an assessment of the probability of success of those strikes -- and consideration of world reaction -- to that. In addition to Iraniha retaliation, consider the effect on world oil trade to any brouhaha in the Gulf and concomitant economic impacts. Then go from there... Likelihood of success? Don't forget that Iran is three times as large and almost as rugged as Afghanistan and that it has more than double the population...The Mullahs are nuts but they aren't stupid. Thus on a world aspect, I'm not particularly concerned. For Israel, they can take care of their own interests.
    Well start to prepare the world for it, make contingency plans, get the mad Mullahs under pressure till they crack... then do the business.

    Once the aim has been selected that (for starters) these two lunatic states are not going to be allowed to develop nuclear weapons then you do what you need to do to achieve that aim.

    Then one day allow a free and fair election to be held in Iran. Nice byproduct that will be!

    My concern is US interests. We could possibly do what you suggest but I'm quite convinced the long term political fallout for us would be far from beneficial, I strongly doubt it would be in our interest to perform such an attack. That's not to say we would not, could not or will not depending on circumstances, merely that it's easy to suggest "The US must do something about this..." as so many who want something done they cannot do seem to wish -- then rant about how evil the US was / is for doing it. Easy to ask someone else to do a job but the guy who does it has a responsibility for the job, all ancillaries and effects thereunto pertaining and ideally he consider those factors in great detail before applying a knee jerk reaction. Particularly someone else's knee jerk...
    The long term risk of nuclear fallout should be more of a concern to you than the medium term political fallout I suggest.

    Unlike Iraq the world will know why this was done and will at least privately be thankful. Surely you realise that if some lunatic starts to chuck nukes around the US in some shape or form will be on the receiving end?

    In any event, I'm inclined to be more worried about the prognosis for Africa than I am about Iranian nukes. Nutcase obtains and pops one, doing some damage somewhere in the west and Iran becomes a parking lot. Khameini and his successor aren't dumb. The Iranis were being devious and scheming in palaces while our ancestors were chasing wild pigs in the forests of Europe. Iranian nukes are more than likely and will be no big thing. Neither will those of the Saudis, the Turks or Brazilians.
    Not sure about that after seeing the response to the sinking of the (South) Korean warship. I see at least half the world screaming NEGOTIATE rather than retaliate. I'm not sure you need to drop a nuke on Iran. It is not the people who are the problem so why should they die?

    If this is handled properly there will be no need to think about how to retaliate because there will be no first strike (because neither Iran nor North Korea will have a nuke to toss at anyone).

  20. #420
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by huskerguy7 View Post
    The chance of success for completing this is slim, if not impossible. Knocking out Iran's reaction force is impossible because it's quite concealed. How do we know that there aren't Quds Force operatives in Mexico ready to infiltrate the US and cause damage? Are we even sure that we can prevent an Iranian blockade in the Strait of Hormuz (anyone remember General Paul van Riper's wargames)? You're overestimating US capabilities.

    It sounds good in theory, but it is not in the least bit practical.
    Well you are assuming that the strike needs to be against their nuclear facilities. I would suggest that what is needed is a demonstration of intent that Iran will not be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon.

    Start with a little "shock and awe" demonstration to make sure the regime knows you are serious (and make sure you don't kill civilians not involved in the nuclear programme nor upset the lives of the population at all).

    For example a precision strike on a full sitting of the Islamic Consultative Assembly might just send the right message (after giving them a fair opportunity to come clean on what they have been up to start to dismantle the programme).

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 39
    Last Post: 03-21-2014, 01:56 PM
  2. War is War is Clausewitz
    By Michael C in forum Futurists & Theorists
    Replies: 421
    Last Post: 07-25-2012, 12:41 PM
  3. Gurkha beheads Taliban...
    By Rifleman in forum OEF - Afghanistan
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 10-30-2010, 02:00 AM
  4. War is War
    By Michael C in forum Futurists & Theorists
    Replies: 101
    Last Post: 10-09-2010, 06:23 PM
  5. A Modest Proposal to Adjust the Principles of War
    By SWJED in forum Futurists & Theorists
    Replies: 126
    Last Post: 12-27-2007, 02:38 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •