It was, as you'll see, a comment on the previous post.Originally Posted by JMA
Israel
The Palestinians
Two States
Neither, some other State or people rule.
Neither, mutual destruction.
One State, two peoples
One State, one people (intermarriage)
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.
- university webpage: McGill University
- conflict simulations webpage: PaxSims
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.
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?
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.
The shortsightedness is due to the 535 Imperial Legates
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!!!
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.
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.
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."
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.
... and absolutely no chance of success if everyone just sits on their hands.
Perhaps...
Define success.
In this case it would be the complete destruction of the physical nuclear weapons infrastructure in Iran.
Ah. I see. Without considering things like fallout
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?
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).
Lets look at it this way.
What is the real risk if some Iranian nutcase gets to have access to nuclear devices?
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?
I suspect about the same as if someone got hold
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.That's a very superficial start. Before you assess that, consider the attitudes of both US and Israeli voters; all the voters...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?
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...Its got to be a double whammy. Take these threat assets out at the same time as the nuke sites.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.Can the US, can Israel, can the world afford to have an itchy Iranian finger on a nuclear trigger?
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.
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.
OK then let me rephrase that to read... no more nut cases!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...
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.
It has a cost benefit. To prevent the madmen in Iran and North Korea from obtaining nuclear weapons at any cost.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...
Well start to prepare the world for it, make contingency plans, get the mad Mullahs under pressure till they crack... then do the business.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.
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!
The long term risk of nuclear fallout should be more of a concern to you than the medium term political fallout I suggest.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...
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?
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?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.
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).
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).
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks