It's not emotion but frustration with your fallacious reasoning. For example:Originally Posted by JMA
I've made the aim quite clear several times - destruction of the Iranian nuclear program. You've given a similar aim - prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons, though you added "at all costs."You will not be able to ascertain what air power will or will not be able to achieve unless you have knowledge of the aim. On what aim (with what limitations) do you base these defeatist statements on?
As for "defeatist" statements, that is an ideological accusation, not one based on evidence or analysis.
As I noted before, the Israeli attack on Iraq precipitated Iraq's weapons program - it did not prevent it. If not for the Gulf War, Saddam would have had nukes.Like with the other guy maybe you missed that the Israelis have done something twice before (1981 - Iraq, 2007 - Syria). Now what makes you think they will do nothing this time around?
Secondly, Israel didn't spend half a decade issuing public threats before those strikes took place. Israel's constant threats in the case of Iran ruined the opportunity for strategic surprise and, consequently, tactical surprise will be much more difficult to achieve. They've also given Iran plenty of time to hide it's important capabilities to allow reconstitution and prepare responses. If Israel thought it could achieve any lasting positive effect from air strikes, it would have done them long ago. As it stands, as time goes on, the case for air strikes becomes weaker and weaker.
Third, there is a substantial difference in nuclear technology. Countries pursuing a plutonium track (like Syria) require a nuclear reactor. That is the single "node" that will effectively disable that track to nuclear weapons. There is no such node in the uranium enrichment track. You really want to get the centrifuges and their manufacturing facilities, but centrifuges are small enough that they can be hidden anywhere.
If you've read the IAEA reports on Iran recently, you'll notice Iran hasn't installed any new centrifuges at Natanz for well over a year. The IAEA doesn't have access to the manufacturing facilities, so it's completely possible Iran is still manufacturing centrifuges and is either putting them in storage or into a hidden facility.
And this demonstrates the problem with air strikes. Unlike Syria and Osirak, there isn't a single, large fixed structure that will disable the program. The key parts of Iran's program could be hidden anywhere, and then their is the knowledge and industrial capacity to make centrifuges - two things that are very difficult to destroy with airstrikes. It is not a question of adequate military force, but a question of adequate intelligence. How well do you think Israel and/or the US can track thousands of small tubes? As I noted before, the intelligence on Iraq's program during the Gulf War turned out to be very bad as we only knew of 2 nuclear sites when there were actually 20. Key components of a uranium enrichment program are, unfortunately, very easy to hide. The belief that our intelligence is good enough to allow airstrikes to take out all the necessary nodes to set the program back by a decade or two is not supported by the historical record or a reasonable analysis of the intelligence problem.
This coming from the guy who claims it can be done without ever stating how. No wait, you did say "shock and awe" and intimidation would do the trick and you said we should bomb the Iranian parliament while it was in session. Those are two suggestions that I regard as completely unserious. If anyone here is engaging in faith-based planning it is you. Even worse is that in the face of disagreement with you on these and other points, your response are accusations of defeatism, cowardice, etc. All that does is confirm to me your case is rather weak.If you are going to get involved with unemotional contingency planning you need to get beyond prayer and unsubstantiated assumptions. (Seriously)
What to do about Iran's nuclear program is a topic worthy of debate. However, I'm finished discussing this with you since you ignore substantive points in favor of ideological and, IMO, inflammatory accusations. So feel free to have the last word - I happy to let my arguments stand on their own.
Bookmarks