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

[Dayuhan]

Now you do understand that for the military contingency planners everything remains "on-the-table" don't you?

Everything is not on the table. We're not going to go nuclear and we're not going to invade. We know it and the Iranians know it.

Your opinion seems to be that Israel is expendable. Further that a disruption to Middle Eastern oil supplies to the US of around 2.5-3 million barrels per day would not affect the US nor be in its interests to secure. Interesting train of thought.

An alternative opinion might be that a nuclear-armed Iran could be contained in the same way that the nuclear-armed Soviet Union was contained, or China, or North Korea... by the assurance that first use of the weapon would result in absolute destruction. It's worked before.

Given the Israeli capacity for retaliation and the lack of any possible gain to Iran even if a strike on Israel were successful, an attack on Israel doesn't seem a likely eventuality.

I'm an ex-Navy Air Force guy who has participated in real-world contingency planning. I know the process. What I am saying is that air strikes aren't going to get you there. We can wreck a lot of things in Iran with air power - we can pretty much destroy their air force, navy, air defense and economy, but the idea that air power can take out Iran's nuclear program is wishful thinking. Air strikes won't get you there - all they'll do is degrade Iran's capabilities. This isn't Entropy's classified assessment or Entropy blowing smoke or Entropy lacking the cajones. The Chairman of the Joint Chief's has publicly said the same thing, the SECDEF too, as have numerous military experts on the topic and others who are in positions to know.

Thank you; I hope that is clear enough to settle that issue.

[JMA]

Everything is not on the table. We're not going to go nuclear and we're not going to invade. We know it and the Iranians know it.

Six months before the invasion of Iraq I remember the pundits and analysts saying that there would be no invasion. A lot can happen in six months. A lot can happen in three months.

I certainly hope it does not come to either but I can guarantee you that there are plans for both right there on the shelf.

But how do you know with such certainly that they are both off the table?

An alternative opinion might be that a nuclear-armed Iran could be contained in the same way that the nuclear-armed Soviet Union was contained, or China, or North Korea... by the assurance that first use of the weapon would result in absolute destruction. It's worked before.

Yes there are a lot of people saying a lot of things (some even get paid for it). I'm not sure of the use of the word contained here.

Perhaps Israel would take the view that they have too much too lose from being on the receiving end of a first strike even if they could get off a second strike in reply. Where the potential opponent already has a nuke then there is no alternative. But where there is the possibility to prevent a potential opponent from obtaining nuclear weapons in the first place one would be absolutely incompetent not to.

Given the Israeli capacity for retaliation and the lack of any possible gain to Iran even if a strike on Israel were successful, an attack on Israel doesn't seem a likely eventuality.

After having been on the receiving end of a first strike (the aim of which would be to inflict maximum damage and to neutralise or minimise any second strike capability) there would not be much of Israel left.

Thank you; I hope that is clear enough to settle that issue.

Nowhere near. You need to apply your mind in a more disciplined manner. Try to be more formal in your approach.

I think you have run out of steam on this one so why not consider why an effort was not made to "buy" the Pakistan nuclear capacity in return for the billions in aid needed after the recent floods? Another chance let slip by these 'smart' guys in the White House and State Department?

[slapout9]

Link to BBC interview of President Carter on the rise of Iran.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7889893.stm

[JMA]

Link to BBC interview of President Carter on the rise of Iran.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7889893.stm

One needs to be a little careful about taking anything Carter says seriously.

[Rex Brynen]

I think you have run out of steam on this one so why not consider why an effort was not made to "buy" the Pakistan nuclear capacity in return for the billions in aid needed after the recent floods? Another chance let slip by these 'smart' guys in the White House and State Department?

Probably the same reason China didn't offer to buy the US nuclear deterrent after Katrina