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

[Entropy]

I appeal to you to maintain some emotional discipline.

It's not emotion but frustration with your fallacious reasoning. For example:

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?

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."

As for "defeatist" statements, that is an ideological accusation, not one based on evidence or analysis.

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?

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.

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.

If you are going to get involved with unemotional contingency planning you need to get beyond prayer and unsubstantiated assumptions. (Seriously)

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.

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.

[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."

The aim I have thrown around here is merely my opinion and my belief. Nothing that I have said constitutes the kind of comprehensive yet precise aim require for a planning cycle to proceed.

You should have known that. And I must share with you that your harping on about invasions and air strikes is quite ridiculous as you are and have not been privy to the contingency planning that has and continues to take place in the Pentagon. Remember the US's weakness does not lie in the Pentagon but in the White House and in Congress. The Pentagon planners if allowed to do the job will do it according to the supplied aim and it attendant limitations. What we will also not know is what the final aim settled upon by the White House will be. It may be some watered down half ass'd wake up call rather than a "getting right up their nose" effort. Will we ever know?

As for "defeatist" statements, that is an ideological accusation, not one based on evidence or analysis.

That is aimed at those of you who for reasons you seem unwilling to share don't want a strike at any cost or maybe want Iran to obtain nuclear weapons and resort to pulling stuff out of the air like "an air strike will never work". Why not just come clean and say outright what your motive is?

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.

Again this is just talk. No substantiation. As I understand it the Israeli strike did set the Iraqi nuclear programme substantially and I suggest that if the Gulf War had not gone ahead you may well have seen another strike by Israel.

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.

That's your opinion and you are entitled to it.

I however, have faith in the Israeli ability to deal with matters of such gravity which affect their very existence. I'll go with them if its all the same to you.

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.

And your point is?

Difficult as it may be if the Pentagon is tasked to prevent/disrupt/destroy the programme they will come up with an effective plan. There is no question of that.

What are you trying to say? That it is just not possible to prevent Iran developing nuclear weapons?

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.

Yes, the IAEA doesn't know the half of it.

So why speculate about something you can't verify? It they are in fact doing all this hide and seek stuff then perhaps it is necessary to take a stronger position against this lunatic regime who is hell bent on make the Dr Strangelove nightmare a reality.

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.

You have got air strikes on the brain. Well hopefully the intelligence community will be able to provide the Pentagon planners with better intel this time. The aim may well be to deal with what they know as they get to know it . Who knows what the aim of the intervention will be?

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.

Unlike so others around here I lay no claim to omniscience. I am not privy to the detail that would be available to the planners therefore to offer a plan based on nothing would be about as ridiculous as those who claim loudly that this or that won't work based on the same foundation... nothing. I don't intend to make a fool of myself. I'll lead that honour to others.

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.

Yes better to cut and run.

But do consider coming back when you are prepared to explain your real motivation about not wanting to prevent Iran developing nuclear weapons.

[Entropy]

But do consider coming back when you are prepared to explain your real motivation about not wanting to prevent Iran developing nuclear weapons.

Yes, that is the argument of an ideologue. Not much point in attempting debate on the merits.

[Rex Brynen]

Yes, that is the argument of an ideologue. Not much point in attempting debate on the merits.

I concur. I think we're best to let this thread rest a bit until we once more get back to the point where people have new, substantive contributions to make.

[outletclock]

this doesn't violate the cooling off period. If otherwise, naturally, feel free to delete.

Thanks
OC

http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/...ec.2007.31.4.7

[outletclock]

I saw this, originally, I think, on Pat Lang's site:

http://csis.org/files/media/csis/pub...strikeiran.pdf

Thanks
OC

[JMA]

Yes, that is the argument of an ideologue. Not much point in attempting debate on the merits.

The merits of what?

I am presenting a personal opinion in that I believe that Iran should be prevented from developing nuclear weapons at all costs.

I further do not believe that the Israeli will consider having to first absorb a nuclear first strike before being able to deal with this threat a sane approach to an Iranian nuclear threat.

I do not accept that the proposition that a strike by Israel and/or the US cannot succeed in disrupting and/or preventing the development of nuclear weapons by Iran.

I (personally) cannot support a policy of appeasement which will lead to more countries developing nuclear weapons and thereby increasing the risk of a future nuclear conflict.

[Jedburgh]

This thread has reached the end of useful discussion and is well into a descent into personality conflict. It is now locked.

To the bickering parties: Do not start a new thread to carry on your personal animosities. Take it to PM or e-mail.