Iran's manhattan project speeds ahead....

[Kanastrous]

Right now, Ahmedinijad insults us while developing nuclear weapons in open defiance.

You do know that Ahmedinijad isn't in the Iranian military decision-making chain of command, right? He's not a US-style Commander-in-Chief.

And, what's with this "insults us" nonsense? Who gives a crap whether or not somebody flaps their gums and "insults us?" What the fuck are we, Arabs?

[Phantasee]

Right now, Ahmedinijad insults us while developing nuclear weapons in open defiance.

You do know that Ahmedinijad isn't in the Iranian military decision-making chain of command, right? He's not a US-style Commander-in-Chief.

And, what's with this "insults us" nonsense? Who gives a crap whether or not somebody flaps their gums and "insults us?" What the fuck are we, Arabs?

From his posts, Ryan sounds like a little kid.

I don't doubt they're working on both. But I was answering the 'Nukes == MAD club?' question. I'm aware of the space launch. I'm curious how much the satellite masses; that's the important bit. If you can get it close enough to a warhead, then you're an ICBM power.

Even still, MAD requires rough parity. I'd assume the US' and Russian arsenals still would outgun them ridiculously.

Of course. But even a Hiroshima-level nuke landing in, say, Washington D.C. would be... unspeakably bad. It's the diplomatic value of such a threat that makes it unacceptable. They would be able to ask for, or rather, demand things that they could not before, and we would have to take them seriously. There would be no option to say the equivalent of "Uh, no, and fuck you," any more.

That, and they could do the same to us. It fucks with the balance of power in the Middle East as well.

So, remind me again of why nobody's air-struck the shit out of these facilities yet?

Besides the other reasons mentioned, because their facilities are hardened and dispersed and so forth precisely to make that difficult.

So we can't even cripple them?

A: Balance of power? Hey, remember the Europeans trying to maintain the balance of power in Europe, back in the 19th Century? Remember what happened when things changed, like they have a habit of doing as time passes? Yeah, it was World War One.

B: "Cripple them"? Are you completely retarded? Unless you're going to wipe out their warmaking ability, crippling them will just piss them off, and then there'll be no reasoning with them until either we back off, or until we wipe them out, which is, you know, what I said you have to do in the first place.

[Ryan Thunder]

Right now, Ahmedinijad insults us while developing nuclear weapons in open defiance.

You do know that Ahmedinijad isn't in the Iranian military decision-making chain of command, right? He's not a US-style Commander-in-Chief.

And, what's with this "insults us" nonsense? Who gives a crap whether or not somebody flaps their gums and "insults us?" What the fuck are we, Arabs?

If a guy starts yelling obscenities at you, publicly declares that he hates your guts and believes you are the greatest evil (and makes a point of doing so), and then buys a gun, what do you think he wants to do with it?

A: Balance of power? Hey, remember the Europeans trying to maintain the balance of power in Europe, back in the 19th Century? Remember what happened when things changed, like they have a habit of doing as time passes? Yeah, it was World War One.

Erm... this isn't like that in the slightest?

B: "Cripple them"? Are you completely retarded? Unless you're going to wipe out their warmaking ability, crippling them will just piss them off, and then there'll be no reasoning with them until either we back off, or until we wipe them out, which is, you know, what I said you have to do in the first place.

There's already no reasoning with them as it is, in case you hadn't noticed. So, nothing lost there.

[D.Turtle]

Ok, so from what I understand, Iran has a certain amount of low-enriched uranium, in other words - not usable for nukes before a lot more enrichment/work.

Whats the problem?

[Phantasee]

Ok, so from what I understand, Iran has a certain amount of low-enriched uranium, in other words - not usable for nukes before a lot more enrichment/work.

Whats the problem?

There is no problem, unless you're an Internet Tough Guy.

[Ryan Thunder]

Ok, so from what I understand, Iran has a certain amount of low-enriched uranium, in other words - not usable for nukes before a lot more enrichment/work.

Whats the problem?

*sigh*

A nation with known ties to active Islamic terrorist organizations is refining uranium (SEE: nuclear bombs) and launching satellites (SEE: ICBMs.) You don't see a problem with this?

[Vehrec]

B: "Cripple them"? Are you completely retarded? Unless you're going to wipe out their warmaking ability, crippling them will just piss them off, and then there'll be no reasoning with them until either we back off, or until we wipe them out, which is, you know, what I said you have to do in the first place.

There's already no reasoning with them as it is, in case you hadn't noticed. So, nothing lost there.

Well there is a reason for that. Iran needs to keep ratcheting up the external pressure on their nation to keep their disaffected population from making noise. Insulting the US and rattling sabers is a great way to increase the pressure on them and keep their people in line. If we were to suddenly treat them as friends and give them all great big hugs, they'd suddenly have to deal with their internal problems. So they can't adopt a position where it looks like there might be a safe and peaceful resolution until the last minute, because they have to keep that pressure on.

[Samuel]

If a guy starts yelling obscenities at you, publicly declares that he hates your guts and believes you are the greatest evil (and makes a point of doing so), and then buys a gun, what do you think he wants to do with it?

Except he doesn't run the country. That would be the job of the Supreme Leader.

A nation with known ties to active Islamic terrorist organizations is refining uranium (SEE: nuclear bombs) and launching satellites (SEE: ICBMs.) You don't see a problem with this?

The terrorist organization is dedicated to overthrowing Israel, not attacking the west. Lets not forget they fought a brutal war less than 3 decades ago- they really want to insure that doesn't happen again.

Don't forget- their economy is built on oil. We embargo and they dry up.

[Ryan Thunder]

If a guy starts yelling obscenities at you, publicly declares that he hates your guts and believes you are the greatest evil (and makes a point of doing so), and then buys a gun, what do you think he wants to do with it?

Except he doesn't run the country. That would be the job of the Supreme Leader.

Right, the religious nutbar. Great. That's an improvement.

What the fuck does Ahmedinijad do, then? Is he the Minister of Ingesting Feet or something?

A nation with known ties to active Islamic terrorist organizations is refining uranium (SEE: nuclear bombs) and launching satellites (SEE: ICBMs.) You don't see a problem with this?

The terrorist organization is dedicated to overthrowing Israel, not attacking the west. Lets not forget they fought a brutal war less than 3 decades ago- they really want to insure that doesn't happen again.

What, you think that makes it better somehow?

Don't forget- their economy is built on oil. We embargo and they dry up.

I thought it was the other way around? They (OPEC) raise the price to ludicrous levels, people starve due to lack of gas to run farming equipment and frieght trucks and other stuff that makes the Rapture-ReadyTM survivalists cream their pants?

[D.Turtle]

A nation with known ties to active Islamic terrorist organizations is refining uranium (SEE: nuclear bombs) and launching satellites (SEE: ICBMs.) You don't see a problem with this?

Not really.

Longer answer: They are a smaller threat than a certain other country known to have (and have used) nukes, shown extreme willingness in using its military in order to advance its agenda, have a large, extreme, influential, religious minority that is regularly threatening any and all people, groups and countries it sees as being in the way of assuring continued dominance of that same country. In fact, several members of that minority have carried out those threats.

The good thing is, that this extreme minority recently lost power. The bad thing is, that a second great depression is on the way. If this extreme religious minority (who by the way, actively want to hasten the Apocalypse) regains power because of this depression, Iran will be the least of anybody's problems.

[Rahvin]

If a guy starts yelling obscenities at you, publicly declares that he hates your guts and believes you are the greatest evil (and makes a point of doing so), and then buys a gun, what do you think he wants to do with it?

Perhaps he wants to defend himself against my aggression. Perhaps I should reassure him that I have no intention of taking overt offensive action against him, and that I only plan to retaliate with force if he initiates it.

A: Balance of power? Hey, remember the Europeans trying to maintain the balance of power in Europe, back in the 19th Century? Remember what happened when things changed, like they have a habit of doing as time passes? Yeah, it was World War One.

Erm... this isn't like that in the slightest?

How is it different? Be specific.

B: "Cripple them"? Are you completely retarded? Unless you're going to wipe out their warmaking ability, crippling them will just piss them off, and then there'll be no reasoning with them until either we back off, or until we wipe them out, which is, you know, what I said you have to do in the first place.

There's already no reasoning with them as it is, in case you hadn't noticed. So, nothing lost there.

Really? I thought we hadn't actually been engaged in any sort of diplomatic negotiations with Iran, either, that we had refused to even sit at the table with them unless they stopped their Uranium enrichment programs. Doesn;t that mean that we, also, were in fact unreasonable considering we refused to reason with Iran?

You seem to think it's possible to strike at Iran with military force and destroy their ability to manufacture nuclear material without significant consequence. It's already been pointed out to you why military force is not much of an option - between Iran's ability to disrupt Middle-East shipping lanes, their close proximity to Israel, and the local public support advantage Iran has over the US, it would not be prudent to engage in a preemptive strike against Iranian nuclear capability.

Further, Iran knows full well the consequences of attacking the US with nuclear weapons. It would arguably go better for them if they simply sponsored mass bombings of the conventional variety, as the US would be unlikely to respond with our own nuclear arsenal for less than a nuclear attack. But should a nuclear weapon of Iranian origin be detonated in teh US or against one of our bases or allies, Iran can expect to see all of its major governmental and military centers turned to radioactive glass in short order . It's not "mutually assured destruction" - it's "if you hurt us, we will annihilate you utterly."

[Mr Bean]

Let me be blunt with you Ryan.
Your view of the world is amazing not only for its lack of depth, but also its narrow view.

For your information I will now sum up the Iranian problem as a military issue. I'm sure Sheppard or Sea-Skimmer will be along shortly to provide us with open-source satellite imagery of the facilities.

Iran at present has a sizeable air force. A large, decently trained land army which varies from well equipped to mob with AK's. But make no mistake there are full EU quality divisions which are well lead in the Iranian Guard. Along with its conventional military it has heaps of missiles, artillery and more. Not to Soviet scale but enough to do the job. Which is to shut down the Gulf and if they feel seriously threatened go full bore and shut down the oil-trade. We talk every few months about the debilitating effects of a Peak Oil scenario and how Oil consumption will exceed demand. We might be at 5$ US for a galleon of gas were it not for the collapse of the US economy. Were things better off now you'd be seeing a much tighter supply. It's still tight now and Iran has the ability if threaten sufficiently to destroy or damage enough Middle-East pipelines and shipping facilities and refineries to throw oil through the roof again. The last estimate I heard out of Global Security that a dedicated Iranian effort could temporarily (A year to two years) disrupt oil production to a degree as to throw world economies into massive dive as a good third of all oil production ceases to get to market or out-right ceases if they attack the oil platforms rather than the transship points and pipelines and refineries.

And then there's also the option of mining the Gulf which will have a lesser but more long-term affect as we have to pay money to have those mines removed or detonated in place and we have to sweep the hell out of the Gulf. Iraq might have had a totally different out-come if the Iraqi forces Air force did not consist of "useful only for scrap" planes but instead consisted of modern fighters and bombers as Iran's air force does. It will come to that, trust me if we go to war with Iran. It will not be a cake-walk and while eventually control of the air is assured we might lose quite a few planes doing it. We sure as hell will lose soldiers taking the ground as Iran has not sat ignorant while we campaigned in Iraq but redefined it's defense plans to play to our current force structures weakens. In any conventional campaign you might see towns given up with only a token defense only for incoming US soldiers to find every square inch covered with IED's, booby traps and other nasty surprises as the Russians see in Chechnya from time to time

[Kanastrous]

I think you may be overestimating IRIAF capabilities. They have done an impressive job of cannibalizing and hook-and-crooking to keep some old Palahvi-era US aircraft in the air, plus some remanufacturing capacity, plus the very beginnings of a useful domestic military aircraft industry, plus the second- or third-tier aircraft they've acquired from China and Iraq. But 'modern' fighters and bombers? Only in the broadest sense of the term.

That 2007 Rosoboronexport deal for advanced aircraft fell through, didn't it? Which doesn't leave the IRIAF much to brag about.

[Mr Bean]

I think you may be overestimating IRIAF capabilities. They have done an impressive job of cannibalizing and hook-and-crooking to keep some old Palahvi-era US aircraft in the air, plus some remanufacturing capacity, plus the very beginnings of a useful domestic military aircraft industry, plus the second- or third-tier aircraft they've acquired from China and Iraq. But 'modern' fighters and bombers? Only in the broadest sense of the term.

That 2007 Rosoboronexport deal for advanced aircraft fell through, didn't it? Which doesn't leave the IRIAF much to brag about.

They still have a decent sized air force even if only a third of it can fight on any sort of semi-equivalent playing field with modern American planes. Clancy-esk wanking aside they do have enough ground launchers and are looking to acquire S-300's to thicken their air-defenses to the point that you can’t fight one without engaging the other. And even obsolete planes can get kills when being engaged by ground and air threats which are not so obsolete.

Again others can speak more accurately on the air-threat the Iranians pose but I can tell you for sure that regardless of the ground forces we face the same issue we faced in Iraq with Iran except guess what? We are still in Iraq! And there are plenty of pro-Iran fighters who will turn up the insurgency to full steam the instant we make a move on Iran. Worse the two most powerful Iraqi political groups have senior figures fly into Iran for "consultations" all the time.

The EU won't support it, the Russians and Chinese sure as hell won't. Even our puppet government in Iraq might full well rebel given their close Iranian ties if we struck them militarily. Even if the Iranian air force is a paper-tiger and its military might just a glass army which will shatter at the first blow you still have the political situation to consider and it makes the military situation look bright.

[Kanastrous]

I doubt even 1/3 of the IRIAF can fight at even a semi-equivalent level against the USAF. They're still flying old-production-block F-4s and F-14s. It's true that Iranian air-defense assets are qualitatively better than their aircraft; I was thinking about their actual air combat capability.

Agreed that the political dimension and Iran's unconventional warfare potential leaves military action a very undesirable option (or non-option). I just disagreed with the particular value of their air force, as part of the picture.

[Mayabird]

Don't forget- their economy is built on oil. We embargo and they dry up.

I thought it was the other way around? They (OPEC) raise the price to ludicrous levels, people starve due to lack of gas to run farming equipment and frieght trucks and other stuff that makes the Rapture-ReadyTM survivalists cream their pants?

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but my recollection was that the oil embargo couldn't have lasted any longer than it did because all the oil-producing countries involved were ready to go tits up from lack of money. The U.S. might have been suffering, but they were ready to collapse. They cannot survive at all without the oil money coming it. It would completely suck for us but unless we're all a pack of utter morons* we'll probably survive.


* I may assume too much.

[Elfdart]

Ok, so from what I understand, Iran has a certain amount of low-enriched uranium, in other words - not usable for nukes before a lot more enrichment/work.

Whats the problem?

*sigh*

A nation with known ties to active Islamic terrorist organizations is refining uranium (SEE: nuclear bombs) and launching satellites (SEE: ICBMs.) You don't see a problem with this?

There's a large country in North America with ties to active terrorist organizations, has already built and actually used atomic weapons, and has the means to obliterate every major city on Earth right now. The country in question has also flouted international law. Maybe we should bomb them too -right?

You are one dumb twat.

[sketerpot]

If Iran wants to scare people with nukes, they really just need highly enriched uranium and enough engineers to make a basic gun-type bomb like the one we dropped on Hiroshima. Plutonium and tricky implosion-type designs only come into the picture if they want to make a bunch of nukes, or larger ones.

If I were in charge of Iran, I would try to get a small handful of simple nukes built fast, and demonstrate one, then talk about my deep commitment to peace. Once you have a few nuclear weapons, no matter how small, you've "got nukes". Once you have the psychological advantage of having (a paltry amount of) nukes, other countries will think twice before bombing your enrichment facilities.

Or it would provoke other countries into attacking immediately. Who knows?

[Ace Pace]

If Iran wants to scare people with nukes, they really just need highly enriched uranium and enough engineers to make a basic gun-type bomb like the one we dropped on Hiroshima. Plutonium and tricky implosion-type designs only come into the picture if they want to make a bunch of nukes, or larger ones.

If I were in charge of Iran, I would try to get a small handful of simple nukes built fast, and demonstrate one, then talk about my deep commitment to peace. Once you have a few nuclear weapons, no matter how small, you've "got nukes". Once you have the psychological advantage of having (a paltry amount of) nukes, other countries will think twice before bombing your enrichment facilities.

Or it would provoke other countries into attacking immediately. Who knows?

Or maybe...Hiroshima sized nukes are not exactly warhead quality and therfor couldn't actually threaten anyone? They need something that fits their IRBMs.
Just a small nitpick.

[Covenant]

Diplomacy should never be considered a "less effective" option. But you're assuming that Iran wants to hit Europe or North America, and that's a dangerous assumption. Iran is not only engaged in a pissing match against the West, but has plenty of purely political reasons to flaunt their newfound power against other Arab states and try to get them to follow the Iranian's lead. Remember all those Iran/Iraq wars? We've gutted Iraq and most of Afghanistan, so there's a definite power gap in the region, and it would be silly to think that these nations have stopped being interested in regional power just because we suck.

While they have no plutonium fuel cycle, and claiming they do is just fear mongering, a bigass ugly gun-type nuke could be built so as to fit inside of a truck or a cargo plane, and that is all the delivery vehicle you need in order to set off a weapon inside a major city somewhere in that region. Could be Israel, or someone else. Could be deployed defensively against US attack as an aircraft-carrier deterrant in the gulf.

So it's really not that they're going to bomb New York, but that they would become the dominant Arab power in the gulf region bar none, and bragging rights have been very important to rallying support in that region, same as anywhere. They could even deploy their sea mines to stop other oil exporters from shipping without Iranian approval, and use their nuclear capacity to stave off retaliatory strikes. The Iranians have tried for quite some time to improve relations and their position of power within the Arab states in the region, and having a legitimate nuclear capacity makes them an even bigger deal in the region, especially because Arab/Israeli tensions are as bad as ever. Seeing as their neighbors in Pakistan have nukes, I can't imagine Iran feels like the US can stop an Iranian program. Even if it never hurts the West directly, a massive imbalance of power from a self-contained enrichment cycle would turn the Middle East into an even bigger mess.

[sketerpot]

Or maybe...Hiroshima sized nukes are not exactly warhead quality and therfor couldn't actually threaten anyone? They need something that fits their IRBMs.
Just a small nitpick.

I realize that, but what percentage of the general populace does? In America, at least, public opinion holds a lot of sway -- and the public is terrified of anything with the word "nuclear" in it, especially nuclear bombs.

[xerex]

Remember all those Iran/Iraq wars?

actually I only remember the ONE started by IRAQ. Where there others ?

So it's really not that they're going to bomb New York, but that they would become the dominant Arab power in the gulf region

incidentally iran is Persian , NOT ARAB. Not to mention Shia not Sunni.

Iran's influence is actually quite limited. The Iraq shia want good relations but dont like following thier non arab neighbour. You might have noticed they didnt rise up agianst Saddam during the Iran -Iraq war .

Hezbolah and Hamas take Iranian support becuase quite frankly noone else gives a crap about them.

additonaly whatever else you think , the Iranian leadership is not suicidal. otherwise they would have attacked israel already. and they know in a nuclear conflict US nukes will be deployed in defence of Israel ---iran gets wiped out.

[Ace Pace]

I realize that, but what percentage of the general populace does? In America, at least, public opinion holds a lot of sway -- and the public is terrified of anything with the word "nuclear" in it, especially nuclear bombs.

In Israel? Who knows. The average Israeli retard knows a bit more weapons and delivery than the average American, but is just as prone to hysteria as anybody else.

[Sea Skimmer]

I doubt even 1/3 of the IRIAF can fight at even a semi-equivalent level against the USAF. They're still flying old-production-block F-4s and F-14s. It's true that Iranian air-defense assets are qualitatively better than their aircraft; I was thinking about their actual air combat capability.

Agreed that the political dimension and Iran's unconventional warfare potential leaves military action a very undesirable option (or non-option). I just disagreed with the particular value of their air force, as part of the picture.

Relative to the US, Iraq in 1991 had a much more modern air force then Iran in 2009. In fact even 1991 USAF vs. 2009 Iran still looks pretty awful. The Iranian air force is totally obsolescent, and mostly very obsolete. The most modern plane they have is a Fulcrum-A… and not even many of those. They have about 250 jet combat aircraft total. Iran does not have an integrated air defence system and only has a very limited stock of modern SAMs. So all they can really do is provide point defence to a limited number of key facilities.

Iran’s religious leaders do not like the regular military, not one bit, so it has gotten little funding for new equipment since 1988. Plus they have to find money to pay for their personal goon squad Revolutionary Guards, and to fund development of ballistic missiles for them to man, and nuclear warheads to arm them, out of a defence budget that’s only about 7-8 billion dollars a year.

[Covenant]

Remember all those Iran/Iraq wars?

actually I only remember the ONE started by IRAQ. Where there others ?

I was including the wars of antiquity, as you help me point out mention by pointing out that they call themselves Persians and not Arabs, the Iranians and others do have long memories. The most recent one went on for more than a decade, and relations only simmered back down because the US beat the shit out of Iraq.

Plus, who the fuck cares who started it? I wasn't calling Iran badguys simply because they've been in a war. What are you, some kind of Iranian nationalist with bruised ego? I'm assuming you're just a history buff, but people over there really need to get over things. People shouldn't still be throwing fits about al-Qādisiyyah in 1980.

incidentally iran is Persian , NOT ARAB. Not to mention Shia not Sunni.

These should be meaningless distincitons nowadays, but the Persian/Arab thing is still true. As for the Sunni/Shia divide, I see you're ignoring ethnic Kurds and Baloch peoples who are Sunni's and not Shia, and live in a wide area of the western and eastern border regions. It's not like they're homogenous.

Iran's influence is actually quite limited. The Iraq shia want good relations but dont like following thier non arab neighbour. You might have noticed they didnt rise up agianst Saddam during the Iran -Iraq war .

Hezbolah and Hamas take Iranian support becuase quite frankly noone else gives a crap about them.

additonaly whatever else you think , the Iranian leadership is not suicidal. otherwise they would have attacked israel already. and they know in a nuclear conflict US nukes will be deployed in defence of Israel ---iran gets wiped out.

I think you're also overestimating NATO's interest in dropping a massive plume of radioactive sand into China's backyard. Who says we'd fire nukes back at Iran? We don't need carpet nuking to level them, and we certainly don't need to level them if they already shot their nuclear wad and don't have anything else of a big scale left.

You're also underestimating Iran's ability to influence politics in the gulf, and their interest in increasing said influence. Certainly going from "actually quite limited" to "capable of unleashing intermediate range nuclear annihilation" would be an improvement. While none of the regional powers there are actively seeking creative ways to get themselves destroyed, the ability to perform an act of retarded suicidal violence is a useful bargaining chip long before such violence is actually necessary. But no matter what, a nuclear Iran is much stronger than a non-nuclear Iran, and we don't need another crazyass movement going on over there until things settle down.