US rattling the saber

N&P: Discuss governments, nations, politics and recent related news here.

Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital

Post Reply
User avatar
Quetzalcoatl
Youngling
Posts: 134
Joined: 2008-09-09 03:07pm
Location: Tenōchtitlan

US rattling the saber

Post by Quetzalcoatl »

Source: http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/worl ... -1.1013151
Final destination Iran?

Exclusive: Rob Edwards
0 comments

Published on 14 Mar 2010

Hundreds of powerful US “bunker-buster” bombs are being shipped from California to the British island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean in preparation for a possible attack on Iran.

The Sunday Herald can reveal that the US government signed a contract in January to transport 10 ammunition containers to the island. According to a cargo manifest from the US navy, this included 387 “Blu” bombs used for blasting hardened or underground structures.

Experts say that they are being put in place for an assault on Iran’s controversial nuclear facilities. There has long been speculation that the US military is preparing for such an attack, should diplomacy fail to persuade Iran not to make nuclear weapons.

Although Diego Garcia is part of the British Indian Ocean Territory, it is used by the US as a military base under an agreement made in 1971. The agreement led to 2,000 native islanders being forcibly evicted to the Seychelles and Mauritius.

The Sunday Herald reported in 2007 that stealth bomber hangers on the island were being equipped to take bunker-buster bombs.

They are gearing up totally for the destruction of Iran

Dan Plesch, director, Centre for International Studies and Diplomacy, University of London

Although the story was not confirmed at the time, the new evidence suggests that it was accurate.

Contract details for the shipment to Diego Garcia were posted on an international tenders’ website by the US navy.

A shipping company based in Florida, Superior Maritime Services, will be paid $699,500 to carry many thousands of military items from Concord, California, to Diego Garcia.

Crucially, the cargo includes 195 smart, guided, Blu-110 bombs and 192 massive 2000lb Blu-117 bombs.

“They are gearing up totally for the destruction of Iran,” said Dan Plesch, director of the Centre for International Studies and Diplomacy at the University of London, co-author of a recent study on US preparations for an attack on Iran. “US bombers are ready today to destroy 10,000 targets in Iran in a few hours,” he added.

The preparations were being made by the US military, but it would be up to President Obama to make the final decision. He may decide that it would be better for the US to act instead of Israel, Plesch argued.

“The US is not publicising the scale of these preparations to deter Iran, tending to make confrontation more likely,” he added. “The US ... is using its forces as part of an overall strategy of shaping Iran’s actions.”

According to Ian Davis, director of the new independent thinktank, Nato Watch, the shipment to Diego Garcia is a major concern. “We would urge the US to clarify its intentions for these weapons, and the Foreign Office to clarify its attitude to the use of Diego Garcia for an attack on Iran,” he said.

For Alan Mackinnon, chair of Scottish CND, the revelation was “extremely worrying”. He stated: “It is clear that the US government continues to beat the drums of war over Iran, most recently in the statements of Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton.

“It is depressingly similar to the rhetoric we heard prior to the war in Iraq in 2003.”

The British Ministry of Defence has said in the past that the US government would need permission to use Diego Garcia for offensive action. It has already been used for strikes against Iraq during the 1991 and 2003 Gulf wars.

About 50 British military staff are stationed on the island, with more than 3,200 US personnel. Part of the Chagos Archipelago, it lies about 1,000 miles from the southern coasts of India and Sri Lanka, well placed for missions to Iran.

The US Department of Defence did not respond to a request for a comment.
One of the Blogs I read weighs in: http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/35620
The internet is buzzing about this report on heraldscotland.com, where we find that large, "bunker buster" bombs are being shipped from Concord, California to a base on the island of Diego Garcia. The report claims the bombs are intended for immediate use in an attack on Iran. An alternate explanation would be that the bombs are meant to increase pressure on Iran to prevent enrichment of uranium to weapons grade.

Here is how the article opens:

Hundreds of powerful US “bunker-buster” bombs are being shipped from California to the British island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean in preparation for a possible attack on Iran.

The Sunday Herald can reveal that the US government signed a contract in January to transport 10 ammunition containers to the island. According to a cargo manifest from the US navy, this included 387 “Blu” bombs used for blasting hardened or underground structures.

The article is receiving a lot of attention because of this quote it contains:

“They are gearing up totally for the destruction of Iran,” said Dan Plesch, director of the Centre for International Studies and Diplomacy at the University of London, co-author of a recent study on US preparations for an attack on Iran. “US bombers are ready today to destroy 10,000 targets in Iran in a few hours,” he added.

The key portions of the cargo are 195 Blu-110 bombs (at 1000 pounds each) and 192 of the even larger, 2000 pound Blu-117 bombs, as seen in the Navy photo above.

Although I’ve seen unconfirmed rumors that the bombs arrived at Diego Garcia yesterday, note that the shipping contract was signed in January. Shipping our largest existing bunker busters in January fits with this article from the New York Times and this report from Reuters.

First, the Times article (from January), which deals mostly with an explanation that Iran has engaged in hiding its nuclear facilities underground, but has this very interesting statement almost in passing:

Now, with the passing of President Obama’s year-end deadline for diplomatic progress, that cloak of invisibility has emerged as something of a stealth weapon, complicating the West’s military and geopolitical calculus.

Couple the passing of Obama’s diplomatic deadline with this Reuters report from December on our development of even larger bunker buster bombs:

A "bunker buster" bomb with more than 10 times the explosive power of its predecessor will be put into service by the United States next December, six months later than previously scheduled, the U.S. Defense Department told Reuters on Friday.

Here is how Reuters previously characterized the new bomb:

The Pentagon is seeking to speed deployment of an ultra-large "bunker-buster" bomb on the most advanced U.S. bomber as soon as July 2010, the Air Force said on Sunday, amid concerns over perceived nuclear threats from North Korea and Iran.

The non-nuclear, 30,000-pound Massive Ordnance Penetrator, or MOP, which is still being tested, is designed to destroy deeply buried bunkers beyond the reach of existing bombs.

/snip/

Carrying more than 5,300 pounds of explosives. it would deliver more than 10 times the explosive power of its predecessor, the 2,000-pound BLU-109, according to the Pentagon’s Defense Threat Reduction Agency, which has funded and managed the seed program.

So, with Obama’s diplomacy deadline passing and the deployment date for the MOP delayed for almost a year past that deadline, it would make sense for him to put into place the current largest ordnance designed for underground targets.

Getting back to the Times article, we see the difficulties brought about from the Iranian facilities being underground:

“It complicates your targeting,” said Richard L. Russell, a former Central Intelligence Agency analyst now at the National Defense University. “We’re used to facilities being above ground. Underground, it becomes literally a black hole. You can’t be sure what’s taking place.”

Even the Israelis concede that solid rock can render bombs useless. Late last month, the Israeli defense minister, Ehud Barak, told Parliament that the Qum plant was “located in bunkers that cannot be destroyed through a conventional attack.”

Heavily mountainous Iran has a long history of tunneling toward civilian as well as military ends, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has played a recurring role — first as a transportation engineer and founder of the Iranian Tunneling Association and now as the nation’s president.

There are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of big tunnels in Iran, according to American government and private experts, and the lines separating their uses can be fuzzy. Companies owned by the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps of Iran, for example, build civilian as well as military tunnels.

For a full appreciation of the folly of this very expensive cat and mouse game, where Iran is building multiple facilities buried deeper and deeper underground, while the US develops larger and larger bombs designed to reach ever deeper targets, one needs to see just how far away from a nuclear weapon Iran’s technology is today (caution, FoxNews link):

The internal International Atomic Energy Agency document was significant in being the first glimpse at Iran’s plan to enrich uranium to 20 percent that did not rely on statements from Iranian officials.

Iran says it wants to enrich only up to that grade — substantially below the 90 percent plus level used in the fissile core of nuclear warheads — as a part of a plan to fuel its research reactor that provides medical isotopes to hundreds of thousands of Iranians undergoing cancer treatment.

That report, of only a small amount of uranium being enriched to 20% (where Iran’s previous best was only 5%), was from February. It’s hard to see how that capability is anywhere near the large amounts of 90% enrichment needed for weapons. With Iran so far away from real nuclear weapon development and with the targets so hard to discern and destroy, it’s hard to imagine that Obama and the military really intend to attack now. This movement of bunker busters looks to me like just another move in the childish games Iran and the US are playing with one another.
Posted without comment.
"Maybe next time a girl touches his scrote he won't jump and run away."
"Well Quetz doesn't seem like a complete desperate loser, and seems like an OK guy... almost to the point of being a try hard OK guy IMO "How dare you fondle my jewels young lady!"

-Sanchez and Havok, on my problems with women
User avatar
hunter5
Padawan Learner
Posts: 377
Joined: 2010-01-25 09:34pm

Re: US rattling the saber

Post by hunter5 »

It happens when the talks start to die down the weapons come out just to see who blinks first.
User avatar
Teleros
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1544
Joined: 2006-03-31 02:11pm
Location: Ultra Prime, Klovia
Contact:

Re: US rattling the saber

Post by Teleros »

I don't think this'll be a case of calling the other side's bluff, at least if Israel has a say in it. I've been waiting for the fireworks to begin for a few years now.
User avatar
loomer
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4260
Joined: 2005-11-20 07:57am

Re: US rattling the saber

Post by loomer »

Well, this makes the story I'm working on where America is still in the Mid-East in 2013 depressingly that much more certain.

Still, what's the bet this isn't going to happen? Isn't America still battling fallout from Iraq in terms of recruiting and all?
"Doctors keep their scalpels and other instruments handy, for emergencies. Keep your philosophy ready too—ready to understand heaven and earth. In everything you do, even the smallest thing, remember the chain that links them. Nothing earthly succeeds by ignoring heaven, nothing heavenly by ignoring the earth." M.A.A.A
User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 21559
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: US rattling the saber

Post by The Romulan Republic »

Obama would have to be utterly retarded/insane to launch a preemptive attack on Iran given America's current military and economic situation. Hopefully this is just precautionary.
User avatar
Quetzalcoatl
Youngling
Posts: 134
Joined: 2008-09-09 03:07pm
Location: Tenōchtitlan

Re: US rattling the saber

Post by Quetzalcoatl »

Consider the overwhelming response I received when this topic was broached a few months back:

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 2&t=138133
"Maybe next time a girl touches his scrote he won't jump and run away."
"Well Quetz doesn't seem like a complete desperate loser, and seems like an OK guy... almost to the point of being a try hard OK guy IMO "How dare you fondle my jewels young lady!"

-Sanchez and Havok, on my problems with women
User avatar
Lonestar
Keeper of the Schwartz
Posts: 13321
Joined: 2003-02-13 03:21pm
Location: The Bay Area

Re: US rattling the saber

Post by Lonestar »

The Romulan Republic wrote:Obama would have to be utterly retarded/insane to launch a preemptive attack on Iran given America's current military and economic situation. Hopefully this is just precautionary.
As we exit Iraq Iran has less to hold over the United States. These exercises show that the Military is planning for a massive air raid, not a ground attack. So the US would definately be playing it's strengths in this scenario.
"The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles."
User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 21559
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: US rattling the saber

Post by The Romulan Republic »

The problem is, wouldn't an attack like this simply turn the Iranian people more against America and ensure they rally behind their government? And wouldn't any facilities that were destroyed just be shortly rebuilt somewhere else? In short, wouldn't such an attack simply postpone the problem?
User avatar
Lonestar
Keeper of the Schwartz
Posts: 13321
Joined: 2003-02-13 03:21pm
Location: The Bay Area

Re: US rattling the saber

Post by Lonestar »

The Romulan Republic wrote:The problem is, wouldn't an attack like this simply turn the Iranian people more against America and ensure they rally behind their government? And wouldn't any facilities that were destroyed just be shortly rebuilt somewhere else? In short, wouldn't such an attack simply postpone the problem?

It would certainly postpone the problem, it might derail it completely, so from a certain point of view it's worth the risk.
"The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles."
User avatar
K. A. Pital
Glamorous Commie
Posts: 20813
Joined: 2003-02-26 11:39am
Location: Elysium

Re: US rattling the saber

Post by K. A. Pital »

The Romulan Republic wrote:The problem is, wouldn't an attack like this simply turn the Iranian people everyone in the world with half-a-brain more against America and ensure they rally behind their government?
Here, fixed for you to show the bigger problem with voluntarily attacking Iran.
Lì ci sono chiese, macerie, moschee e questure, lì frontiere, prezzi inaccessibile e freddure
Lì paludi, minacce, cecchini coi fucili, documenti, file notturne e clandestini
Qui incontri, lotte, passi sincronizzati, colori, capannelli non autorizzati,
Uccelli migratori, reti, informazioni, piazze di Tutti i like pazze di passioni...

...La tranquillità è importante ma la libertà è tutto!
Assalti Frontali
Sky Captain
Jedi Master
Posts: 1267
Joined: 2008-11-14 12:47pm
Location: Latvia

Re: US rattling the saber

Post by Sky Captain »

Would the US really be stupid enough to launch massive airstrike against Iran? Don`t they think what would happen if Iran then spams Hormuz strait with mines and/or decides to inflict as much damage as possible to Gulf oil infrastructure with missile strikes thus cutting off nearly half of the worlds oil supplies for months if not years. I highly doubt anyone is interested in causing oil prices to spiral out of control especially when global economy is in recession.
User avatar
Lonestar
Keeper of the Schwartz
Posts: 13321
Joined: 2003-02-13 03:21pm
Location: The Bay Area

Re: US rattling the saber

Post by Lonestar »

Sky Captain wrote:Would the US really be stupid enough to launch massive airstrike against Iran? Don`t they think what would happen if Iran then spams Hormuz strait with mines and/or decides to inflict as much damage as possible to Gulf oil infrastructure with missile strikes thus cutting off nearly half of the worlds oil supplies for months if not years. I highly doubt anyone is interested in causing oil prices to spiral out of control especially when global economy is in recession.

Yeah a naval confontation didn't turn out too well for Iran in the '80s, I can't imagine that they would be any better off trying it now. It's a worry, but not as big as you're making it out to be.
"The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles."
User avatar
K. A. Pital
Glamorous Commie
Posts: 20813
Joined: 2003-02-26 11:39am
Location: Elysium

Re: US rattling the saber

Post by K. A. Pital »

US attacking Iran is the dumbfuckest move it can do.

It will reinforce all notions that the US is, for all purposes, a fucking rogue state which can attack anyone it wants at whim (not that such an opinion didn't already exist and become well-entrenched in many non-First World nations).

It will completely fuck up any good will that the US could have built in the Middle East. Not that there was any, mind you, except from nations which give it's oil to the USA for $$$ but are free to otherwise sponsor jihadis to kill US folks (like Saudi Arabia); you can call that "good will" only in a morbid sense.

It will only reinforce the opinion that you need to have nuclear weapons in order not to be attacked by the US.

It will fuck up oil prices at a time when industry is quite vulnerable after the idiotic crisis caused by fucking U.S. economic recklessness in the first place.

I'm sure there's a fuckton of other reasons, but if Obama or whoever the fuck is commanding that military behemoth at the time decides to attack Iran, that would be evidence of terminal stupidity.
Lì ci sono chiese, macerie, moschee e questure, lì frontiere, prezzi inaccessibile e freddure
Lì paludi, minacce, cecchini coi fucili, documenti, file notturne e clandestini
Qui incontri, lotte, passi sincronizzati, colori, capannelli non autorizzati,
Uccelli migratori, reti, informazioni, piazze di Tutti i like pazze di passioni...

...La tranquillità è importante ma la libertà è tutto!
Assalti Frontali
User avatar
Fingolfin_Noldor
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 11834
Joined: 2006-05-15 10:36am
Location: At the Helm of the HAB Star Dreadnaught Star Fist

Re: US rattling the saber

Post by Fingolfin_Noldor »

Some of the Arabian countries, view this as more as a Sunni vs Shia fight, or a geopolitical one, give or take on the interpretation, and they would prefer to have Iran kept in a tight leash instead though. On the other hand, Syria and Hamas might stage some kind of thing of the US attacks Iran. Turkey isn't too against talking with its neighbours nowadays and they might take offence...
Image
STGOD: Byzantine Empire
Your spirit, diseased as it is, refuses to allow you to give up, no matter what threats you face... and whatever wreckage you leave behind you.
Kreia
User avatar
The Guid
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1888
Joined: 2005-04-05 10:22pm
Location: Northamptonshire, UK

Re: US rattling the saber

Post by The Guid »

Stas Bush wrote:
The Romulan Republic wrote:The problem is, wouldn't an attack like this simply turn the Iranian people everyone in the world with half-a-brain more against America and ensure they rally behind their government?
Here, fixed for you to show the bigger problem with voluntarily attacking Iran.
Yeah... not so much. I don't disagree with your opinion that it would turn many against the United States but I resent the implication that only the stupid wouldn't disagree with the US position. Fact is, Iran are attempting to join the nuclear club. Do we want this to be allowed without military action used to prevent it?

Personally, I don't think I'd be complete against targeted air strikes, unideal though they would be. Its not a moron position, its a position you don't agree with.
Self declared winner of The Posedown Thread
EBC - "What? What?" "Tally Ho!" Division
I wrote this:The British Avengers fanfiction

"Yeah, funny how that works - you giving hungry people food they vote for you. You give homeless people shelter they vote for you. You give the unemployed a job they vote for you.

Maybe if the conservative ideology put a roof overhead, food on the table, and employed the downtrodden the poor folk would be all for it, too". - Broomstick
User avatar
Teleros
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1544
Joined: 2006-03-31 02:11pm
Location: Ultra Prime, Klovia
Contact:

Re: US rattling the saber

Post by Teleros »

The Guid wrote:Fact is, Iran are attempting to join the nuclear club. Do we want this to be allowed without military action used to prevent it?
Exactly. At least back in the Cold War both sides knew the rules and played by them... not so sure about the "let's wipe Israel off the map" Iranian leaders though.
User avatar
K. A. Pital
Glamorous Commie
Posts: 20813
Joined: 2003-02-26 11:39am
Location: Elysium

Re: US rattling the saber

Post by K. A. Pital »

The Guid wrote:Fact is, Iran are attempting to join the nuclear club. Do we want this to be allowed without military action used to prevent it?
Fact is, who the fuck gave anyone, or the USA in general, the right to bomb other nations for developing nuclear weapons, or to anyone for that matter?

All nations have the right to develop and deploy nuclear weapons. It's a matter of sovereignity. If you want to attack a nation for developing weapons, then perhaps the USA should have wiped out Russia before it developed nuclear weapons.

Thank god someone thought the other way back then.

And before you all start "Iran can't be trusted with nukes", there is Pakistan. It's also a fucking Islamist shit-state, and god knows Pakistan is the biggest threat of both real-war nuke use and terrorist nuclear proliferation. If you didn't bomb the Paks to dust when they did it, why do it to Iran? Because you don't think they are responsible enough?

Frankly, in my view "small nuclear powers" like Pakistan or Israel are a fucking nuclear threat. If Iran is added to the mix of nations I consider not good enough to trust with nukes, nothing changes.
Lì ci sono chiese, macerie, moschee e questure, lì frontiere, prezzi inaccessibile e freddure
Lì paludi, minacce, cecchini coi fucili, documenti, file notturne e clandestini
Qui incontri, lotte, passi sincronizzati, colori, capannelli non autorizzati,
Uccelli migratori, reti, informazioni, piazze di Tutti i like pazze di passioni...

...La tranquillità è importante ma la libertà è tutto!
Assalti Frontali
User avatar
Kane Starkiller
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1510
Joined: 2005-01-21 01:39pm

Re: US rattling the saber

Post by Kane Starkiller »

Stas Bush wrote:Fact is, who the fuck gave anyone, or the USA in general, the right to bomb other nations for developing nuclear weapons, or to anyone for that matter?

All nations have the right to develop and deploy nuclear weapons. It's a matter of sovereignity. If you want to attack a nation for developing weapons, then perhaps the USA should have wiped out Russia before it developed nuclear weapons.

Thank god someone thought the other way back then.
Does Iran have the "right" to develop nuclear weapons? Is that in the Human rights declaration? Iran wants to develop nuclear weapons but not every want is automatically a right. Suppose a country discovers new type of energy allowing it to build a billion MT bomb. Should that be allowed because of its "sovereignty"?
The issue is what are the risks. Clearly a billion MT bomb is unacceptable to the civilization; sovereignty or not we all have to live on Earth. How trustworthy is Iran and if it is allowed to develop nuclear weapons what is stopping the rest of the world from building their own nukes.
Obviously there is also a question of how much pain one is justified in afflicting to a country to stop it from attaining nuclear weapons.
Wiping Iran (or Russia) off the map and killing millions or tens of millions to stop a potential future nuclear war would be impossible to justify. However executing relatively limited strike to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities and perhaps military while limiting civilian casualties is far more justifiable.
If US had the capability in 1946 to reliably destroy Russia's nuclear research without causing undue damage to civilians then, from US and Western Europe's perspective at least, this would not be an immoral act.
Stas Bush wrote:
And before you all start "Iran can't be trusted with nukes", there is Pakistan. It's also a fucking Islamist shit-state, and god knows Pakistan is the biggest threat of both real-war nuke use and terrorist nuclear proliferation. If you didn't bomb the Paks to dust when they did it, why do it to Iran? Because you don't think they are responsible enough?
Frankly, in my view "small nuclear powers" like Pakistan or Israel are a fucking nuclear threat. If Iran is added to the mix of nations I consider not good enough to trust with nukes, nothing changes.
Suppose you have two nuclear states US and Russia and the chances that US will initiate nuclear war in the next 50 years are 2%. Suppose the same is true for Russia. Thus the chances of a nuclear war within the next 50 years, regardless of who started it, is 3.96%.
Now suppose there are 10 states each of which is 2% likely to start a nuclear war in the next 50 years. The chances of a nuclear war are now 18.29%.
If there are 30 states the chances for a war are 45%.
And this is all assuming that chances one of the countries will strike remains constant (e.g. at 2%) regardless of the fact that there are more and more countries joining the nuclear club and that each new country joining is no more likely to start a war.
So pointing a finger at Pakistan doesn't in any way get Iran off the hook. Iran would simply be yet another unstable element further increasing the likelihood of a war and encouraging other would be nuclear states to go ahead with their own development. Saying "but we already have even more unstable elements" changes nothing.
But if the forces of evil should rise again, to cast a shadow on the heart of the city.
Call me. -Batman
User avatar
Lusankya
ChiCom
Posts: 4163
Joined: 2002-07-13 03:04am
Location: 人间天堂
Contact:

Re: US rattling the saber

Post by Lusankya »

Kane Starkiller wrote:Does Iran have the "right" to develop nuclear weapons? Is that in the Human rights declaration? Iran wants to develop nuclear weapons but not every want is automatically a right. Suppose a country discovers new type of energy allowing it to build a billion MT bomb. Should that be allowed because of its "sovereignty"?
If it is just for the US to have nuclear weapons, then it should be just for other countries as well. Saying that they should have a lesser right to self defence than the US just because the US doesn't like them is not really a decent argument.
Suppose you have two nuclear states US and Russia and the chances that US will initiate nuclear war in the next 50 years are 2%. Suppose the same is true for Russia. Thus the chances of a nuclear war within the next 50 years, regardless of who started it, is 3.96%.
Now suppose there are 10 states each of which is 2% likely to start a nuclear war in the next 50 years. The chances of a nuclear war are now 18.29%.
If there are 30 states the chances for a war are 45%.
For this scaling to have any relevance, however, you have to assume that a nuclear war between Bumfuckistan and Hickistan would be just as damaging to the world as a nuclear war between the US and Russia. And you have to ignore the possibility of nuclear weapons limiting the number of conventional wars waged during that period, which would be a point in favour of increased weaponisation.
"I would say that the above post is off-topic, except that I'm not sure what the topic of this thread is, and I don't think anybody else is sure either."
- Darth Wong
Free Durian - Last updated 27 Dec
"Why does it look like you are in China or something?" - havokeff
User avatar
Starglider
Miles Dyson
Posts: 8709
Joined: 2007-04-05 09:44pm
Location: Isle of Dogs
Contact:

Re: US rattling the saber

Post by Starglider »

The Romulan Republic wrote:The problem is, wouldn't an attack like this simply turn the Iranian people more against America and ensure they rally behind their government?
Depends if any civilians get hit. If the attacks are all on concrete bunkers in the middle of nowhere, and 99% of the population don't see any evidence that the strikes even took place, then no. Iran is already heavily polarised into ultra-conservative fundie assholes and opportunistic bullies who support the government, and progressives who don't. The government has been screaming about how America is the great enemy for the last 30 years. Some photos of exploded concrete rubble might sway a few more people towards the government, then again if they don't even manage to shoot down a B2 in response the government looks totally weak and ineffective and that could lose them support.
Stas Bush wrote:perhaps the USA should have wiped out Russia before it developed nuclear weapons.
It wasn't possible for the US to prevent Stalin's regime gaining nuclear weapons without starting WW3 and killing many millions of people. The situation is not comparable.
User avatar
The Grim Squeaker
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 10319
Joined: 2005-06-01 01:44am
Location: A different time-space Continuum
Contact:

Re: US rattling the saber

Post by The Grim Squeaker »

Stas Bush wrote:US attacking Iran is the dumbfuckest move it can do.
Nah, they could always nuke Siberia and dig the oil there :D.
It will reinforce all notions that the US is, for all purposes, a fucking rogue state which can attack anyone it wants at whim (not that such an opinion didn't already exist and become well-entrenched in many non-First World nations).
The fact that it can attack any state at will given casus belli has been evident since the 90's (Kossovo, Gulf war 1, Sudan), scratch that 60's (Vietnam), no 50's (South Korea being invaded). etc'
It will completely fuck up any good will that the US could have built in the Middle East. Not that there was any, mind you, except from nations which give it's oil to the USA for $$$ but are free to otherwise sponsor jihadis to kill US folks (like Saudi Arabia); you can call that "good will" only in a morbid sense.
Not necessarily. The UAE is scared shitless of Iran, and so are a number of other states. (Remember, Suni, Shiite, and the fact that the only really strong allies Iran has in the region are Syria, Lebanon (puppet state) and "Gazastan". Other states would certainly rail against the US, but can you really see Iraq or Egypt being unhappy at not having to face the prospect of potential Iranian nuclear blackmail?
It will only reinforce the opinion that you need to have nuclear weapons in order not to be attacked by the US.
Yup. It'd also reinforce the opinion that you need to hide it, since if you get caught the consequences aren't necessarily worth the benefits of gaining nuclear capabilities. (As things currently stand, it's hard to claim that's the case. The weight of incentives (pathetic embargoes) are on the side of developing nuclear arms).
It will fuck up oil prices at a time when industry is quite vulnerable after the idiotic crisis caused by fucking U.S. economic recklessness in the first place.
That's a good reason for the USA, albeit the US plans on embargoing petroleum exports from Iran anyway, and Iran blasting the straits and other ships there would be an act of war by it on the other, richest gulf states.
I'm sure there's a fuckton of other reasons, but if Obama or whoever the fuck is commanding that military behemoth at the time decides to attack Iran, that would be evidence of terminal stupidity.
No comment.
Photography
Genius is always allowed some leeway, once the hammer has been pried from its hands and the blood has been cleaned up.
To improve is to change; to be perfect is to change often.
User avatar
K. A. Pital
Glamorous Commie
Posts: 20813
Joined: 2003-02-26 11:39am
Location: Elysium

Re: US rattling the saber

Post by K. A. Pital »

Starglider wrote:
Stas Bush wrote:perhaps the USA should have wiped out Russia before it developed nuclear weapons.
It wasn't possible for the US to prevent Stalin's regime gaining nuclear weapons without starting WW3 and killing many millions of people. The situation is not comparable
Okay, let's then take Israel or Pakistan. These states could have been prevented from gaining nuclear weapons without starting WW3 and/or killing many millions of people, nes pa?
Kane Starkiller wrote:Suppose a country discovers new type of energy allowing it to build a billion MT bomb. Should that be allowed because of its "sovereignty"?
By that logic the USA should never had been allowed to develop nuclear weapons in the first place; they offered a far greater risk of Earth destruction than any prior weapons. Same logic applies to the billion MT bomb. Same logic applies to Pakistan - if a nation should have been disallowed nuclear weapons regardless of sovereignity, perhaps then Pakistan should have been disallowed to have them, by military means.
Kane Starkiller wrote:If US had the capability in 1946 to reliably destroy Russia's nuclear research without causing undue damage to civilians then, from US and Western Europe's perspective at least, this would not be an immoral act.
Who cares about the "US and Western Europe's perspective", since the US was already a nuclear state? I said same rules should apply to all.
Kane Starkiller wrote:So pointing a finger at Pakistan doesn't in any way get Iran off the hook. Iran would simply be yet another unstable element further increasing the likelihood of a war and encouraging other would be nuclear states to go ahead with their own development. Saying "but we already have even more unstable elements" changes nothing.
So the risk of nuclear war with Iran rises. Meanwhile the risk of conventional war with Iran massively decreases. Also, for the Iranians, the risk of the U.S. attack on them massively decreases.

Quite possibly it's worth the cost. Iran can't turn Earth into a nuclear wasteland, so your scenario is a stramwan which is only viable in case any and all nuclear wars result in annihilation of mankind. That is false.

If the risk is rising, France, Pakistan, Israel, India, etc. could all have reliably and with small casualties, been blocked from getting nukes, right? Or no? So basically no one gave a crap about this risk when all these nations went nuclear. But people suddenly do now. Heh.
Lì ci sono chiese, macerie, moschee e questure, lì frontiere, prezzi inaccessibile e freddure
Lì paludi, minacce, cecchini coi fucili, documenti, file notturne e clandestini
Qui incontri, lotte, passi sincronizzati, colori, capannelli non autorizzati,
Uccelli migratori, reti, informazioni, piazze di Tutti i like pazze di passioni...

...La tranquillità è importante ma la libertà è tutto!
Assalti Frontali
User avatar
Starglider
Miles Dyson
Posts: 8709
Joined: 2007-04-05 09:44pm
Location: Isle of Dogs
Contact:

Re: US rattling the saber

Post by Starglider »

Stas Bush wrote:Okay, let's then take Israel or Pakistan. These states could have been prevented from gaining nuclear weapons without starting WW3 and/or killing many millions of people, nes pa?
Both those programs occured in the context of a superpower standoff. The only power that had both the capability and the motive to prevent Israel gaining nuclear weapons was the USSR, and no they could not do so without serious risking of escalation into global war with the US and NATO. From the US point of view, Israel having nuclear weapons was a good thing.

Pakistan has similar problems; through most of its early development it was an important US ally. The USSR couldn't strike without risking escalation, the US couldn't do so without losing an ally. There was probably a window to do so in the 1990s, but even a US strike risked touching off a massive conventional war between India and Pakistan (certainly any Indian effort would have done this). Regardless, as others have pointed out the failure to act then does not make a failure to act now any more desirable. This is not a court of law with legal precedent, international politics makes no effort to treat all nations equally, decisions are made on the basis of practicality and expected return.
By that logic the USA should never had been allowed to develop nuclear weapons in the first place; they offered a far greater risk of Earth destruction than any prior weapons.
What is this idiotic 'allowed' that you keep harping on about? Who does the 'allowing'? The same people who 'allowed' the Nazis to try and exterminate the Jews? The same people who 'allowed' Russia to invade and occupy half of Europe? 'Allowed' only has meaning in the context of an organisation powerful enough to enforce their will on other parties.
If the risk is rising, France, Pakistan, Israel, India, etc. could all have reliably and with small casualties, been blocked from getting nukes, right?
Either the threat from those nations was not judged significant enough to warrant action by other nations, or the projected costs to the people considering taking action were too high. Your argument is an ridiculous black-and-white fallacy, why should any state have a blanket policy that ignores pertinent circumstances?
User avatar
K. A. Pital
Glamorous Commie
Posts: 20813
Joined: 2003-02-26 11:39am
Location: Elysium

Re: US rattling the saber

Post by K. A. Pital »

Starglider wrote:Both those programs occured in the context of a superpower standoff.
This standoff never went anywhere. Our nukes point at the USA, USA nukes point at Russia.
Starglider wrote:Regardless, as others have pointed out the failure to act then does not make a failure to act now any more desirable.
But why U.S. allies deserve special immunity, but Iran does not?
Starglider wrote:What is this idiotic 'allowed' that you keep harping on about?
So you assume international law is bullshit? Rule of the strong? He who is stronger can have anything he wants just because he can? I thought we made laws exactly to prevent this sort of shit, but if you feel otherwise, why not...
Lì ci sono chiese, macerie, moschee e questure, lì frontiere, prezzi inaccessibile e freddure
Lì paludi, minacce, cecchini coi fucili, documenti, file notturne e clandestini
Qui incontri, lotte, passi sincronizzati, colori, capannelli non autorizzati,
Uccelli migratori, reti, informazioni, piazze di Tutti i like pazze di passioni...

...La tranquillità è importante ma la libertà è tutto!
Assalti Frontali
User avatar
Starglider
Miles Dyson
Posts: 8709
Joined: 2007-04-05 09:44pm
Location: Isle of Dogs
Contact:

Re: US rattling the saber

Post by Starglider »

Stas Bush wrote:But why U.S. allies deserve special immunity, but Iran does not?
US allies do not have 'special immunity' any more than allies of Russia or China or any other larger power do. They simply aren't going to get attacked by their own ally, and anyone attacking them will likely have to face the wrath of the sponsor country. This is how international relations work. Iran is vulnerable because their government has effectively pissed off the entire world, and the only countries they can count as allies are such pariahs as North Korea. You continue to conjure up notions of absolutes and binary divisions that simply do not exist.
Starglider wrote:What is this idiotic 'allowed' that you keep harping on about
So you assume international law is bullshit?
Frankly, yes. Don't we have a thread at least once a month about how Israel completely ignores the UN and faces no consequence for it?
Rule of the strong? He who is stronger can have anything he wants just because he can? I thought we made laws exactly to prevent this sort of shit, but if you feel otherwise, why not...
National legal systems are based on the massive, overwhelming superiority of the state to any individual or corporation. In fact when this superiority breaks down the nation tends to collapse into anarchy. No such massively powerful authority exists at the level of nation states, and even if it did the notion of giving nation states individual 'rights' is even more dubious than making corporations legal persons. Feel free to live in your fantasy world where the all-powerful International Communist Commission regulates every aspect of international politics though, your opinion can be cheerfully ignored by everyone living in the real world.
Post Reply