The discussion centers on the potential for U.S. air strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities, with Wes Clark expressing significant concern over the lack of diplomatic efforts from the Bush administration. Participants highlight the implications of such military action, referencing the authority of Congress and the historical context of U.S. military engagements. The conversation also touches on Israel's plans to potentially use tactical nuclear weapons against Iran, raising fears of widespread conflict and retaliation. Overall, the sentiment is largely against military intervention, emphasizing the risks involved.
PREREQUISITESPolitical analysts, military strategists, international relations students, and anyone interested in U.S. foreign policy and Middle Eastern geopolitics.
What Wes Clark said was quoted quite explicitly in the article. This is not a case of "unnamed sources" or "high-ranking officials" that are commonly cited as sources of leaks in right wing outlets that are Bush mouthpieces (perhaps the "leakiest" administration in recent memory). Clark is quoted explicitly and his observations are backed up with analysis. He is not a nut job and we ignore him at our peril.russ_watters said:I'm sure he was quoted accurately, but it isn't the quotes that are the problem, it is the crap they made up about what the quotes imply that is. Didn't you read the articles or any of the early responses in this thread? Clark said nothing anywhere close to what the article says.
russ_watters said:North Korea at best has half a dozen nukes that might work. How does that constitute WWIII or global nuclear annihilation?
Why would Israel want to destabilize its neighbours?turbo-1 said:To destabilize a relatively stable neighbor. Strikes in southern Lebanon, Gaza and the West Bank are a given - I think the Israeli hawks would go further.
Not world domination, but certainly they have a penchant for regional domination and acquisition of territory - watch for Israel to carve "buffer zones" out of its neighbors in the event of regional upheaval - all in the name of "security" of course.Yonoz said:BTW, the hawks here, as everywhere, aren't bent on world domination, they simply have very low tolerance to any perceived risk.
Not certainly at all. There are hawks and there are extremists - they make good bedfellows, but do not confuse them.turbo-1 said:Not world domination, but certainly they have a penchant for regional domination and acquisition of territory - watch for Israel to carve "buffer zones" out of its neighbors in the event of regional upheaval - all in the name of "security" of course.
I'll try this one more time: it isn't the quotes themselves that are the problem, but the interpretation of them provided by the blogger. Again, the quotes are real, but they do not say what the blogger says they say. Specifically:turbo-1 said:What Wes Clark said was quoted quite explicitly in the article. This is not a case of "unnamed sources" or "high-ranking officials" that are commonly cited as sources of leaks in right wing outlets that are Bush mouthpieces (perhaps the "leakiest" administration in recent memory). Clark is quoted explicitly and his observations are backed up with analysis. He is not a nut job and we ignore him at our peril.
Those are the blogger's words, not Clark's and none of the quotes from Clark imply that he believes that. They are putting words in his mouth, though, by phrasing the questions in the article in a leading way then following them with a quote that isn't very specific. It implies Clark says something he didn't. Ie:and paints U.S. air strikes against Iran in 2007/08 as all-but-a-done deal.
Now "headed in this direction" is different from "all but a done deal", but regardless, Clark's answer doesn't say anything specific about what he believes, just where he gets his impressions. (More on that below). And the next quote:When we asked him what made him so sure the Bush administration was headed in this direction, he replied: "You just have to read what's in the Israeli press. The Jewish community is divided but there is so much pressure being channeled from the New York money people to the office seekers."
What's outrageous? He doesn't say. He doesn't say he thinks its "all but a done deal", the blogger says it."How can you talk about bombing a country when you won't even talk to them?" said Clark. "It's outrageous.
Clark was really angry about what he'd read in this column...
How, precisely, could they do such a thing? They don't have any missiles capable of sending them to any American cities besides those in Alaska or Hawaii. And with their reliability, I wouldn't bet on a success rate of better than 10% just getting them off the ground. And we do have a functioning ABM defense in place. I'm nor real worried. S. Korea and Japan, on the other hand, have a lot to fear. If nothing else, N. Korea could kamakazi them that far.LightbulbSun said:Well it depends on their targets. Let's say theoretically the half a dozen nukes that you were referring to do work, all of them. Now let's say they carefully drop all six on six different U.S. cities. That's quite a big wipeout of the population and a strong pretext for the U.S. to wage a global nuclear annihilation. All of this is theory in practice of course, but that is something I am concerned with.
Just shy of Israel? Take a look at the http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/shahab-3.htm" .Schrödinger's Dog said:They don't have either the missile technology or the material to build nukes yet so this is entirely speculative, if the Koreans shared their short range missile tech with them, we are talking just shy of Israel, medium slightly further sort of Turkey/ Libya sort of range, but that's about it.
Yonoz said:Just shy of Israel? Take a look at the http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/shahab-3.htm" .
Just a note on this, I didn't see the duration of the overlap being two months when I first posted about it - that's longer than I think would be typical (a few weeks would be more reasonable), but given the planned increase in activity in the area, I don't think that's unreasonable.Gokul43201 said:That the John Stennis strike group is headed to the Persian Gulf to join the Eisenhower group would be unusual only if Ike is nowhere near the end of its deployment, wouldn't it*? Is a two month overlap in deployments longer than is usual? But now that you mention this...I just heard something on the BBC news a day or two ago about an Admiral being appointed to head CentCom. Sure makes me raise an eyebrow now!
* Edit: Just read Russ' post that answers the question. Eyebrow is significantly lowered.
Accuracy isn't an issue when dealing with nuclear payloads.Schrödinger's Dog said:Sigh, people seem to assume that the same technology for directing high explosives will work for nuclear weapons, take a look at Koreas highly accurate splash down in the pacific. Not just that but In order to strike any further than Eastern Europe it would need Korean technology.
But we're not talking about the US and Canada, we're talking about Israel, a country much closer to Iran that you can drive across in 20 minutes.Schrödinger's Dog said:I think you'll find it is. The further the nuke has to travel the more small discrepancies matter, so in order to get ICBM's to hit anywhere close you need extremely sophisticated guidance systems, otherwise you may aim at the US and hit Canada.