Will the US use Nukes against Iran?

[crazycalhoun]

Actually it didn't. Most of Iraq's missile technology was destroyed under the weapons inspection program, not through military attacks.

I didn't know that most of Iraq's missile technology constituted IRBMs.

Are you suggesting Sadr doesn't speak for his followers?

I'm suggesting I've seen no evidence that the Sadrists will fight a war on the Persians behalf. If you have, feel free to present it.

Dream on...

Just helping you out with the facts, ma'am.

 

[crazycalhoun]

Ok, and while they are fighting in Iran, what's then going to happen in Iraq ?

Not sure what you mean.

 

[crazycalhoun]

The situation was totally different. Iraq was weakened and surveyed for about 10 years.

With all due respect, I think the Gulf War four years before Desert Storm could be viewed as having weakened Iran.

You were in the capital in 3 weeks (heh, you're still there :-) mainly because the military on the other side QUIT.

What can I say? They couldn't fight very well. Why would the Iranians be any different?

You were in the country of a secular dictator which wasn't liked much by its population.

And now the US can go up against a bunch of religious crackpots that aren't held in high esteem either. Either way, the opposition is the same old sad story. Political, unprofessional, poorly trained, and poorly equipped.

This time you face an *elected* government, with religious leaders which have popular support.

I think we'll disagree over whether Qom enjoys popular support, but our target isn't Qom or even their chemical and biological weapons. It's their nuclear weapons program we care about, and presumably the naval, air and land forces they intend to invest in protecting it.

They are not going to quit so easily.

Good. Maybe then they'll stay in tight enough groups to hammer easily.

You'd need a massive occupation force to work against the web of resistance made up by religious leaders, mosquees, and just the people there.

Why occupy? Why even go for regime change in this instance? Our objective is the destruction of Iranian special weapons.

What are you going to do, once you're in, with your 500000 soldiers ?

Try 215 thousand tops, and less than a 100 thousand of those attached to shooting units.

 

[Art]

I didn't know that most of Iraq's missile technology constituted IRBMs.

And like US intelligence at the time you probably didn't (and it seems still don't) know Iraq had the ability to build it's own indigenous SCUD missiles and thought all their stocks had come from the USSR. So much for the effectiveness of reconnoitring.

I'm suggesting I've seen no evidence that the Sadrists will fight a war on the Persians behalf. If you have, feel free to present it.

I did. Now you present something, other than your opinion, to the contrary.

Just helping you out with the facts, ma'am.

As with most of your assumptions you are wrong about the gender. And when you do deign to post a fact it is irrelevant to the discussion.

 

[crazycalhoun]

And like US intelligence at the time you probably didn't (and it seems still don't) know Iraq had the ability to build it's own indigenous SCUD missiles and thought all their stocks had come from the USSR. So much for the effectiveness of reconnoitring.

I'm not quite sure why you're telling me that yes, the Iraqis had al Husayns. My point addressed your contention that the bulk of Iraq's missile program was invested in IRBMs, not whether they had them.

I did. Now you present something, other than your opinion, to the contrary.

And once again, I said Sadrists, not Sadr. If you have any indication of the al Mahdi army preparing to defend Iran, then feel free to share it.

As with most of your assumptions you are wrong about the gender.

I think your gender is immaterial for the quip's purposes. I just liked Dragnet

And when you do deign to post a fact it is irrelevant to the discussion.

Of course, you're free to try and make that case. I don't think you can, though.

 

[Art]

I'm not quite sure why you're telling me that yes, the Iraqis had al Husayns. My point addressed your contention that the bulk of Iraq's missile program was invested in IRBMs, not whether they had them.

I didn't claim the bulk of Iraq's missile program was tied to IRBMs. You did.

Al Husayns were modified imported SCUDs. The SCUDS they built themselves were short range missiles not intermediate range.

So returning to the point; most of Iraqs offensive special weapons capabilty was destroyed under the weapons inspection program not through military action.
Here's a hint - You might have noticed a few press clippings noting that no WMD have been found in Iraq so now think about why.

And once again, I said Sadrists, not Sadr. If you have any indication of the al Mahdi army preparing to defend Iran, then feel free to share it.

Unless you present evidence to the contrary it is reasonable to believe Sadr speaks for his followers.

I think your gender is immaterial for the quip's purposes. I just liked Dragnet

That was a quip?? Your sense of humour is as off the wall as your logic.

 

[crazycalhoun]

I didn't claim the bulk of Iraq's missile program was tied to IRBMs. You did.

Um, no I didn't. You did. When you said that the bulk of Iraq's missile program had been destroyed by the inspectors.

Al Husayns were modified imported SCUDs. The SCUDS they built themselves were short range missiles not intermediate range.

Then we're talking about the al Samuds, which are not covered under 687 prohibitions.

So returning to the point; most of Iraqs offensive special weapons capabilty was destroyed under the weapons inspection program not through military action.

That we can definitely agree on.

Here's a hint - You might have noticed a few press clippings noting that no WMD have been found in Iraq so now think about why.

That, we may not.

Unless you present evidence to the contrary it is reasonable to believe Sadr speaks for his followers.

So if Sadr said the al Mahdi Army would slit their own throats at high noon, it's reasonable to believe he speaks for them in that case? Let's put it this way, the Sadrists have never fought for Iran. They weren't around at the time. And since SCIRI has apparently no intentions of fighting Teheran's battles for them, if you have reason to believe Sadr has that much control over the al Mahdi Army, then share it with us.

That was a quip?? Your sense of humour is as off the wall as your logic.

I'm sure you can resist the personal attacks. We're reportedly all grown ups here.

 

[Art]

Um, no I didn't. You did. When you said that the bulk of Iraq's missile program had been destroyed by the inspectors.

Then we're talking about the al Samuds, which are not covered under 687 prohibitions.

The standard unmodified SCUD had a range of 300 km the 687 prohibitions applied to any missile with a range greater than 150 km. The Al Samoud was claimed to slightly exceed this figure and so the weapons inspectors ordered the destruction of Iraq's inventory of 72 missiles and the destruction of the production equipment which they used to build solid rocket motors.

That, we may not.

Source please?

So if Sadr said the al Mahdi Army would slit their own throats at high noon, it's reasonable to believe he speaks for them in that case? Let's put it this way, the Sadrists have never fought for Iran. They weren't around at the time. And since SCIRI has apparently no intentions of fighting Teheran's battles for them, if you have reason to believe Sadr has that much control over the al Mahdi Army, then share it with us.

For the third and last time I have already shared it with you. Read the link I provided. Now if you have a source or ref to back up your opinion please post it.

I'm sure you can resist the personal attacks. We're reportedly all grown ups here.

Oh, so you don't like my humour either.

 

[crazycalhoun]

The standard unmodified SCUD had a range of 300 km the 687 prohibitions applied to any missile with a range greater than 150 km. The Al Samoud was claimed to slightly exceed this figure and so the weapons inspectors ordered the destruction of Iraq's inventory of 72 missiles and the destruction of the production equipment which they used to build solid rocket motors.

Those would be the al Samud 2 drives. And Iraq's arsenal, even in ISG's best case estimate, did not consisted of 121 such missiles, of which 22 were destroyed or captured during OIF. That still leaves 50 Al Samuds and 30 Al Fatahs.

 

[Art]

Then we're talking about the al Samuds, which are not covered under 687 prohibitions.

I presume you now concede this statement was incorrect?

Those would be the al Samud 2 drives. And Iraq's arsenal, even in ISG's best case estimate, did not consisted of 121 such missiles, of which 22 were destroyed or captured during OIF. That still leaves 50 Al Samuds and 30 Al Fatahs.

I have no idea what your point is here but if you are arguing about the number I quoted here's a reference.

Missile
Iraq purchased considerable numbers of short-range Scud missiles and launchers from the Soviet Union beginning in the early 1970s. Towards the end of the Iran-Iraq War, Baghdad extended the range of the Scud to 650km; many of these modified missiles (known as the al-Husayn) were used during that war and, later, in Desert Storm. With extensive assistance from foreign companies, Iraq pursued a variety of other missile projects; these efforts were largely halted by UN weapon inspections that began in 1991. From 1991 to 1998, working under the proscriptions contained in the UN ceasefire resolution, Iraq developed various types of ballistic missiles with ranges of less than 150km, including the al-Ababil and the al-Samoud. During their time in Iraq, UNMOVIC inspectors destroyed 72 al-Samoud-2 missiles that violated the 150km-range limit, as well as certain equipment for the production of solid rocket motors.

http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/Iraq/

 

[crazycalhoun]

I presume you now concede this statement was incorrect?

Um, no. Why would you thnk that?

I have no idea what your point is here but if you are arguing about the number I quoted here's a reference.

My point is that your statement "Iraq's inventory of 72 missiles" is factually incorrect [1]. That, and you looked up the al Samud 2 drive, not the al Samuds.

 

[Art]

Um, no. Why would you thnk that?

You claimed the Al-Samuds were exempt from 687 prohibitions. They clearly were not.

My point is that your statement "Iraq's inventory of 72 missiles" is factually incorrect [1]. That, and you looked up the al Samud 2 drive, not the al Samuds.

Still trying to wriggle your way out?

Then we're talking about the al Samuds, which are not covered under 687 prohibitions.

There was no Al-Samud 1, the program was canceled in the development stage in the early 90's as they didn't work! When you mentioned the Al-Samuds I presumed you were talking about a missile that actually existed. Then again maybe you weren't.

 

[crazycalhoun]

You claimed the Al-Samuds were exempt from 687 prohibitions. They clearly were not.

Al-Samud 2's aren't.

Still trying to wriggle your way out?

No, I don't think so.

There was no Al-Samud 1, the program was canceled in the development stage in the early 90's as they didn't work!

Um, you just made that up.

 

[Art]

Um, you just made that up.

The original Al Samud program was canceled in 1993 due to flight instability. It was resurrected in 1995 with a new design by Maj. Gen. Ra’ad Jasim who was fired when it still didn't work in 1999. He was replaced by Brig. Gen. Dr. Muzhir Saba’ Sadiq al-Tamimi. Following continuing failures, on 15th June 2001 Muzhir’s request to replace the 500-mm diameter Al Samud with a 760-mm design, called the Al Samud II was agreed to. The first experimental test flight of Al Samud II occurred on 18th August 2001.

The first 10 Al Samud II ballistic missiles were delivered to the Iraqi Army in December 2001.

 

[crazycalhoun]

The original Al Samud program was canceled in 1993 due to flight instability.

Al Samud I was canceled after its last flight test 12 Dec 2000. And they still had the drives from the static tests afterwards. The point is they weren't destroyed.

 

[alexandra]

Source of information about Iranian military capability/resources

I've noticed that there has been quite a bit of discussion about whether or not, and how effectively, Iran would be able to defend itself against an attack, or retaliate if attacked. I found a website that has information about things like this, though I couldn't judge how accurate this information might be. Also, not knowing much about weapons and stuff like that, I don't really know what a lot of this information means so can't summarise the implications - I thought I'd just refer those interested to the website so they could see if they can make any sense of it: the homepage is http://www.globalsecurity.org/index.html, and the URL providing information about Iran's military capabilities is http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/index.html

 

[jhe1984]

Globalsecurity.org is a great source of generally very accurate info. The guy who runs it, John Pike I think his name is, is something of a security expert/specialist. Generally good objective data.

 

[alexandra]

An update on Iran

I just read this:

US backs first-strike attack plan

The US will not shy away from attacking regimes it considers hostile, or groups it believes have nuclear or chemical weapons, the White House has confirmed.

In the first restatement of national security strategy since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the US singles out Iran as the greatest single current danger.

The new policy backs the policy of pre-emptive war first issued in 2002, and criticised since the Iraq war.

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4812562.stm

So, what do you think? I think the Bush administration is laying the groundwork. Oh dear, here we go again...

alex

 

[Anttech]

WW3 here we come..

 

[vanesch]

Naah. Big talk, that's all...

 

[selfAdjoint]

Naah. Big talk, that's all...

I agree. The current effort is Iraq is about all we're up to.

 

[BobG]

I agree. The current effort is Iraq is about all we're up to.

You certainly have an optimistic view of the sanity level within the US government today. I'm not sure that's warranted.

The new winning political strategy is to be the first to embrace insanity (House Panel Seeks Sanctions. Buried towards the end of the story is the 37-3 bi-partisan vote by House International Relations Committee to impose sanctions that go too far, even for the White House.

With the current tone, it seems as if one party proposes sanctions, the other will have to propose air strikes; if one party proposes air strikes, the other will have to propose a limited invasion (to control the Strait of Hormuz, of course); if one party proposes a limited invasion ... and on and on.

We're still waiting for someone to come up with a sane and confident approach to the "new world" of post 9/11.

 

[G01]

Man I hate talks about stuff like this it gets me all depressed. Nuclear war and then all the draft threads...so depressing. IMO, I'm not as worried as many people here. We've been through worse.

 

[dsky]

Will Iran and other counties use the Nukes on this USA?
They should if this country continues to interfere with soverein nations,
But some should shake off the high from their own fat

 

[Art]

Iran is raising the stakes ahead of the security council meeting

Associated Press
Update 6: Iran: Just-Tested Missile Can Avoid Radar
By ALI AKBAR DAREINI , 03.31.2006, 12:26 PM

Iran successfully test-fired a missile that can avoid radar and hit several targets simultaneously using multiple warheads, the military said Friday.

Gen. Hossein Salami, the air force chief of the elite Revolutionary Guards, did not specify the missile's range, saying it depends on the weight of its warheads.

But state-run television described the weapon as "ballistic" - suggesting it's of comparable range to Iran's existing ballistic rocket, which can travel 1,250 miles and reach arch-foe Israel and U.S. bases in the Middle East.

"Today, a remarkable goal of the Islamic Republic of Iran's defense forces was realized with the successful test-firing of a new missile with greater technical and tactical capabilities than those previously produced," Salami said on state-run television.

It showed a clip of the launch of what it called the Fajr-3, with "fajr" meaning "victory" in Farsi.

"It can avoid anti-missile missiles and strike the target," Salami said.

He said the missile would carry a multiple warhead, and each warhead would be capable of hitting its target precisely.

http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/ap/2006/03/31/ap2637624.html

Unless one side or the other begins to compromise this will all end in tears I fear.

 

[ron damon]

All options regarding this issue are terrible. Will the civilized world tolerate a fanatical culture with a penchant for martyrdom and led by a neo-Nazi nut to posses nuclear weapons? How will the subsequent and very high risk of a nuclear attack on Israel be balanced out?

But then, what options are available? With American military power already stretched thin, and Europe consumed with ideology, what policy options are available?

One fancies the new century will feature a very different landscape than the one that preceded it. History is not over, after all; far from it.

The sooner the US realizes its interests and values coincide with the nations of east rather than Socialist Europe, the greater the chances of successfully facing the challenge of Islam and ensuring the continued march of progress.

 

[alexandra]

Update on Pentagon's plans re-Iran?

As per subject line:

Pentagon plans record-breaking explosion in Nevada desert

Julian Borger in Washington
Saturday April 1, 2006
The Guardian


The Pentagon is preparing to set off a record-breaking bang, detonating 635 tonnes of high explosives and sending a mushroom cloud into the sky over the Nevada desert. The blast, on June 2, codenamed Divine Strake, is likely to be the biggest controlled conventional explosion in military history, experts said, and is designed to test the impact of bunker-busting bombs aimed at underground targets.

The blast comes at a time of rising tension with Iran over its nuclear programme. The US has refused to rule out military action and is considering the feasibility of destroying underground warhead development sites Iran is alleged to have built.


More: http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1744506,00.html

I guess it's too optimistic to hope that this was an April Fool's joke report?

 

[russ_watters]

What's the big deal? It sounds like it is just a test of their computer modeling techniques, since the actual explosives used can't be used in a real weapon anyway.

The military tests weapons all the time, alexandra.

 

[BobG]

Iran is raising the stakes ahead of the security council meeting


http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/ap/2006/03/31/ap2637624.html

Unless one side or the other begins to compromise this will all end in tears I fear.

It would be hard to assess the reliability of Iran's reports about its missile test. In the past, their accounts have always reported success regardless of the outcome. If the account of the latest test were accurate, then it would be an incredible leap for Iran's missile technology. I'm not sure it's completely beyond the realm of possibility, but it's certainly unlikely.

Iranian missiles

 

[SOS2008]

Iran has wanted to normalize relations with the U.S. But we have a president (Bush) who is a hard-liner who has planned to preemptively change the Middle East. Our president is famous for spin and rhetoric (oh yes, and lies). So now Iran has a president (Ahmadinejad) who has been concerned about a preemptive attack, and on occasion uses rhetoric to gain support from his base.

Israel is very capable of defending itself, and it's high time the U.S. stops taking the Zionist's side. Also, those who promote eradication of all Infidels are no larger in number than those who promote a crusade.

Obviously nuclear proliferation is not preferable, but I am less worried about Iran joining the likes of N.Korea and a slew of countries that have nukes than I worry about:

• Starting another war of attrition that will be far more costly than Iraq, both in blood and treasure (a draft would be likely, and will China/Japan continue to absorb our debt?)
• Starting a war that would cause oil prices to go even higher
• Iran starting a trend of wanting payment in other currencies, most notably Euro and Yen
• Further alienation from the rest of the world

The U.S. has practiced plenty of aggressive behavior and rhetoric. Maybe it's time to try diplomacy and sincerity toward peace.