PDA

View Full Version : Iran: America’s Options



Mister D
11-16-2011, 12:56 PM
Snip

Only fools and the willfully obtuse still believe Iran is not working on a nuclear bomb. In fact, the Iranians are probably much closer to having a bomb than even many pessimists have credited. The question now is: What are the United States and the world going to do about it? Continuing along the path we have been on for a decade would mean accepting that Iran will soon have the bomb. Sanctions, cyber attacks, and targeted assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists have slowed but not stopped Iran’s pursuit of the bomb. There is little chance that more of the same is going to deter the mullahs.

Snip


Can America destroy Iran’s nuclear program? The answer is an unequivocal yes. This may come as a surprise, since we have so often heard the opposite. For instance, many commentators claim that Iran’s program is so distributed that we cannot take it out in a single strike. So what? First, even a distributed program will have a relatively small number of crucial nodes. If those are taken out, the entire Iranian program will grind to a halt. More importantly, why are we limited to a single strike?

Another common objection is that the most important facilities are buried so deep as to make them impervious to bombing. Even if this is true, which is unlikely, of what use is a facility without power and buried under a few hundred yards of rubble and loose earth?

The most commonly used excuse for non-action, however, is that an American military strike would only cause the Iranians to redouble their efforts. Really? In any case, is there some rule against our blowing up their “redoubled” program a year or two from now? Is there not a point where even the Iranians will tire of seeing hundred-billion-dollar investments repeatedly turned into rubbish?

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/283254/iran-america-s-options-jim-lacey?pg=2

I have a feeling this will happen...

Conley
11-16-2011, 01:07 PM
That article is spot on.

If their nuclear facilities are spread out, that makes them even harder to defend. Our air superiority means distances are largely irrelevant.

If they are underground, so what? Bunker bomb that stuff and everything around it. No electricity, no roads, no water -> no science.

They're going to redouble their efforts? Huh? As if it wasn't a priority before? Do they have nuclear scientists just sitting at home lying on the couch eating chips and watching Springer? Hell no. They're already working on getting a nuke at max capacity. That is not even a viable argument.

I say let the Israelis go hog wild...we provide back up refueling rearming and defend oil installations. Actually we should participate in the first few bombing runs and destroy Iranian ports where they can launch from. I'd support this over Libya or Iraq any day. Such a joke...moving on Saddam and his mystery WMDs, meanwhile Iran is working on the mother of all WMDs and we do nothing.

Mister D
11-16-2011, 01:22 PM
That article is spot on.

If their nuclear facilities are spread out, that makes them even harder to defend. Our air superiority means distances are largely irrelevant.

If they are underground, so what? Bunker bomb that stuff and everything around it. No electricity, no roads, no water -> no science.

They're going to redouble their efforts? Huh? As if it wasn't a priority before? Do they have nuclear scientists just sitting at home lying on the couch eating chips and watching Springer? Hell no. They're already working on getting a nuke at max capacity. That is not even a viable argument.

I say let the Israelis go hog wild...we provide back up refueling rearming and defend oil installations. Actually we should participate in the first few bombing runs and destroy Iranian ports where they can launch from. I'd support this over Libya or Iraq any day. Such a joke...moving on Saddam and his mystery WMDs, meanwhile Iran is working on the mother of all WMDs and we do nothing.


Agreed on all points. The author is correct to suggest that even the Iranians will tire of having a 100 billion dollar investments reduced to ashes. He's also right that this will set off a nuclear arms race in the Mid East.

GRUMPY
11-16-2011, 03:22 PM
it is important the WE smoke iran to put the stamped on by the usofa label on that region for a long long time to come....and when i say smoked i mean take it all out, whether flies, rides, floats or glows orange....iran has been at war with us since 79 and has been killing americans directly or via proxy it is time to finish this.....

Captain Obvious
11-16-2011, 10:28 PM
Unfortunately GW engaged us in a frivolous war in Iraq that completely exhausted our resources, trashed our global credibility which makes it virtually impossible to deal with the real threats that is Iran (and N. Korea).

... just like I said years ago.

So we sit here in our folly and watch the real enemy progress.

Conley
11-16-2011, 10:33 PM
I agree that W screwed the pooch with Iraq, and that does make our current efforts more difficult.

Even still I do believe we have the capability and should take some sort of action...we aren't so spent as to justify idly siting by while this happens. North Korea we couldn't exactly do anything about with China right there, but this we can definitely prevent or at the least stall significantly.

Captain Obvious
11-16-2011, 10:41 PM
Iran has the backing of China and Russia. Engaging Iran means we piss both of them off.

Are we poised to make this sort of move at this point.

Fuck no.

Miss him now?

Conley
11-16-2011, 10:45 PM
Iran has the backing of China and Russia. Engaging Iran means we piss both of them off.

Are we poised to make this sort of move at this point.

Fuck no.

Miss him now?


They'll be pissed regardless.

Do you think they would engage our military? I don't. China and Russia don't want a nuclear Middle East either. We're all in the same boat, desperate for the oil and therefore the stability. Additionally China and Russia are much closer geographically and have separatist/terrorist issues all their own, where some of that nuclear material could end up. I see them as bitching and moaning and upping their arms sales, not much else.

Captain Obvious
11-16-2011, 10:50 PM
Iran has the backing of China and Russia. Engaging Iran means we piss both of them off.

Are we poised to make this sort of move at this point.

Fuck no.

Miss him now?


They'll be pissed regardless.

Do you think they would engage our military? I don't. China and Russia don't want a nuclear Middle East either. We're all in the same boat, desperate for the oil and therefore the stability. Additionally China and Russia are much closer geographically and have separatist/terrorist issues all their own, where some of that nuclear material could end up. I see them as bitching and moaning and upping their arms sales, not much else.


What makes this issue hard to contemplate is the behind the scenes involvement.

Everyone is in communication with each other, we only get to see what we get to see in the media. There's always more to the story.

The other issue that I alluded to is - who supports us? And Israel? If we engage, who backs us? if it's just us and Israel, we're fucked right out of the gate -that gives Russia and China a whole lot of latitude to work with. If it's us, most of Europe, Canada, Australia and the rest of the other western contingency, then yeah - we have a shot.

You think those camps will side with us after this Iraq clusterfuck? And in this economy that's hitting us all?

Conley
11-16-2011, 10:57 PM
It depends what level of commitment we're talking about. I don't think they'll offer much in the way of military assistance and I don't think we need or want it. I am talking about bombing (extensively) not an occupation like Iraq part 2. Screw nation building, it's useless.

I am fairly certain all of Europe, Canada, Australia and really everywhere other than those aligned with Russia and China will support this action. Everyone agrees that Iran is working towards the bomb. No one will step in to stop us or the Israelis. At the end of the day we're the country that strikes first and strikes hardest...Russia and China haven't done much lately outside their borders (maybe if you count the episode in Georgia, but that was on the Russians' doorstep).

Captain Obvious
11-16-2011, 11:01 PM
Maybe you're right.

We'll find out soon enough.

I'm betting the Iranians build a bomb and it goes unchecked.

Conley
11-16-2011, 11:08 PM
You're probably right. Obama has been more willing to use the military than I thought he would be but I don't understand the reasoning for his recent deployments (Libya and Central Africa). Like a lot of problems it seems this one is being kicked down the road for someone else to deal with.

MMC
11-17-2011, 08:47 AM
Any of you guys familiar with Game Theory? Professor Bruce De Mesquita. This is one of the Gentlemen that the CIA is using and has been using. This was his prediction in 2009 if Iran would get the bomb. It is a long Piece considering what he has already dealt with in his political predictions. He has been on TV covered by the History Channel as well as the Discovery Channel. Including an ABC Special. Covered pretty much by most News outlets.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/16/magazine/16Bruce-t.html?pagewanted=all

Can Game Theory Predict When Iran Will Get the Bomb?
Is Iran going to build a bomb?

Since the early 1980s, C.I.A. officials have hired him to perform more than a thousand predictions; a study by the C.I.A., now declassified, found that Bueno de Mesquita’s predictions “hit the bull’s-eye” twice as often as its own analysts did.

Last year, Bueno de Mesquita decided to forecast whether Iran would build a nuclear bomb. With the help of his undergraduate class at N.Y.U., he researched the primary power brokers inside and outside the country — anyone with a stake in Iran’s nuclear future. Once he had the information he needed, he fed it into his computer model and had an answer in a few minutes.....snip~

Whatcha think?

Conley
11-17-2011, 09:26 AM
But as the computer model ran forward in time, through 2009 and into 2010, positions shifted. American and Israeli national-security players grudgingly accepted that they could tolerate Iran having some civilian nuclear-energy capacity. Ahmadinejad, Khamenei and the religious radicals wavered; then, as the model reached our present day, their power — another variable in Bueno de Mesquita’s model — sagged significantly.

Amid the thousands of rows on the spreadsheet, there’s one called Forecast. It consists of a single number that represents the most likely consensus of all the players. It begins at 160 — bomb-making territory — but by next year settles at 118, where it doesn’t move much. “That’s the outcome,” Bueno de Mesquita said confidently, tapping the screen.

What does 118 mean? It means that Iran won’t make a nuclear bomb. By early 2010, according to the forecast, Iran will be at the brink of developing one, but then it will stop and go no further. If this computer model is right, all the dire portents we’ve seen in recent months — the brutal crackdown on protesters, the dubious confessions, Khamenei’s accusations of American subterfuge — are masking a tectonic shift. The moderates are winning, even if we cannot see that yet.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/16/magazine/16Bruce-t.html?pagewanted=all

This just pisses me off. The CIA needs real intel, not some joker with a computer. Iran will get to the brink of building a bomb and then stop. What? The U.S. will be ok with Iran have nuclear power plants (and thus the waste needed for a dirty bomb). What? I mean I know this was back in 2009 but he was only predicting a year into the future. Wouldn't surprise me if he's exaggerating his importance to the CIA either...a lot of loons say they've worked for the CIA but then because it's 'classified' ::) it can't be confirmed. The NYT wouldn't be the first paper suckered in to a story like that.

MMC
11-17-2011, 09:54 AM
The CIA does the same thing bro.....use a computer model with their analysts too. Here is the Good profesor on the Daily Show talking about Iran and how and what is fed into the puter.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-september-28-2009/bruce-bueno-de-mesquita

I didnt have to go with the NY TIMES. There are plenty of Articles on it even with the UK and Republican Think Tanks as well as Democratic Ones. CNN Interview, NBC, ABC, so I think it has been confirmed with his work for the CIA. But like he said he wished they gave him more work. But they don't!

Still in this video he also explains about Irans Heirarchy.

Conley
11-17-2011, 10:00 AM
Oh I know they use computers. They spend money on everything, a lot of it is waste IMO.

Let me ask you this, looking at that computer simulation would you have believed what it predicted? Considering that the predictions were made in mid 2009 about early 2010? Doesn't it seem ridiculous to you that Iran would get to the brink of building a bomb and then decide to stop?

MMC
11-17-2011, 10:24 AM
Oh I know they use computers. They spend money on everything, a lot of it is waste IMO.

Let me ask you this, looking at that computer simulation would you have believed what it predicted? Considering that the predictions were made in mid 2009 about early 2010? Doesn't it seem ridiculous to you that Iran would get to the brink of building a bomb and then decide to stop?


Other than who the players were and where they stood. Yeah, I could go with that. As far them stoping themselves if they were that close in achieving such. I wouldnt go for that. As we have all seen. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. So I would see a divison in the Iranians Heirarchy. Someone either to make the grab for power. Or to hide that Power from others of their own kind.

But then if the Iranians were so hell bent on the destruction of others and themselves. Why would they use Nukes in the first place. Seems to me if they wanted to be some evil pukes. They could unleash some biological diseases, and poisons doing far more greater damage than what a Nuke will do. Especially if any are contagious. It would be more of a surprise onto all. Creep up slowly like.

Course then the World would condemn them of Crimes agaisnt All of Humanity. Then being wiped out from existence themselves.

GRUMPY
11-17-2011, 02:04 PM
Unfortunately GW engaged us in a frivolous war in Iraq that completely exhausted our resources, trashed our global credibility which makes it virtually impossible to deal with the real threats that is Iran (and N. Korea).

... just like I said years ago.

So we sit here in our folly and watch the real enemy progress.

son that is ridiculous bs......

jgreer
11-17-2011, 03:30 PM
Nope its the truth