US prepares military blitz against Iran's nuclear sites

[SillyGoose]

By Philip Sherwell in Washington
(Filed: 12/02/2006)

Strategists at the Pentagon are drawing up plans for devastating bombing raids backed by submarine-launched ballistic missile attacks against Iran's nuclear sites as a "last resort" to block Teheran's efforts to develop an atomic bomb.

Central Command and Strategic Command planners are identifying targets, assessing weapon-loads and working on logistics for an operation, the Sunday Telegraph has learnt.

They are reporting to the office of Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, as America updates plans for action if the diplomatic offensive fails to thwart the Islamic republic's nuclear bomb ambitions. Teheran claims that it is developing only a civilian energy programme.

"This is more than just the standard military contingency assessment," said a senior Pentagon adviser. "This has taken on much greater urgency in recent months."

more...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/02/12/wiran12.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/02/12/ixnewstop.html

[NWHarkness]

1. Do they really think Iran won't respond?

Thousands of Iranian militiamen pouring into Iraq and Afghanistan....tankers ablaze in the Gulf...SCUDs falling on the Green Zone and Kuwait...oil at $100 a barrel....brilliant fucking idea.

[NanceGreggs]

2. I hear ya!

For five years now, we've been hearing people ask: Exactly WHAT over-the-top, disgusting, scatter-brained thing does this pResident have to do before people turn against him?

Well, folks, THIS would be it!

[Road Scholar]

22. has learnt? nt

[errorbells]

125. English usage

What is the difference between 'learnt' and 'learned'?

These are alternative forms of the past tense and past participle of the verb learn. Learnt is more common in British English, and learned in American English. There are a number of verbs of this type (burn, dream, kneel, lean, leap, spell, spill, spoil etc.). They are all irregular verbs, and this is a part of their irregularity.

http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexperts/faq/aboutspelling/learnt

[Senator Obama]

43. My worst fear is that...

The democrats will be gullible enough to vote for this one too. We need to be out in front of this thing.

Obama

[freefall]

128. * isn't planning on there being a vote. They plan to attack and say

it was necessary and already authorized. On Monday at a county pot-luck supper attended by our Representative, a Democrat who voted "No" on the vote to give the power to use necessary force in October 2002, I asked if it was likely that the administration would attack Iran and if they could do so legally. In response to the likelihood of an attack on Iran he looked me right in the eye and said, "I'm worried about that too." I can't remember exactly what he answered to the second part of the question but my impression is that he didn't think the question of legality would stop an attack.

You know how they say, "Be afraid. Be very afraid?" Well, I am.

freefall

edited typo.

[wakeme2008]

8. don't forget the Sunburn anti-ship missiles

IMHO they will take out a nuclear carrier with one.

[Solo_in_MD]

12. And why do you hold that humble opinion

They have never been fired in anger and have not been updated in years. There is no way for Iran to accurately target them. Why do you believe they are a credible threat?

Yes there are some web pages that talk about them, but they all draw from the same source. IMNSHO they are a danger to civilian shipping, but the Western navies are not carrying them as a significant threat.

[wakeme2008]

13. Well

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?id=2439

From that write up

And, in 1987, during the Iran-Iraq war, the USS Stark was nearly cut in half by a pair of Exocets while on patrol in the Persian Gulf. On that occasion US Aegis radar picked up the incoming Iraqi fighter (a French-made Mirage), and tracked its approach to within 50 miles. The radar also “saw” the Iraqi plane turn about and return to its base. But radar never detected the pilot launch his weapons. The sea-skimming Exocets came smoking in under radar and were only sighted by human eyes moments before they ripped into the Stark, crippling the ship and killing 37 US sailors.

Not only is the Sunburn much larger and faster, it has far greater range and a superior guidance system. Those who have witnessed its performance trials invariably come away stunned. According to one report, when the Iranian Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani visited Moscow in October 2001 he requested a test firing of the Sunburn, which the Russians were only too happy to arrange. So impressed was Ali Shamkhani that he placed an initial order for six of the missiles.


the real question is did they order more than the first 6 ??????

[tatertop]

26. The Sunburn has a relatively small launch imprint

I'll bet dollars to dough heads they have those fuckers
hidden everywhere. They are going to light us up.

[LynnTheDem]

If I were Iran's leader, and my nation hit in unprovoked attack,

I would do what is my legal right under international law; fight back and hard. And the first thing I'd do is take out every ship of the 2 fleets sitting in the Strait.

And then there's Iraq, and the new Iranian Iraqi government. And al Sistani, the Iranian Shia, who will of course call for open jihad on every trooper in Iraq.

Bloodbath. For starters.

[BrotherBuzz]

34. Iran has already stated they WILL shut down the Strait of Hormuz.....

if attacked. 21 miles miles wide - I believe they can and will shut it DOWN!

[LynnTheDem]

36. And they have worse than the SUnburn (which is bloody bad enough)

Total Killing Zone, the Strait will be. And then there's Iraq and 150,000 US troops...

And of course Iran would be 100% correct & perfectly within their rights to attack back.

[tatertop]

35. Bush wants to start WWIII

[LynnTheDem]

38. With the world against us...

ya know, I just don't think we'd see the same "glorious" results for us like we did the last WW.

[Charles19]

68. I guess the 12 billion in profit for the QUARTER for Exxon

wasn't enough. They need to attack Iran and drive oil up to 200 dollars a barrel so they can make 50 billion in profit next quater. I think this administration is working on some nice high paying Oil executive positions for when they get out of office.

[nolabels]

185. Probably won't be much of an Exxon after that anyhoo

Come on Chimpy, we double dare ya :P

[shanti]

77. it's pretty obvious

that *ush doesn't give a flying rat's ass what we think about what he does. in fact, they are operating at a feverish pace, ripping us off.

[tatertop]

78. I am afraid we ain't seen nothing yet

[Senator Obama]

52. In order to do that...

You have to have assets and command and control. Shutting down C&C is a priority of a preemptive strike. We have weaponry and the ability to deliver it deep into Iran without even being detected that could knock out most of their c&c and power grid. Yes, they will have a few things we don't get and we'll have to be prepared for some loss. My biggest concern would be a launch against Israel.

The straights of Hormouz belong to US. No way will Iranian assets leave port let alone block the straights. Nuclear attack subs are all we need to keep the straights passable. I'd say given most of the Iranian shipping would be sunk at anchor, it would be their ports that would be impassable.

Obama

[LynnTheDem]

55. I believe you are wrong. And then there's the 150,000 US in Iraq

And yes they'd be wiped out.

Blowback is gonna be a MFing bitch.

[Senator Obama]

106. Sounds more like wishful thinking on your part...

I have the utmost confidence that our soldiers can take care of themselves. Consider the fact that our military is highly capable search and destroy. Consider the fact that we are in a defensive posture right now and are taking losses so as to minimize loss of civilian life. Do you think under such circumstances that we would not unleash the dogs. And once again now, hit us with what now? Please, you are sounding a bit ridiculous here.

Obama

[Solo_in_MD]

110. They have no understanding of the military realities

Iran would have to get troops to Iraq

- Bad roads
- Little transport available
- No air protection
- No cover/concealment for large movements
- No logistics support
- US is fully equiped for night ops and prefers to attack at night

It would make the road to Basra look tame.

Insurgency would be different of course, but that would take much longer. Its a unclear if the Iraqi's would help the Iranians. They have not liked each other for generations, and the brotherhood of Islam has never overcome that.

[Ben Ceremos]

195. I love the sound

of American patriotism grinding it's gears. Iran is going to show you what a real war is. Have fun and I TOLD YOU SO.

[Senator Obama]

234. You know something...

For the sake of world peace and preventing further bloodshed, I think it would be worth not listening to another one of your baseless rants. You do not live in a free nation because your forefathers thought the way you do. That is an ugly yet inescapable fact.

Obama

[LynnTheDem]

248. No Iran doesn't need to get troops to Iraq.

Al Sistani is Iranian; he calls for jihad and that's it.

The new Iraqi "govt" is the Alliance and SCIRI. Iranian.

[Solo_in_MD]

250. That is credible concern (greatly increased insurgency)

The Iranian army invading Iraq en masse to attack Americans soliders is not

[Oversea Visitor]

182. Father buried son

Nice things war hehe.
Go ahead bring on the pain.
Hole very deep
Hope US know how to climb.

[Ben Ceremos]

194. You are the fantasist

in this argument. Your arny is crippled, over-extended, barely supplied and slowly being whittled down by Iraqi resistance. The Iranians have fought a long war on that border. If you think they are naive about war, well, I wish you a happy fantasy world. Your troops will wish for hell in comparison to what the Iranians have in store for them(you have a shortage of bullets, which says a great deal about your ability to fight effectively. And I get a sense that you think Iran is a push-over, which makes you seem a bit "ridiculous"as well...better to avoid this battle, and live to fight another day...but then again, you are under Bush.

[Senator Obama]

223. Mr. I have no idea of what country or interest you represent...

I have really not addressed putting any substantial ground troops into the area. I don't question the Iranians ability to fight. I am well aware of their capabilities. We can destroy most of their assets before we ever invade the country. We'll see how well they fight chunking what amounts to rocks. We don't need to occupy Iraq, just Kurghestan. With control of Kurghestan we get 90 percent of the oil and substantial water and electric infrasturcture, we could starve them to death.

I wouldn't be so quick to evaluate the fighting capability of the US military given our current posture in Iraq. When we open a can of whoop ass in fallajah, I saw those brave insugents run for hunanitarian assistance. If the preservation of life was of no concern to the military and we unleashed the dogs, you'd get a real sense of the US military capability. Now I suggest you get back to pravda.ru and spread that nonsense over there. Given all the tripe about how we'd be slaughtered that was posted over there when we we invaded Iraq, you surely must be embarassed.

Obama

[LoneDriver]

233. Insurgents in fallujah are one thing

5 or 10 divisions in battle order coming over the border, while our troops are dispersed all over Iraq fighting insurgents is another.

[Senator Obama]

236. Oh yes..troops in the open...

Oh how we love them when they mass so that we can spot them easily. I hope we don't broadcast this live because if it comes down to the Iranian military thinking they willl amass at the border, we'll make the Highway of death look like a residential street in comparison.

This is exactly what I'm talking about in terms of misconceptions about troop strength. Who cares about how many troops these guys have. That's a simple matter of killing them where they stand. They'd have to be incredibly stupid to even form divisions with no air cover. But then you knew that..right?

Obama

[Solo_in_MD]

237. Consider the logistics of that scenario

Iran would have to get troops to Iraq with

- Bad roads
- Little alternative transport available
- Few AFVs
- No significant armor
- No air protection
- No cover/concealment for large movements

The US is fully equipped for night ops and prefers to attack at night since most other nations are much less effective in the dark. It would make the road to Basra look tame. Troops in the open without air cover and significant organic AA capability are sitting ducks. Its was the reason that almost every 3rd vehicle in the Soviet army had some AA capability. While the Iranian government has shown considerable disregard for the lives of its troops, one would hope they would resist allowing their people to be massacred like that. In modern combat, sheer numbers does not always win.

I tend to think that if there is a military exchange between Iran and the US, it will be an exchange of missile and air strikes with lopsided results. The Iranians would then take an insurgency and terror approach rather than futile direct military action.

[mogster]

211. Obama

If this is your real identity, OK. If not, you should consider not signing with a public person's name.

Thank you, sir.

[Charles19]

71. Straights only 21 miles wide

They wouldn't even have to use missiles. They could shut it down with artillery and mines quite easily.

[tatertop]

76. They can and they will.

[Senator Obama]

108. Oh how I love the smell of vaporized artillery in the morning...

Please, you're grasping for straws here. Artillery is the easiest to target. One blast from these guys and our assets in Iraq would put a shell on their position before they could reload.

God..you guys are funny....

Obama

[Solo_in_MD]

111. SAMs area eaiser

but Arty is not far behind.

[okieinpain]

112. hahahahahahahahahahahahaha... we need to figure out ied's first

[Senator Obama]

141. In Iraq yes.....

but there is a simple solution to that that would involve killing a lot more innocent people. So in lieu of that solution, as long as US troops are on the ground, they will die to reduce the number of innocent civilians that would have to die should we do what is necessary to clear the battlefield.

God knows that I am a liberal Democrat, but the schadenfrade of some of my compatriots of the left can be every bit as revolting as that from the reichwing.

Obama

[Name removed]

198. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Senator Obama]

227. Believe what you must...

There is no question innocent civilians are being killed. It will happen in any conflict. But you are severely distorting the picture if you contend that we are doing that indiscriminately in a widespread fashion. One thing I can assure you, there is no fighting force any more capable of death and destruction on a conventional battlefield than the US military. We have gone through great pains to avoid unnecessary loss of life in that country. Americans are paying with their lives every day because of that. Yes we have killed innocents. And yes one is way too many. But let's compare this conflict with the indiscriminate targeting that was done by all particpants in past wars. And let's talk about the death and destruction of Arab on Arab violence that occurs on an everyday basis in Iraq.

Obama

[dailykoff]

229. Killing "innocent civilians" is the whole point.!

They're ALL innocent civilians. Wake up my friend. This is genocide as usual, not a Sunday school pageant.

[Senator Obama]

239. Who are all innocent civilians....

Let me let you lose outside the green zone in downtown Baghdad and have you walk around with a white flag. See how long it will be before you become a movie star on Al jazeera network. Ask the American journalist and other innocents who have been captured who have devoted their lives to helping the people of Iraq. Then come back and talk to me about respect for innocents.

Obama

[Ben Ceremos]

191. Nuclear attack subs

will be quite vulnerable in the Strait. And I hate to think what would happen to a sub that got trapped by a sunken ship bottle-neck. Iran is a very dangerous adversary and your government is about to make it's second blunder, but this time it wioll c ost America a lot more than money, prestige and lives. You need to be very afraid, especially if Mr. Murtha's analysis of your armed forces is correct. Looks like this is a war to avoid at all costs.

[Senator Obama]

230. I agree with Mr. Murtha in terms of our force posture in Iraq...

I did not support the Iraq invasion and do not support the Iraq war. I thought it quite unnecessary. But you'd be making a serious mistake if you think that Murtha's public pronouncements will have any impact on the policy and decision makers who will execute this battle plan if necessary. Rest assured that most of what is needed here is surgical strikes from assets already in place or readily available. A full on invasion is neither necesary or anticipated.

I guess you think that our attack subs cannot navigate the area. I can assure you we have the necessary capabiliities to ensure that the Straights remain unblocked. Since the onset of the Gulf war the US and coaltion partners...yes that would be the santimonious Canucks even, have had an active board and search program as well as an heightened presence in the area. If a Manta Ray moves in that part of the world, we'll know about it.

Nobody sane would be unafraid to go to war. I personally hope we never do. I hope that Iran will do what is right and remove all pretext for military engagement. My comments on this thread are not about being gung ho about war. They are challenging what I believe is some very naive wishful thinking on the parts of people whose opinions will not factor into a strategic and tactical military plan. I guess if a waring nation were concerned foremost with sustaining casuaties, nobody would go to war. Wouldn't that be great. But as peacenik said in another post on this thread, these folks are not afraid to die. All the more reason why you need to make sure that they are allowed limited access to WMD technology.

Obama

[Senator Obama]

47. Fool us once...

we won't be fooled again. That plane would never take off, let alone be in a position to fire given our military presence and control of the airspace and seas in the Arabian sea and persian gulf.

Obama

[wakeme2008]

54. Sunburn could be fired from a

fishing boat.

Here is four



all it would take is one on a fishing boat to take out a carrier.

[Senator Obama]

67. IN the event we decide to go to war....

Any fishing boats in the area would be reduced to toothpicks before they knew what hit them. Seals would take care of that. My posts here might seem that I'm a might bit too proud of our military capability, but if you consider what we do have, it is formidable in a conventional fight. I take no pride that our soldiers are the best equipped in the world with millions of dollars of gear and yet they are being wiped out by homemade IEDs with shape charges that are effective even against our armored bradleys. The most sobering is the good old donkey cart bomb.

Obama

[Solo_in_MD]

80. You have hit the key point

In the military portion of a conflict in the middle east the US can not be stopped, particularly by a nation as poorly equipped and lead as Iran. Its the occupation I fear.

I really believe that we will not preemptively attack, but will return fire after some nut lobs a few missiles ineffectively at US naval vessels. The return strike will be devastating to their C&C, SS missile sites, anti aircraft sites, and possibly POL and electrical infrastructure, notionally all legitimate military targets. The real question is where it would go from there.

[Nevernose]

96. Gulf of Tonkin

It wouldn't take an Iranian nutcase to launch a few missiles at us, it would onlt take an American nutcase to claim that they'd launched a missile at us. Unfortunately, these days there seems to be a plethora of nutcases either in the White House or appointed by the White House.

[Solo_in_MD]

Sort of

There are enough sensors looking at the Gulf that it would have to be a real launch from Iran before the US could counter strike.

During this thread I was emailed a question about appropriate response/proportional response. That is always a slippery topic. My take is that if a sub shoots torpedoes at a US ship, it is not reasonable to take out SS or AA sites, but submarine support facilities or subs at the dock would be fair game. Then again, with the current crew in charge...

[okieinpain]

113. hahahahahahahahahahahaaaa. iran is not iraq baby. remember

they've been rakeing in the multi-billion dollar quarters too... oh geez men and their toys....

[Senator Obama]

134. yeah yeah...we heard all of that...

And yet you don't seem to be paying attention to the fact that technology is useless without the ability to maintain and upgrade it. We have the best maintained battllefield equipment in the world and ours breaks frequently. The Iranians may be flush with cash, but they are damn sure short of spare parts to maintain their antiquated weaponry. You have heard of all the milittary transports dropping out of the sky? They lost many of their key Army staff in a recent transport crash. Cause..poor maintanence. If they can't get sufficient parts for transports, just where are they going to get the parts to keep their missiles operational.

This kind of problem is even true in a a power such as the Soviet Union. They actually have 3 times the number of warheads we have. Their maintenance and security of the nuclear stockpile should be more of a concern than Iran getting nuclear weapons. With the number of poorly paid and unemployed weapons experts they have coupled with poorly secured stockpiles of enriched Uranium, they are the number one shopping mart for terrorist on the planet. The bonehead we have in office now actually cut aid that we were quietly giving to the Soviets to secure that stockpile.

Obama

[okieinpain]

137. yeah, well if all that is true, why the fuck are you so worried about

their broke down nuclear program. I mean if they can't get parts for a freakin plane where in the hell are they getting the parts to build a nuclear bomb.

:~)

[Senator Obama]

146. That would be from Russia...

or have you not read up on that? Nuclear technology is available to them under NPT and the Russians have plenty to give. The problem is that the technology is easily dual use and that they have faciities to now make weapons grade material.
I've said repeatedly that I wish like hell they'd just live up to their NPT obligations and take Bush threats out of the equation. But there' s a lot of testosterone flying around. If the leaders of that country had their best interests at heart, they would and still hopefully will comply with NPT obligations. Consider that NK and Pakistan also have nuke technology with nowhere near the bank and NK even has the abiity to deliver nukes to Alaska with LA in its sites as soon as the Tapadong (sp) 3 is ready. The Iranian nuke sites are alledgly well defended by state of the art Russian SAMs recently sold to Iran. But we are talking about spare parts for obsolete weapon systems, things that are in short supply on the market even given the cash to purchase them. I also believe although I could be mistaken that such parts have been embargoed by UN mandate.

Obama

[hopeisaplace]

147. Bingo, "Iraq the Sequel"

It's obvious to many that the problem isn't "overtaking" a country, it's all the rest
after that...(but I still believe
invading/attacking Iraq is opening a pandora's box that will involve other countries,
and that to me, are the BIG worries/nightmares.

[Senator Obama]

155. Yep...

I'm afraid the reality of this situation is that we may very well invoke a regional war.
There may be many here that think I am a bloodthirsty warmonger, but nothing could be farther from the truth. I am well aware at what's at stake here and go into this thing with eyes wide open and hopes for a peaceful diplomatic solution. In a regional war you know that Russia is going to be involved with Iran on their borders. Turkey will seize the opportuniity to open up a can of whoop ass on the Kurds. Many do not understand that the Turks are very concerned about any aspsirations the Kurds may have for autonomy as any such move would destabilize the southern part of Turkey which has a large Kurdish population. In essence, the US made a deal that they would not allow the Kurds independence. This is just one of the many ways the US is peceived to be hypocritical when we talk about democracy and self determination. If any group in the area has a case for independendence, the Kurds are right at the top of the list. They have the oldest and most distinguished culture in the area.

Obama

[hopeisaplace]

168. I have to ask, lets say Iran or the region was not rich with oil

do you think the US would still
want to attack if they thought Iran was going to develop a nuclear weapon?

What is going to be the cost of a war in Iran to the US??

Wouldn't it be cheaper to pump money into alternate energy sources than
spend, lets say "____billions or trillions" on another war??

Wouldn't it be easier/cheaper/safer to try and strike a deal with Iran in some
way? I don't know what, I'm not the Prez...come on leaders...isn't there
something Iran would want or need to give them incentive to cooperate?
Do you believe there isn't anything..is it that hopeless?

Which brings me back to my original thought posted below somewhere.
This admin wants war. That's the perception by me, Mrs. Average Person.

[Senator Obama]

242. Thanks..All very good questions ...

and your civil tone is much appreciated. I been responding to a lot of hate mail on this thread just posing as somewhat of a devils advocate. You're the first to attempt to respond to my original question about how do we solve this mess short of a military conflict, which despite my postings I'm not sure that's a solution at all.

Oil in Iran is undoubtedly a motive for our presence but I have to say in this case that geopolitics trumps that. What I mean in essence is that even if Iran had no energy resources of interest, given the current makeup of their government, it would still be pretty high importance to stop them from getting access to nukes. Overarching in that consideration is the Israeli-Arab conflict and the fact that we have not achieved a Palestinian solution.

No matter how much money we pump into alternative fuels, we could not deploy them in sufficient time to make reliance on middle east energy a moot point. Even when we do break our dependence on middle east oil, we still have to be mindful of the Israeli arab conflict. If by some chance we were able to abandon the middle east tomorrow in favor of some cheap alternative energy, that would be a great solution for us, but in return it would be an absolute guarantee that the region would sink into complete poverty and lawlessness. Consider that most of the richer middle eastern state rely almost entirely on oil exports for revenue. Look at Saudi Arabia. Because they are not producing as much oil as they used to, they have had to reduce their stipends to Saudi citizens. When the oil dries up or demand for same dries up, there will be a lot more disenchanted impoverished ME folks. I really believe that poverty and lack of opportunity is the root cause for many of the average folks in the region taking up terrorism as an occupation.

No it is not hopeless. But God knows I hope we can strike a deal. This whole thing seem so easy to me. I personally can't stand the air that Bush breathes, but in this case I think the man is going to get a bad rap even if he goes to great lengths to pursue diplomacy and rally international support. Given all the pressure on the US to stand down, why can't the Iranians diffuse the situation by simply complying with NPT as certified by the IAEA? They could have a win win by having their nuclear energy and striking back at us economically with the oil bourse. And there would be nothing we could legally do. And this time the DEMOCRATS under that situation had better damn well oppose any military action. Given the lack of ethics and morality on the right side these days, as another DUer noted, Bush could be caught molesting children in the Rose Garden and the right would yawn. If Iran submits to the satisfaction of IAEA, no matter what Bush says, we should stand down. I would not under any circumstances support a strike if IAEA says otherwise. I don't trust Bush as far as I can spit.

I can only hope that the Iranian government comes to their senses and provides transparency to comply with their obligations under IAEA. That is one way to nip this in the bud. That is the move of a responsible government and I think anyone sane would rightfully be suspicious of their motives if they won't comply.
I only wish I could see another way to attack this problem if Iran remains intransigent. Perhaps sanctions imposed by the UN along with withdrawal of Russian technological support would work. I simply don't know how effective that would be but I'd certainly make sure I'm satisfied that we've considered that alternative before we make a military move.

Hoping that cooler heads prevail...

Obama...and btw in just in case anybody is wondering I'm not the real guy..LOL..

[Ben Ceremos]

200. Arrogance

of this sort is the path of hubris that leads to the fall and disgrace. Better to be shrewd and not let your army get screwed.

[Senator Obama]

240. With you as a cheerleader....

We can't help but be successful.

Obama

[wakeme2008]

226. what are you smoking

our soldiers are the best equipped in the world

Have you read anything in the last three years about how poorly equipped our troops are????

They are STILL buying their own vests.

They are STILL buying their own shoes.

[Solo_in_MD]

73. For starters that is not a fishing boat

I *think* is a Sovremennyy Class Destroyer.

[tatertop]

93. Sunburn and SS-NX-26 Yakhonts: They are going to light us up!

[Solo_in_MD]

101. Really?

How will they launch them?
How will they target them?
Why do you believe they will be effective against military targets?
What make you think they will get more than one volley off?

You and others in this thread do not understand that 1980s designed Soviet missiles have maintenance and other significant issues. They also need sophisticated support systems for targeting that Iran does not have. Add to that the overall decay in the Iranian military, and its not clear they could get an first strike off, effective or otherwise. Even if they get a few in the air, they will not get a chance for a second strike.

Iran is currently boosting their AA defense around their nuclear sites, in preparation for a presumed air attack. Its doubtful they have resources left for surface attack capability, assuming they have anything functional currently. Russia might spot them a few systems with advisers, but that would be the only way they could have anything modern and functional.

[Occulus]

188. Your most recent posts reek of the same hubris that has brought down

"world" empires.

I think you're wrong, on the sole basis of your own hubris.

[LynnTheDem]

15. Never used to be a country that waged wars of aggression; INVASIONS.

And yes actually, every ship of the fleet sitting in the Strait is at risk.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7147.htm

[Senator Obama]

124. Good article...

War is hell. Imagine if we respond with the degree of paranoia generated by this article. They wouldn't even have rocks to throw.

That brings me back to my original question which somehow detoured into a discussion of ours versus their military capability.

IF at such time we have exhausted all available diplomatic means to come to a solution to this crisis, just what is an appropriate response? I'm afraid we're at a real impasse if we reach that point. I was never in favor of an invasion of Iraq. I felt then and do now that it was foolhardy at best to invade Iraq. Unlike some of my brethern from the peace wing of the party who never saw a conflict worth fighting, there comes a time when you have to go to war. Had we not done so at appropriate times in the past, the US would not exist as the free and prosperous nation that it is today. The reality is that the stabiity of that region in favor of western interests is vital to our economic security and will be for many decades to come. I would hope that parties of good will woud emerge within Iran that consider what is best for their country overall. There is no reason that a responsible Iran should not be allowed to develop nuclear energy for peaceful means. That effort should not be allowed, however, if they are unwilling to fullfill their obligations under the NPT. At some point even Russia will be forced to come to that realization and should be onboard if we have to take down the government. The necessity of all of these middle east actions is inevitable given the reactionary management of the area by the West since the fall of the Ottamon empire and all of our well documented tamperng with the governments of the area. This is not just a problem created by the US. It goes back to when Sir Winston and Lawrence of Arabia carved up the area to form nations such as Iraq and Kuwait for the expressed benefit of the west with little consideration of the demographics of the area. When Saddam attacked Kuwait, he was well justified believing that Kuwait was rightfully Iraqi territory. Notice that Iraq has minimal sea port access, being confined solely to Basra. Kuwait was carved out by the British taking away what would have and should have been Iraqi coastal ports. Had he been Bush, the Reichwing would have declared his Kuwaiti invasion a righteous expedition.

We have substantial assets tied up trying to control what amounts to a noncritical piece of dirt. Iran was then and is now the number one threat to the US in the ME. A prudent thinker would have kept their powder dry for the Iran contingency, given our no. 1 committment should have been Afghanistan. Whether we like it or not, there may come a time we have to respond militarily or lose the confidence of our other allies in the region. And I'm not just talking about Israel, I'm talking about the Saudis, Kuwaitis and the Jordanians. A nuclear armed Iran is a problem for them as well.

Obama

[Senator Obama]

44. Not likely...

Our carriers have standoff capability so as to render the Sunburns ineffective.

Obama

[LynnTheDem]

50. No they do not.

Suggest you read up on the facts of the SUnburn.

[Senator Obama]

58. I have read up on the Sunburn...

Formidable weapon with mach 3 speed and 250 km range cruises 20 meters above water. But you can't use what you don't have and it will not be launched from a plane, it would have to be lauched from a fixed platform. In an initial attack, we'd wipe out most land based sites that are in range of any of our surface assets. The rest would be gone as soon as they light up to launch.

Obama

[LynnTheDem]

60. They do have them.

You don't need a plane to launch them.

EOM.

:)

[Senator Obama]

66. Are they EMP hardened?

If not, they will make great paper weights because one way to take these babies out even if they're mobil is with EMP weaponry. In the end it is all about who controls the skies.

I am not so stupid as to believe we can stop all of them. I expect they might hit some of our ships. Hell, if we're going to start a war we better be prepared for that. But they have only a 150 mile range and based on that we have a much better chance of shutting them down before they can ever be launched. We could lauch and attack from the US. Our carriers don't have to be anywhere near the area given our facilities in Bahrain, Quatar , Iraq, Diego Garcia, etc. from which we can launch stealth, B-2 bombers and Fseries fighters. Meanwhile our attack subs, say one boomer could level the country if need be and never be located. I mean hey...our tax dollars at work.

Obama

[okieinpain]

120. yeah, like the armed bradleys in iraq. the funny thing you war guys

forget is the little experiment going on in iraq. the people of that area have been running one of the best training camps in the world for the last year and a half.

now put some billions behind that and a million man army.. shit meet fan....

[Senator Obama]

129. That lesson is not lost on me...

I am posting on about 6 boards simultaneously and I throw those tidbits at Reichwingers all the time. I also like to inject some reality into this conversation and amongst folks who are more aligned with my overall political thinking. We are forced to consider things as they are, not how we wish them to be. As is always the problem with having this discussion with doves, they are always a little short in the reality department.

Like it or not, we didn't win the cold war by always being the nice guys. Sometimes you have to go to war to create peace. And yes that means that sometimes you create circumstances that do not result in the best of circumstances for the citizens of the countries involved. But without that proactive defense, we would have been a sitting duck to attack ourselves. It is a truism that war will not end until the will of those who will not live in peace are subdued. Hence the lessons learned from WW1 and the subsequent WW2.

Just because we have a big hammer, I do not see every problem as a nail. But you better be ready to use that hammer if necessary, and the opposition had better be convinced that you mean business. Foreign policy is useless if diplomacy cannot be backed by the threat and will to use force if necessary. Many who live in second tier countries can scoff at the necessity of war, but consider the number of wars they have started that we have had to end. And consider that if we hadn't gone to war, you might very well be speaking German or Japanese instead of English.

Obama

[okieinpain]

133. uh... obama is it.. I don't think they want to control the U.S, I believe

their stated goal is to get us to go home... I might be wrong, but I'm sure you will feel any holes.

:~)

[Senator Obama]

150. If that is really what they want to do...

They'd be in a much better position to accomplish that if they were to assume a peaceful posture. The fact is that we're (the US) are not going to back down and will hold their feet to the fire to comply with NPT. And as long as you need lights and heating oil, we won't be abandoning that region to unstable governments anytime soon. Anybody who has a lick of sense about foreign policy, no matter what party they represent had better undertand that we cannot allow these unstable third world countries to acquire nuclear weapons unchecked. I would not care if I had some reasonable assurance that adequate command and control and failsafe protocol existed on the use of said weapons. But with an unstable head of government ruled by mullahs with a little different perspective on life and an unabiding hate of what I beiieve was a huge foreign policy mistake called Israel, I believe we need to insist on their NPT compliance. Of course we could just give up, abandon support of Israel, offer to resettle the Israelis in Wyoming and the problem might be solved. I often wonder why we didn't give them part of Germany instead?

Obama

[Solo_in_MD]

153. Jerusalem

Nothing else really mattered

[Senator Obama]

156. Good point...n/t.

Obama

[Ben Ceremos]

203. What malarkey.

No wonder you are a politician and not a working person.

[Senator Obama]

235. I work quite well in real life...

I hope you don't think the real Barack Obama would waste any time having a dialogue with the mob on this board.

Obama

[Name removed]

243. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Senator Obama]

256. It will take someone better than you...

to drum me off this board. If you are not interested in my contributions here, feel free to post elsewhere. If you have something constructive to contribute, which I highly doubt, then please feel free to do so. Otherwise, consider yourself the reason why DEMs are losing and not the reason they are winning.

Your opinions about Obama are rather interesting. I'm personally shocked at the number of people who have labeled the man a turncoat given he's only been in office a single year. I'm quite sure that I'd enjoy chatting with the real guy. I hope he matures and grows a pair and starts to assert himself on matters central to advancing the party's interest. I admit that jury is still out.


Learn to recognize someone contributing in a forum acting as a devils advocate. There are a number of posts on here that I've made that clearly should give you a clue. I regularly engage in poliitcal debate forums where I shoot pretty hard at the REICHWING. When it comes to defense, I'd say my politics are somewhat more moderate to conservative with my social views tending towards liberal. I am not a troll, nor do I live in a bubble. I suggest you take a chill pill and burst yours.

Obama

[Ben Ceremos]

204. Unstable?

Have you looked in your government lately? Shit, you guys are cornering the market lately.ROFLMAO!!!

[Senator Obama]

259. Nice of you to be concerned. Not sit back down ....

and enjoy the ride. You can do litte else..LOL..

Obama

[Occulus]

189. Nice rightwing quote you ended with.

It would seem I've heard those exact words before.... but never out of the mouth of a self-described "liberal".

Are you a DLC supporter, by chance?

[Ben Ceremos]

202. EMP

is ineffective when you are reliant on the electronics of your own forces...geez, and you claim Obama as avatar? I thought he was brighter than that.

[Ben Ceremos]

201. I guess the Senator

missed the part about Sunburns being self-guiding, erratic and retargettable and an effective counter measure does not exist. They fly away from the launch and go hunting for your ship./ I will watch the fires at sea and weep for the dead, and I am certain that many of them will be from your land.

[Solo_in_MD]

222. I guess you have not been reading up on the SS-22s

if that is how you think they function

[Senator Obama]

238. Yep...they have to be operational before they can do anythiing...

I guess you missed that part too. That would be what advanced AWACS and EMP weaponry will be used for. we have the technology to render most of their electronics useless on the battlefield. These missiles are yesterday's rage. They can't hit what they can't target..or did you miss the part about the Iranians having the targeting capabilities necessary to operate these missiles in complex modes.

I have no doubt that in a conflict some of these will find their way home. What's amazing to me is how many of you will be overjoyed if just one of our ships or bases sustains a hit while the entire Iranian military capability is annihilated. Somehow I think you lose all sense of what its like to kill the elephants when the best you can do it hit an ant or two.

Obama

[wakeme2008]

51. ROFL

:rofl:

[LynnTheDem]

56. Somebody didn't bother reading up facts on the Sunburn.

Such as the fact the US has no tested defense against them.

And the fact that Iran has worse than the Sunburn.

SS-NX-26 Yakhonts

American ignorance & arrogance is gonna get us all killed. :(

[Senator Obama]

63. Get me close enough to a carrier and I could hit it with a slingshot..

You don't launch a war and not be prepared to take some strikes. But kindly tell me how these weapons which have a 250 km (154 mile) max range are supposed to be within launch distance of a US surface ship? Don't forget that we will not be in a defensive posture if we launch the first strike. I am not a warmonger but I feel the need to inject some reality into the conversation. The weaponry we have at our disposal if used in a preemptive mode would quickly reduce any air and missile capability to that of rock throwing within a matter of minutes.

Obama

[Occulus]

199. I would submit...

...the information, the actual technical specs of each type of missile, being classified data and all....


....you don't know WTF you're talking about. Seriously.

YOU don't know for certain that they're telling the whole world the exact speed, range, and damage capabilities of the missiles the respective militaries will be using. That would somewhat negate the purpose, after all... right?

So... you don't really know for sure, with any sort of authority in the matter, that your statements regard the danger our forces will be placed in is in fact the whole story. For all YOU know, for example, those sunburn missiles can't be modified to carry chemical/biological warheads.

Would Iran tell you? Would it tell Jane's? Would it tell anyone at all exactly what their missiles are and are not capable of?

It will be worse than you are painting it, and I'm going to publicly ask why you are painting Iran's capabilities as enthusiastically inferior as you seem to be.

THIS IS NOT A LIGHT MATTER. This could, very possibly, invoke a world war.

It's almost as if you're trying to intentionally underestimate Iran's capabilities. I, for one, would like to be prepared for MORE than what they actually have.... and I am in no way convinced that ours will be the superior force in this coming conflict. After all, it is arguable whether we're a superior force against insurgents in Iraq.

THEY'RE still around. So, too, will be Iran, regardless. And if any of them survive, they will be very rightly pissed.

Hubris, your posts. Such colossal hubris.

It's the only word the language has to describe your posts on this thread, and it has brought down empires, as I mentioned upthread.

Have a care to that, please. Our military is not, and will never be, unbeatable.

NEVER forget that.

[Solo_in_MD]

231. Actually its pretty available

SS-22s and other systems are freely marketed. You can go to a trade show and get brochures if you want.

Soviet practice is to replace not update. Its doubtful Iran could upgrade or change any of the SS missiles they have. Too much internal data is required.

That the US military would walk over the Iranian military is clear, particularly if its limited to air strikes. However, the ensuing long term issues would be immense. Victory in combat does not mean the peace won't be bloody.

US forces are having to extend combat tours and disrupt normal rotations. Do not confuse that with being over taxed. However, if it continues for an extended period, it will sap the resolve of the American people to continue.

While I have corrected the misunderstanding some have here of the military capacities of the systems and nations involved, I am not for attacking Iran. The long term repercussions would be huge. It will get postured as a Islam v The West thing that will make the cartoon astroturfing look like a pleasant interlude.

[fujiyama]

255. Very good post

I don't think anyone should underestimate the strength of our military hardware or troops. As the "senator" said, that's where the billions in our tax dollars have been going. While there is certainly hubris involved in stating US military strength, it still is not matched. China is several years off from matching US strength and at this time, they would be very unlikely to attack the US. Neither is Russia. Iran is not important for either of them to go to war with the US.

The problem is of course, the aftermath as we see with Iraq. The military we have now is trained well enough to fight. It can occupy as well, in relatively calmer situations. But not against a constant suicidal guerrilla insurgency, which is what is faced now. In fact, I am not aware of one military that was able to defeat such a force, without resorting to extremely brutal means, the likes of which Bush may be capable of committing, but have yet to see. Even in those situations where the "military" side of those forces was destroyed or subdued, the ideology and movement still lived on. Ultimately, the messianic talk of "spreading freedom" must come from within. The reason Japan and Germany were so easy to govern afterwords, was because they had both been defeated in absolutely catastrophic wars they Had started. A very clear and distinct lesson was thus learned. The US cannot win preventive wars of aggression, because the victims will always see themselves as victims and from a global standpoint, rightfully so.

But like you, I am in opposition of such an attack on Iran. The longterm consequences would be catastrophic, as well as the human cost (which always are in war).

I do not consider my self a pacifist. I was in favor of the initial attack on Afghanistan, but as we subsequently learned, thee administration's heart was never even set to do the job right there. In fact, if Blair had not convinced him otherwise, Afghanistan may never have been invaded.

I also do not think the US should be blind to threats around the globe, but I would say the greatest threat we face is not, contrary to what most hawks would say as being Iran's or states' nuclear ambitions, but in the Wahhabiism influence spread by the Saudi state. In a way, it is Saudi imperialism, but it much more subtle and idealogical. This philosophy is very much in line with totalitarian ideologies of the past, and it would be in the entire world's interest (including the Muslim world) if it were stopped. Pakistan has already almost completely fallen under this influence. While I would have found attacking Pakistan to be a logistical nightmare (and not practically feasible), there would have been more justification in such an action. No other state had such a crucial role in the creation of Al Qa-eda. People speak of Iran as having incredibly close ties to Al Qa-eda, but Iran and Pakistan relations had a chilling over the support of the Tali-ban (which was never very tolerant of Shiite Islam).

Either way, dealing with Iran is a consequence of the inaction of previous presidents in ignoring Pakistan's own nuclear program (though much blame can be placed on Europe as well which exported much of the technology). This is the origin of Iran's own program.

I do agree that diplomacy would best prevail and if the US can strike a deal somewhat like that which was struck by the Clinton administration and NK (with stronger enforcement guidelines perhaps), we might have more luck. But diplomacy has never been this administration strong suit (or suit in any way, because it never has used it), so I dread the worst outcome like others on this board.

[Senator Obama]

253. I appreciate your smack down.....

and I can assure you that neither you or I will ever have access to all the data on Iran's capabilities. For that matter I'm pretty sure they might have some things we don't know about at all. But you are dead wrong that the information on Iranian SS weaponry is classified. This is early 1980's technology and the capabilities of this stuff have been known to western governments for years. So I'm not sure that all the hubris here should be attributed to me. But facts are facts. Iran is no match for the US military in a conventional war.

You see if I really had all the hubris that you attribute to me I would tell you something about the insurgency. If you were to consider just what It would take for a complete military victory, I would simply tell you let the military do what it does best and that is kill everything in site. In case you hadn't noticed despite the fact there have been many innocents to die from this conflict, there are a lot of live folks in Iraq. Unfortunately, some of them still want to do harm to us. Now they even want to do harm to each other given the power vacuum left by the deposing of their government and lack of security in the country.

YOU believe I am painting Iran's capabilities as "enthusiastically" inferior. I believe I am describing them vis a vis what we would need to accomplish to control Iran oil in a straight forward unemotional manner. I am doing this as a devil's advocate. I do however stand behind the essence of the belief that I have set forth. We would prevail handily in a limited conflict to knock out their nuclear sites and control Kirghistan.

Finally, let me talk further about military capability versus the perception of many on this thread that view conflicts such as VietNam and Iraq as military failures. Neither are military failures. The military is not the right tool to use to ultimately solve a political conflict. To the contrary, the military performed brilliantly given the political constraints placed on them by civilian authority. The insurgency exists in Iraq because of two things..inadequate initial troop strength to secure the country in a timely fashion and the failure to impose martial law. Iraq is at the stage where only a political solution is going to settle things. That is ultimately what was required in conflicts such as Vietnam and in the Korean war to name a couple of more. I have a close friend who is a Marine who fought at Kazan. That was he airbase that was under siege in Vietnam the battle of which was the ultimate turning point of US opinion on the war in Vietnam. When I told him that the military alone could not have won the peace in Vietnam, he wanted to kill me. A rank and file soldiers idea of winning simply means we kill more of them than they of us. Realistically, a war is not worth fighting if the only objective is a military one. Believe it or not, even if you don't, I do realize the military has its limitations. But let's face it, given no consideration for human life and no desire to occupy, what third world nation could prevail against the US? Do you seriously think there is any other country on the planet that could have almost single handedly invaded even a dilapidated Iraq? Do you realize that even in Gulf War 1 there were about 540,000 troops in theater, and well over 500k were ours? The rest of the world came along, some of them piggybacking a ride with us, just to give some semblance of International participation. No such ruse this time. We had far less help but the Brits were and have been outstanding allies, even when we were flat out wrong as I believe we were in going into Iraq.

From what I can tell on this thread, and quite frankly I should expect from my Democratic brethren, that you simply have an aversion to the use of military force. And rightfully so. I do too. Think what you want. I believe I have a far more balanced grip on reality than many of you stuck on one track thinking.

Obama..not the real guy..

[Ben Ceremos]

205. Civilized and peaceful nations

don't "launch" wars. They only defend themselves when attacked. You should try this idea if you want to inject some reality into this forum. You are not fit to lead with the silly ideas you support, Senator Obama-not.

[okieinpain]

121. no shit. sums it up perfectly. oh god and I can't wait for the little

girls gone wild males getting their draft notices.....

[BrotherBuzz]

64. The same standoff capability that allowed a dhow to strike a carrier?

In August 2004, a dhow was able to get close enough to the USS Kennedy to allegedly hit the ship.  Whether the dhow did or did not hit the carrier was not as important but the fact that it did apparently get within mere feet of the ship. Did you know Sunburns CAN be launched from wooden fishing vessels that are hard to detect on radar?

[Senator Obama]

72. There are a number of holes in our defenses...

The question would be given the time to prepare the battlefield, if you know this, do you not think we will make sure there are no surface vessels or submerged vessels within operatiing range of our ships? There are lots of tales of civilian pilots flying over Area 51 as well as the White House...:-).

Interesting enough, we also had a recent incident where a fishing boat got close to one of our attack ships docked in Yemen. USS Cole Redux? If the US military is so stupid as to not learn and address these issues, they obviously will have to pay the price should they launch an attack. Nobody including me is going to be so arrogant as to suggest we would emerge unscathed, but there can be no doubt we will accomplish the job with a minimal loss of US lives and assets.

Controlling Kurghestan is all we need to do to control 90% of the oil.

Obama

[Senator Obama]

82. Enter the wild card...Russia and China..

I hear a number of folks suggest that Israel would get involved. Not likelly. They don't have the firepower to do any damage over that range, not to mention the repercussions of their participation in terms of real destabilizaon of the area. But a "smart" Iran would make sure they get a lick or two off in that direction. Israels population is highly concentrated in urban areas, Tel Aviv, Haifa, Jerusalem. Israel is the size of New Jersey. I doesn't take much to inflict a lot of damage over there. I've been in the area extensively as a civilian.
I wouldn't want to be anywhere near Israel if war broke out. If Israel launches nukes, its all over as they' kill themselves as well as a few folks in the surrounding area that are citizens of neutral countries. That would be Turkey and Russia that come immediately to mind. The Kurds would get busy, Iraq would go bonkers, its not gonna be pretty.

Do you suppose that when Putin looked into George Bushe's eyes he might have whispered...Attack Iran and expect to be heariing from us? After all, those assets are Russian technology mantained by Russian technicians. This is not the Vichy French we are deaing with here. Putin is old school Poiit bureau.


Obama

[BrotherBuzz]

122. Forty thousand square miles?

[Solo_in_MD]

87. You can not be serious...

Sunburns CAN be launched from wooden fishing vessels

1) No on board INS for a transfer alignment.
2) Insufficient structural rigidity for launch forces
3) Flammable structure
4) No targeting data
5) No crew protection from toxic exhaust

[BrotherBuzz]

117. Dead serious

A large dhow is suitably for a one-off launch attack.

[Solo_in_MD]

123. A dhow is not launch capable for something like an SS-22 or SS-26

Lets look at just the short list I posted previously, and it was not an exhaustive list:

1) No on board INS for a transfer alignment.
2) Insufficient structural rigidity for launch forces
3) Flammable structure
4) No targeting data
5) No crew protection from toxic exhaust


A one shot from a dhow only addresses #3 and it would kill the crew (#5). It still would not be able to hit anything and most likely hit the water soon after launch. (#1, #2, #4). INS and targeting are MANDATORY items.

[BrotherBuzz]

130. You know for a fact it can't be done with your vast knowledge?

You think they would have problems finding a willing crew that is disposable.
Do you know the requirements for the GPS system? Same for the targeting data. Think outside the box. It's doable.

Insufficient structural rigidity? have you ever been on a Dhow that uses a crew of twenty-five men?

[Solo_in_MD]

65. Don't confuse them with the technical data and facts...

1) Sunburns have not ever been tested against US forces
2) Sunburns have not been updated in years. Russians replace, not update
3) Iran does not have the resources to generate the required targeting data
4) There is no evidence that Iran has functional Sunburns. They have
been unable to maintain any other advanced weapon system they have
bought over the years.
5) The US has equivalent targets/drones they practice against.
6) Countermeasures are available and every western navy has them.

The seminal sources are a couple of outdated web pages. Maybe one of them should look at a current copy of Janes.


I am not being a saber rattler here, but from a purely military perspective, Iran can not stand up to a US military attack. However, it would be a damn fool thing to do, but I said that about Afghanistan and Iraq too.

[Senator Obama]

79. Janes is Not to be confused...

with the Dick, Jane and Sally books read by the President I presume..LOL.

Somebody quotes 1987 capabilities of a weapon in use by a country that can't even get spare parts for their transport planes. One would assume that our weapons systems have not remained static. Iran has an amazing crash rate of their military aircraft. In early January, they lost a transport full of top Iranian Generals and staff. This kind of crash is a rather frequent event.

Obama

[wakeme2008]

228. Well point us uninformed to

a web page that supports ANYTHING you say.

[Solo_in_MD]

232. How about how your fishing boat

looks a lot like a Soviet era destroyer

[wakeme2008]

241. the picture was for size only

and is a destroyer but one tube could be placed on a large fishing boat.

[Solo_in_MD]

249. Start with the FAS site which points out

FAS point out that the Sunburns have not ever been tested against US forces. Actually they have never been fired in anger at anyone.

FAS also discusses in the air launched area about how target information is passed from the launch platform. It also mentions the terminal seeker. Key point here is that the missile has to be given a very good idea of where its target it. At the speed it flies, if it does not have it in view when the sensor turns on, it will miss everything. Russian seekers from that time were also pretty limited

Transfer Alignment is something that missiles need from their launcher so they know were they are. Its pretty geeky stuff. It requries a fairly good Nav system on the shooter. Military ships have them. Fishing boats do not. You basic Garmin is not going to cut it. Google INS weapon transfer alignment and do some reading.

Russian policy of replacing vice updating is deonstated by the large number of SAM ssytems they have brought online and then disposed of over the years while the US has carried 2 (Hawk and Patriot).

That Iran can not maintain their A/C or other sophistaced system is shown by their low number of sorties, accident rate. The classic example is that they were never able to fly thier F-14s after the Shah fell. This is applicalbe to things like armoras well as aircraft and weapons.

US has supersonic target drones for many years: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_US_Target_Drones

That should do for a start...

[Solo_in_MD]

9. To contingency planning?

Typical idiot in the media article...of course the US is doing significant contingency planning. Its a hot spot that is changing daily.

As for the Iranians putting up much of a military fight, don't be silly.

[LynnTheDem]

16. "As for the Iranians putting up much of a military fight, don't be silly."

Look who's being silly.

[Solo_in_MD]

49. Not I

The issue that many in this thread are skirting is what will start hostilities. . My *guess* is that the US will not, but some zealot in the The Revolutionary Guard will work himself into a religious frenzy and launch from a single battery. Then its the Gulf of Tonkin all over again. The Europeans want Iran rolled back as bad as Bush, but a US or Israeli attack would allow them to issue public denunciations while rejoicing in public.

Whether or not Iran can stand up to US military attack is not in any question. Negligible air assets, minimal air defense, and little if any command and control, antique armor and communications. From a military, particularly air attack, its a pushover. As in Iraq, the real issue starts with after the uniformed resistance is eliminated. FOr that reason, ground military action in Iran is not tenable due to issues with the occupation like Iraq and Afghanistan.

The key element being ignored in the Sunburn advocates is targeting data. Without it, Sunburns are just skyrockets. Also like much of the advanced military equipment in the Middle East, its not clear if its still functional. For example, Iran has F-14s which have flown in a decade.

All that said, I fervently hope there will be no military action, or if there is, air attacks only. American boots on the ground in a 3rd muslim country would be about the worst thing we could do. Then again I felt that way about Afghanistan and Iraq.

[NWHarkness]

17. I suppose they will welcome us with flowers.

Iran is far more formidible than Iraq was.

[LynnTheDem]

18. You forgot the confectionary. nt

[saltpoint]

3. Well, good. There just wasn't enough virulent hatred of the U.S. out

there to suit me.

____

If this report is true, I want to hear the voices of Democratic representatives and senators on the floor of the Capitol condemning any such action and suggesting a swift drafting of articles of impeachment.

[0007]

4. How reliable is the Telegraph News rag?

More from the same article.

Sen John McCain, the Republican front-runner to succeed Mr Bush in 2008, has advocated military strikes as a last resort. He said recently: "There is only only one thing worse than the United States exercising a military option and that is a nuclear-armed Iran."

Senator Joe Lieberman, a Democrat, has made the same case and Mr Bush is expected to be faced by the decision within two years.

By then, Iran will be close to acquiring the knowledge to make an atomic bomb, although the construction will take longer. The President will not want to be seen as leaving the White House having allowed Iran's ayatollahs to go atomic.

In Teheran yesterday, crowds celebrating the anniversary of the 1979 Islamic revolution chanted "Nuclear technology is our inalienable right" and cheered Mr Ahmadinejad when he said that Iran may reconsider membership of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

[bbinacan]

5. The scary thing is

that much of Iran's nuclear program is contained in bunkers too strong to be taken out by conventional bunker buster bombs. I hope they're not thinking nuclear warheads, but I bet they are.

[CatholicEdHead]

11. They have talked about "Bunker Busting Nukes" before

But every scientific study I have seen says they cannot make it go deep enough. Most of the blast energy would go up and out and leave the underground target unscathed.

[Senator Obama]

6. Okay..brainstorm...What do WE Propose to handle Iran?

I don't relish the thought of a preemptive attack on Iran either but what do you do if you genuinely exhaust all diplomatic efforts. I agree that Iran under their rights granted by compliance with NPT are entitled to develop energy for peaceful purposes. But what right do they have to not permit IAEA verification of their compliance?

Obama

[EFerrari]

7. WTF, what diplomatic channels have been exhausted?

How long has it been? Weeks?

Diplomatic channels are still by the pool sipping MaiTais, for pete's sake. You know, there is always a way to talk to people. Always.

But these mutherfuckers have no interest at all in talking. They never have and they never will.

[enigma000]

21. The Europeans have been talking for 2 years now

Their patience is running out. They have agreed to send it to the UN Security Council.

[Kelvin Mace]

25. The EU has had to deal

with the US constantly fucking things up.

Hell if I were Iran, I wouldn't cooperate either. George Bush is insane and I would want as many weapons as possible at hand while he walk the Earth a free man.

[hopeisaplace]

165. You know, what you say is soooo true...* brings out the worst in a country

There's a slogan for yah: Bush brings out the worst in people.

You know, I don't have the knowledge to participate in the weapons discussion
I've been reading here, and forgive me, but I feel the need to say something
obviously generic:

LEADERSHIP is hard work (haha, and it is). LEADERS are people who CAN find
peaceful ways to negotiate their way out of potentially drastic situations.
Or better yet, LEADERS have the capacity to anticipate what their actions may cause...
foresight, I think they call it. Seriously, I'm so pissed right now. The * administration
wants this war (they must, because why else is it even a possibility at this time??).
In my opinion they've been planning it for years now, and THEIR TYPE of LEADERSHIP, is
this type of LEADERSHIP - War. War and only war. They don't want another solution, they want
this one. That's how it feels. That's how it looks. And lets face it, PERCEPTION is EVERYTHING.
And other country's are probably perceiving this as well. Bad leadership? um to say the least.

[LynnTheDem]

27. OOOH! Running out of PATIENCE a new rationale for WAR and

killing a lot of innocent men, women & kids!

WHy wait the decade it would take Iran to get nukes..let's KILL KIILL KILL right now!!!

hITLER DID IT; Poland! JAPAN DID IT; Pearl Harbor! AMERICA DID IT; Iraq.

Let's do it again! RAH! RAH! RAH!

Stupidity and ignorance are non-partisan.

[enigma000]

31. I was answering the question on length of diplomatic negotiations

Negotiations with the EU-3 has been on since October 2003.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/7730/iran.html

To be clear: I'm not advocating an attack on Iran.

[Senator Obama]

41. And I would say that statement borders on ignorance too...

As I review this board, there are many here whom I would no more trust with my security than George Bush.

There are a few realities here. We actually have some moral high ground here. A responsible Iran would simply comply with IAEA and NPT requirements, be allowed to continue their development for peaceful purposes, and open their Bourse and do more damage to the US than any nukes they could have possiby developed.

Obama

[LynnTheDem]

53. If you knew more facts...

Iran is not in violation of any treaty, law, sanction et al.

Fact.

Iran is in compliance with the NPT; the NPT says Iran has the legal right to pursue nuclear research & eneergy. Iran says they're doing exactly that. The IAEA says there is no evidence Iran is doing anything else.

No we don't have any moral high ground here.

[bananas]

143. Is that guy the real Senator Obama? nt

[cliss]

183. I noticed the "senator" has been carrying on for a long time

and nobody has challenged him on his authenticity.

So I'll be the one to do it.

Are you the REAL Senator Obama? If not, you better skeedaddle quick because you are a 100% impostor.

If you are the real Senator obama, I'd like to know why you became a turncoat to your party, once you were invited in to the "Club". It's amazing how you were seemingly against the war in Iraq, but once you were voted in, you suddenly saw the "urgency" of staying in Iraq.

Turncoat.

[Senator Obama]

254. No I'm not...

And I've never seen a high level party operative of any stripe post openly in a an uncontrolled jungle like this. As for the rest of it, you're entitled to your opinions about the real guy. But I have an opinion too. You're the reason we're losing, not the reason we will win.

Obama

[LynnTheDem]

246. No.

The real Senator wouldn't tell me, with my husband a sitting duck in Iraq that it's "wishful thinking" on my part that our soldiers get slaughtered.

[Senator Obama]

158. Aparently the IAEA and the EU don't agree

as they have referred the matter to the UN Security Council. I would hope that any misundertanding could be cleared up by Iran showing goodwill in the situation. But so far they have not reacted like a country that should be trusted. If I don't trust the word of this administration, I have the ability to get my informatiion elsewhere and so far that information comes up looking like there are legitimate questions about Iran' compliance.

I have seen your postings here. You seem hell bent on Iran having nuclear technology without assuming their inspection obligations under NPT. Can you point me to any communique from IAEA which is in effect the controlling authority when it comes to certifying compliance that might alleviate my concerns. If you cannot, then I'm afraid I must dismiss your assertions of Iranian compliance out of hand.

Obama

[bananas]

148. Are you the real Senator Obama? nt

[Solo_in_MD]

151. He might be if he remembers

Geraldine Weldon & Rod McPhee

[Senator Obama]

159. No I am not...

I could only hope to have acheived half of what Obama has done politically in his lifetime. I am definitely an admirer and I hope this guy grows a pair, gets the proper support and buries that hypocrit aka McCain on ethics issues.

Obama..not the real deal..LOL..

[Solo_in_MD]

167. Figured as much

Geraldine Weldon would have been your 9th grade speech teacher and Rod McPhee the president of the school.

[mogster]

212. Consider my post further up n/t

[Name removed]

207. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[EFerrari]

46. Two whole years. How many people have died? n/t

[Senator Obama]

37. Easy big guy...

I did not suggest that diplomatic channels had been exhausted at present. I asked for a plan of action if diplomacy does not work...capiche?

Obama

[EFerrari]

45. Okay. So I will remind you, diplomacy works. It takes a while

but it's still better than killing a brazilion innocent people.

Because that is what stupid mutherf#ckin war does.

Entiendes?

[Senator Obama]

157. I agree...

And strong effort at diplomacy is something I would always insist on. But at what point should the world insist that if nations want nuclear technology that they live up to their responsibilities to use and secure it properly?

Obama

[hopeisaplace]

180. The true test of knowing if you are ready to go to war or be in a war

You are willing to send YOUR OWN son or daughter to die for it.

You are willing to accept that your son or daughter, husband,
wife may come back without limbs or worse.

As a recipient of the results of war, in order to have your
country "freed" you are willing to accept that YOUR CHILD may die
as a result of "collateral damage". (Like a story I read
somewhere of someone's dead 2 year old hanging from a tree after
a bombing..sorry I have no idea where I read that).

As a recipient of the results of war, you understand there may be
no power, water, medicine, or food readily available for your family.

As a recipient of the results of war, you understand that you will
be living in fear for years to come.

Well anyway, you get the picture.
To me WAR is NEVER an option. Never. The world has "common sense people"
for a reason. Those with the capacity to reason, are to lead others to the
table of reason. That's the job of a truly effective leader.

[Senator Obama]

258. I appreciate that sentiment...

too often that is not understaod by the people who actually make the decision.

Obama..not the real guy..LOL..

[TheWatcher]

245. What incredible projection

This drivel coming from someone who lives in a country that has a Pre-Emptive Strilke Policy with it's Nuclear Weapons.

Please.

[Kelvin Mace]

23. Ratchet down the threats

back off the bullying.

Then go back and talk to the Iranians like adults.

Then offer to provide them with fuel rods for their nuclear power plants which must be returned to us after they are used. They get nuclear power, we keep fissile material out of their hands.

That's a start.

[EFerrari]

70. That would be sanity. We can't have that. n/t

[bvar22]

94. After the bush* ramp up to attack Iraq , the USA...

...has NO (ZERO) credibility in in negotiating an Arms agreement with ANYONE.

[LynnTheDem]

24. Preemptive attacks are still illegal. What the Nuremberg Tribunal called

"The most heinous, the supreme crime"

Pearl Harbor was a preventive attack; America Pearl Harbored Iraq. Iran next?


"For 175 years we have not been that kind of country."

We are now, Mr. Robert Kennedy.

And it's pretty shocking to see some liberals advocating for America to commit more "supreme crime", don't you agree?

[Laelth]

29. I say let them have their nuke facility.

If the Peak is coming, they need nuclear power too. And even if their real intent is to build a nuclear weapon, who are we to stop them from having one? It is the height of hypocrisy for us to unilaterally declare that it's OK for us and Israel to have nukes, but it's not OK for Iran.

-Laelth

[StClone]

33. So what country has Nukes, thousands of them?

What country has used them?

What country has contaminated Iraq and Afghanistan with nuke waste (DU)?

We don't have much authority to talk of countries that wish nuclear powers.

I think opening a dialog equal to that we have with Israel should be a goal.

Bush is going to destroy us to prove some Freaking notion of his legacy. God help us all and I'm an Atheist.

[Strelnikov_]

40. Ever Hear Of MAD?

1) Make an effort at actual negotiations, including a guarantee of non-aggression.

2) If 1) fails, make it clear what the consequences are if their weapon(s) are ever used, either by themselves or another party.

3) They eventually get their bomb, which will happen no matter what we do, short of full invasion.

They want the bomb to prevent invasion. Do you really think that the minute they get a few weapons, they are going to use them, thus ensuring complete destruction of their country?

[MrPrax]

48. Bribe them...?

The US can grease the trade rails and make concessions--which is what Russia, EU and China want anyway.

As to their right to not permit IAEA (who they again?)...the Iranians like everyone else can simply point to Israel. They don't need to explain themselves.

The US seems bent on a regional expansion; Iranian nukes are the excuse.

It's only the US and Israel making threats and have been, ever since Bush included Iran in the 'Axis of Evil' BS. There really isn't an strong political position here other than racism and imperialist privilege.

[davekriss]

197. Respectfully, O, you sound like you drank the kool aid...

You should more than "not relish...a preemptive attack", until there is clear and real evidence of imminent threat, you should oppose any attack on Iran (any attack on any nation).

I am vehemently opposed to the principle of "sufficient threat" and preemptive attack as laid out by the Bush Regime in the NSS posted to Whitehouse gov on September 20, 2002. Despite the politico-happy speak, it drops all pretense of principle and values and the rule of law and replaces it with the morality of a schoolyard bully exercising this century's version of the "white man's burden". (Heck, the NSS goes so far as to suggest we'd go to war to keep foreign marginal tax rates low!!)

I understand the arguments that, in the age of WMD proliferation and of ferocious terrorist will (greatly elevated with the attacks of 9-11), we may now need to rethink policy. Significant threats may no longer announce themselves as armies massing along borders, allowing time for security-maintaining (and legal) first strikes based on observed imminent threats. Some reasonable and thoughtful people today believe that the first sign of "imminent threat" might now be a rising mushroom cloud over Manhattan or Washington DC. They think, therefore, we must eliminate, not just real present threats, but the potential for such threats to emerge. Children and mothers in foreign lands might have to die based on a whim and a fear held by our President that someday – perhaps in a month, a year, or ten years – their leaders may develop the means and the will to attack the United States directly or by proxy via terrorists. Iran might develop nuclear weapons, and they might share them with terrorists, therefore we must amass our armies on its borders and attack to protect ourselves. I wholly reject this thinking. The folly inherent in it is so fully evident in the disaster known as Iraq, it would be just plain stupid to repeat it in Iran.

Let me put it this way: How does one judge a group of four policemen who unholster their guns and shoot 41 bullets into the chest a man of color who happened to be reaching for his wallet and identification, not a gun? (I refer to the Amadou Diallo case in NYC a few years back.) With disapprobation, certainly; potentially with dismissal and even imprisonment and fines.

So how does one judge GWB when he dumps more bombs on Iraq during the first 7 days during Shock and Awe than were dropped in all of Gulf War I? Did Saddam come out blazing with his WMD? Diallo was gunned down because he was black, because he did the perfectly natural thing of reaching for his wallet, because the police were looking for a rapist that looked nothing like Diallo. Saddam was gunned down because he might have WMD, he might have the delivery systems to use them, and he might use them against us. Turns out neither Diallo nor Saddam had any smoking guns. So why should we trust boy George crying wolf yet again?

If we agree Diallo's murderers deserve disapprobation, then why don't we agree that the Bush Regime deserves the same? Don't our representatives, who failed to adequately vet the Bush lies they were being also deserve some of the same? Everyone who voted for the IWA without properly vetting the lies they were being told -- despite plenty of information floating around at that time that the NIA was wrong, the intelligence was being fixed around the policy, etc. -- don't these representatives deserve the same? We as a nation should not make the same mistake again, and if we do it will be because we the public did not make the first folly painful enough on our political class. Happily, things change!

So, Obama, what would I do? I'd defuse the rhetoric. I'd put my gun down. I'd escalate anti-proliferation programs and elevate sanctions. I'd wait to see what develops before I'd go to war.

In my case, I would want to know for certain that Iran is developing nuclear weapons and had the means and intention to use them against the United States. If I didn't have the evidence, then noting that anti-proliferation programs and containment have worked successfully since the Iraq-Iran War I'd continue with containment while continuing to monitor the situation until and if clear evidence of weapons, means, and intention surface. If clear evidence is surfaced, then I'd think about war.

Alternately, I'd want to see clear evidence that Iran was fomenting terrorists to strike against U.S. targets. If clear evidence emerged, then I'd consider war.

In the absence of clear evidence, I would continue the successful policies of containment, anti-proliferation programs, and monitoring. I would not go to war because of a purely speculative "they might have" or "they might do". That's where I draw the line.

I have one more point to make (on this overly long post). The Bush Regime, as announced in the NSS and evidenced by many actions, has taken upon itself the unilateral right to invade other nations even in violation of treaty (e.g., UN Charter) when it perceives the other nation a "sufficient threat". One of the stabilizing principles of Deterrence and Containment was that it was symmetrical (at least amongst the superpowers). What was right and true for one nation was right and true for the next. So if the Bush Regime has the right to attack Iran because it thinks Iran may develop nuclear weapons in 5 or 10 years (despite a more aggressive timeline offered as public propaganda), then does not the Iranian government have the right to protect itself from what it perceives to be, not sufficient threat, but actual imminent threat?

The coming Iranian provocation will result in a casus belli for U.S. public consumption, but in effect it would be an Iranian government responding to the growing imminent threat at its own borders. Just stupid policy -- unless the aim is to create chaos and war, death and destruction, because perhaps Bush's Base finds it profitable...?

[PSPS]

10. Gotta stop that 3/06 Bourse!

[LynnTheDem]

14. False crisis. What a bunch of bullshit.

And the blowback is gonna be a total bitch.

[Senator Obama]

169. I lived in Tehran 1960-1964

This crisis is very real and although the threat is not immediate, it is very real. The first fuck up came when we deposed the legitimately elected government of Iran in favor of the Shah, someone who along with LBJ I have personally met. The next big fuck up was when the Shah was overthrown in favor of the Ayatollah. Few people realize the Ayatollah repatriated to Iran via Iraq and Paris. He was ousted from the country in 1962 to my recollection (As a kid living in civilian housing although my father is ex-military Signal Corps out of Fort Monmouth, NJ) I remember being under house arrest when the country erupted in what amounted to Detroit riots. We had Molotovs thrown on our front porch and several windows broken as the country revolted when the Ayatollah was sent into exile. This was actually F UP 1.5 as the Shah should have just shot the guy and been done with it). Well, the Ayatollah went next door and set up shop in the southern city of Najaf. Some guy named Hussein came to power in the mid seventies and decided he had a hard on for Mullahs with big britches so he sent a message by promptly executing a few of the Ayatollahs close relatives. The Ayatollah, being one to take subtle hints, high tailed it to Paris in 1978 as I vaguely recall. Fast forward to the fall of the Shah Reza Pahlavi and the triumphant return of the Ayatollah in 1979 to assume control. Needless to say, Saddam went ape shit and his fear that the Ayatollah having assumed control next door would soon trigger a sympathetic uprising from the Southern Shiite population who revered the Ayatollah. This is what gave impetus to the first of two Iran-Iraq wars. It is a fact that US military hardware left behind by the Shah helped the Iranians repel the Iraqi invasion. The Ayatollah did execute most of the military officers who were West Point trained btw.

Needless to say that my interest in the region as an adult was certainly triggered by the fond memories I have of playing pee wee football and making weekly weekly trips at the US Embassy that I saw being overrun in 1079. Other kids had pony rides, hell we had camel rides at the NCO club courtesy of the local bedoins. I have had an obsession since then with the history of the region, and despite that fact have a hacks knowledge of the area history. IMHO a mastery of the area history and politics really defies any earthly beings ability.

Obama

[Name removed]

247. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

257. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[VegasWolf]

19. This one will be trivial to predict, just look for a massive jump in

insider buying on Haliburton, BP, and Exxon. Then jump in like Cheney, Bush, and Rumfilled and score your retirement package.

[bigdarryl]

30. Strike on Iran

Here we go again with the preemptive strike bullshit on another middle east country.aren't the american people tired of this idiot in the whitehouse attacking other countries.nuclear weapons my ass this is just an excuse to justify attacking Iran.

[LynnTheDem]

32. Apparently they're not tired enough of the bullshit yet.

An attack on Iran will do it. Too late, of course.

So Pearl Harbor is no longer to be taught as a bad thing, right? After all, they were just following the bush Doctrine ahead of time.

PS: welcome to DU! :hi:

[Kelvin Mace]

20. Here's a reality check on what will happen when we attack Iran

http://www.thoughtcrimes.org/s9/index.php?/archives/504-Reality-check-Attacking-Iran.html

[IndianaGreen]

28. Field Marshall Jodl is working on Operation Barbarossa II

Rumsfeld would say about Bush the same thing that Jodl said about Hitler:

Alfred Jodl, speech to Gauleiters in Munich (7th November, 1943)

My most profound confidence is however based upon the fact that at the head of Germany there stands a man by his entire development, his desires, and striving can only have been destined by fate to lead our people into a brighter future. In defiance of all views to the contrary I must here testify that he is the soul not only of the political but also of the military conduct of the war and that the force of his willpower and the creative riches of his thought animate and hold together the whole of the German Armed Forces, with respect to strategy, organization and munitions of war.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERjodl.htm

[mshasta]

39. March 18-28 around the corner thats when we attack..Oppps liberate

[CornField]

42. Stupid sons of bitches

[hang a left]

57. Anyone notice the filed date on this article?

12-02-06???

[LynnTheDem]

59. Because it's British; only the USA does mth-day-year

Canada, UK etc do day-mth-year

That report was filed the 12th of February 2006.

[hang a left]

62. I am a dork!

[freefall]

140. That's because Europe is ahead of us in time and they put the day first.nt

[Clara T]

61. Iran: OPLAN 1002-04 - The Khuzestan Gambit?

OPLAN 1002-04 has probably been revised to reflect the American occupation of Iraq, and the power projection opportunities this provides against Iran. The Zagros Mountains form a natural pallisade defending Iran from incursions from Iraq. The Iranian province of Khuzestan is the one large piece of flat Iranian terrain to the west of the Zagros Mountains. American heavy forces could swiftly occupy Khuzestan, and in doing so seize control of most of Iran's oil resources, and non-trivial portions of the country's water supply and electrical generating capacity.

Khuzestan is the most important pivot of Iran's economy. The existence of such huge resources as oil, gas and water in Khuzestan have changed the economic appearance of Iran. Oil first erupted from a well in the Massjed e Soleyman area, located in the southern Khuzestan province.



Khuzestan was home to one of the oldest human civilizations dating back at least 6000 years to Shoosh (Susa). In ancient tiems, such people as the Uxians (who gave their name to Khuzestan in southern Iran) were part of the Caucasic race of people. In the 17th century, in spite of their general poverty and rejection from public life, there were still a good number of Zoroastrians left throughout Persia, from Ahwaz in Khuzestan, to Kandehar in the east. Hautboy is occasionally used in Ashura ceremony in some provinces such as Khuzestan and Khorassan.



The vast majority of Iran's crude oil reserves are located in giant onshore fields in the southwestern Khuzestan region near the Iraqi border and the Persian Gulf. Iran has 32 producing oil fields, of which 25 are onshore and 7 offshore. Major onshore fields include the following: Ahwaz-Asmari (700,000 bbl/d); Bangestan (around 245,000 bbl/d current production, with plans to increase to 550,000 bbl/d), Marun (520,000 bbl/d), Gachsaran (560,000 bbl/d), Agha Jari (200,000 bbl/d), Karanj-Parsi (200,000 bbl/d); Rag-e-Safid (180,000 bbl/d); Bibi Hakimeh (130,000 bbl/d), and Pazanan (70,000 bbl/d). Major offshore fields include: Dorood (130,000 bbl/d); Salman (130,000 bbl/d); Abuzar (125,000 bbl/d); Sirri A&E (95,000 bbl/d); and Soroush/Nowruz (60,000 bbl/d). According to the Oil and Gas Journal (1/1/04), Iran holds 125.8 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, roughly 10% of the world's total, up from 90 billion barrels in 2003. In October 1999, Iran announced that it had made its biggest oil discovery in 30 years, a giant onshore field called Azadegan located in the southwestern province of Khuzestan, a few miles east of the border with Iraq. Reportedly, the Azadegan field contains proven crude oil reserves of 26 billion barrels. In July 2004, Iran's oil minister stated that the country's proven oil reserves had increased again, to 132 billion barrels, following new discoveries in the Kushk and Hosseineih fields in Khuzestan province.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/oplan-1002.htm

[Senator Obama]

89. Good stuff...

With information like this on the internet, imagine what the real maps look like. The reality is we have far more assets in Iran than we ever had in Iraq. Not even the heralded Mossad could pinpoint and assasinate Saddam. We need to use some of the brute force capability we have spared to locate and terminate Osama. Not nearly as easy as one would think. The Freepers are all over Clinton for not getting the guy. Bush had boots on the ground at Tora Bora and screwed the pooch. The hubris of the right is sickening.

Obama

[Clara T]

97. Who's "we"

count me out of that category.

And besides any salient analysis has long ago discounted CIA asset (to use that ugly terminology) Osama (?) as humanus terminus.

The hubris is all around.

"We" need to use the RESOURCES that are wasted on that disgusting "brute force capability" to feed the elderly and house the homeless.

Obama won't be doing that he is to busy triangulating and politicking in high places.

[Senator Obama]

178. You're entitled to your opinion...

And I'm entitled to mine. The we would be the US government. If you are a citizen, it is your government that is doing this.

Osama bin Laden was never a CIA asset. I invite you to get your hysterics under control. Rather than dish up tin foil theories, do the research and discover that Oaama had his own assets and detested contact with the west. He imported his own army of foreign nationals with his own money. Did they benefit from the CIA training given to the Mujahadeen? Undoubtedly. But there is no evidence of direct aid or contact with the CIA and Osama. They certainly knew of the guy.

I would agree that we need more priority on social matters at home. A more prudent choice of how we deploy our military would have kept our spending on support of foreign incursions in check and allowed for more money in the budget given the will to allocate that for social programs. (I did not then nor do I now believe that Iraq was a good idea. In fact I am on record as having said that Saddam was the best thing that ever happened to Iraq, even before we invaded. Many on the right thought I was a moonbat. Apparently even the Israeli Head of Security feels the same way now..LOL.)

On the last matter madam, let me say this. I am a black man and a lifelong democrat. One who has seen the accomplishments of this party contribute mightily to my being able to assume a place as a productive citizen in this society. I am sick and tired of short sighted small minded DEMs such as yourself attacking people like Obama. Like I explained to my mother when I left home to make a better life for myself, attend college in the east and subsequently resettle into the Silicon Valley where I now reside, I have to help myself before I can help anybody else. I say to Obama, do what you have to do to establish yourself. Don't apologize to anyone. As far as I'm concerned the man's liberal credentials and his genuine concern for the human condition is a matter of record. You seriously need to check yourself and stop eating DEMs who are and will continue to be a tremendous asset to improving the condition of the disadvantaged in our society. My money is on the Obama horse. I think the man is equal to the task.

Obama...unfortunately not the real one.

[davekriss]

210. I don't see how any of us could trust what you say here

You post under the name "Senator Obama", include as avatar a picture of the Senator, and sign your posts as Obama. You fraudulantly misrepresent yourself. I don't see how any of us can trust anything you say about yourself or your thinking, seeing how you would pose so dishonestly as someone many of us here have great respect for.

You don't post as a troll, but have a unique point of view -- otherwise I would suggest you get tombstoned quickly for your misrepresentation.

Please, thought, stop signing as "Obama", and if you can change your posting name you should do so.

Otherwise, welcome for the lively debate. :)

[shanti]

69. here we go...

:(

[caligirl]

74. ballistic missiles are nuc's aren't they? Cruise can be either way,

but correct me if things have changed. Aren't Ballisics still nuclear only?

[Strelnikov_]

114. V2's, Scuds Are Are Ballistic Missiles

Launching a ballistic missile with a convention warhead from a submarine, when the payload can be delivered by bombs or cruise missiles, does not make much sense.

Someone must have gotten a lucrative contract for sub launched missiles.

[Solo_in_MD]

119. Not sure about a conventional SLBM

But there are cruise missile that do launch from subs. They can get a lot closer in some scenarios than air or surface shooters.

[Strelnikov_]

132. From The Article

The Bush administration has recently announced plans to add conventional ballistic missiles to the armoury of its nuclear Trident submarines within the next two years. If ready in time, they would also form part of the plan of attack.

[Solo_in_MD]

139. Tks, was unaware of that

[Zynx]

160. Talk about a useless weapon.

Conventional ballistic missiles are completely worthless. Accuracy measured in hundreds of yards is pointless.

[Solo_in_MD]

115. No

Ballistic is a trajectory, not a technology. There are short range ballistic missiles that are conventional, including SCUDs.

ICBM (intercontinental ballistic missiles) are all nuclear.

[poskonig]

75. I support airstrikes against Iran's nuclear program.

I do not support occupying the country. Why?

Ahmadinejad is not a rational person. He wants to lead a final jihad to bring chaos that will lead to the return of the 12th Imam. "Islam will rule the world," as Ahmadinejad puts it. This guy denies the holocaust, and promises to wipe Israel off the map.

I believe him. This guy has no problem sacrificing millions of his own people if it means destroying Tel Aviv, London, and Los Angeles.

The airstrikes won't be easy -- the Straight of Hormuz will be closed for a few weeks, and we'll definitely have to put down an uprising in southern Iraq. But militarily it is quite doable -- Mig29s with poor Persian pilots stand no chance against the F-22, or even our F-16s.

The only thing worse than attacking Iran is a nuclear Iran.

[IndianaGreen]

81. and you are going to enlist in this new war?

I am tired of all these macho characters that are always wanting wars that they themselves won't fight.

[poskonig]

84. Remember Desert Fox in 1998?

I'm talking about airstrikes against Iran's nuclear facilities. Not an occupation. We have the resources to do it -- Mig29s with no parts will not be able to protect Iran.

Believe me, I don't want to do this, but it isn't a perfect world.

[daleo]

85. And you know all this about him how?

Are you a mind reader? Or do you just believe any propaganda you hear?

Lots of U.S. leaders say they believe in the Rapture, and that Jesus Christ will rule the earth after a battle of Armageddon. Furthermore, anyone who isn't a Christian (that includes Jews in Israel) will be drowned in their own blood. Bush claims to believe this, and finds the prospect quite agreeable. By your reasoning the rest of the world ought to begin airstrikes on America.

[poskonig]

90. Ahmadinejad's own words

Iran’s Ahmadinejad: Sharon dead and “others to follow suit”
http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=5165

We must believe in the fact that Islam is not confined to geographical borders, ethnic groups and nations. It’s a universal ideology that leads the world to justice”, Ahmadinejad said.

“We don’t shy away from declaring that Islam is ready to rule the world”, he added.

Ahmadinejad dwelled on his recurrent theme that the return of the Shiite Messiah, the Mahdi, is not far away and Muslims must prepare for it.

“We must prepare ourselves to rule the world and the only way to do that is to put forth views on the basis of the Expectation of the Return”, Ahmadinejad said, referring to the Shiite Muslim belief that the Mahdi, on his return, will establish justice in a world consumed by chaos and corruption.

“If we work on the basis of the Expectation of the Return , all the affairs of our nation will be streamlined and the administration of the country will become easier”, Ahmadinejad said.

[daleo]

107. Any pope could have said the same thing, or any televangelist

Religionists always claim this about their religion. Christians constantly talk about Christ's second coming, which is supposed to be imminent. Most western leaders are Christian, or claim to be, especially Bush and Blair.

If I felt like googling for ten minutes I could come up with dozens of quotes like those from Christian leaders, religious and political.

[LynnTheDem]

252. IranFocus is propaganda bullshit.

Run by the MEK.

Good grief.

[neverforget]

88. The only thing worse than attacking North Korea is a nuclear North Korea

oops! Already nuclear! Why aren't we attacking them? Because they don't have any oil and they actually have a military that can fight. We talk with the nutcase in North Korea but want to start another war after a little diplomacy with the nutcase in Iran? Jesus we are fucked up! An instant gratification society who sees solving a problem with violence as a quick solution but not thinking through the consequences of violent action.

If you want airstrikes against Iran then I suggest you sign your ass up with military because those air strikes aren't going to stop anything but actually start another war.

[poskonig]

92. Commies are evil, but they are also rational.

Communists threaten an apocalypse as a means to obtain an end. Ahmandinejad's goal IS the apocalypse. It sucks diplomacy won't change this, but that's life.

[neverforget]

98. I take it your signing up because that's life? I find your attitude to be

frighteningly flippant with the lives of Americans and Iranians. Iran is 10 years away from producing a nuclear if they so choose according to the CIA. Why attack them now?

[daleo]

105. I remember when commies were evil because they were Godless

They only cared about world wide revolution, and if billions died to achieve the workers' paradise that was fine with them. It was because they didn't believe in God that they could happily contemplate destruction. At least that was the propaganda of the 50's to 80's.

Now we are told that Muslims threaten world scale war and devastation that will kill billions precisely because they do believe in God.

I think the U.S. just needs a frightening enemy at any given time to provide the justification for a huge military and a huge security infrastructure. Clearly, the boogey-man can have his mask changed if necessary.

[Caretha]

118. Now how in the hell is Ahmadinejad going to do that?

Let me spell this out for you.

#1 They do not, I repeat do not have a nuclear weapon.

#2 If they did, how would they deliver it to London and Los Angeles - hint
they can't, and right now they can't deliver it to Tel Aviv.

#3 If they were to develop a nuclear weapon and tried to hit Israel - Israel, who we know has mucho many Nuclear weapons would turn them into a glass skating rink.

So lets all pull our heads out of our asses...particularly those on this thread who seem all Gung Fucking Ho to go to war with Iran.

Sheesh!

[DemInDistress]

83. if bush and israel attack Iran then what about Brazil's nukes?

Brazil poised to join the world's nuclear eliteBy Jack ChangKnight Ridder NewspapersRIO DE JANEIRO, Brazil - While the world community scrutinizes Iran's nuclear plans, Latin America's biggest country is weeks away from taking a controversial step and firing up the region's first major uranium enrichment plant.
That move will make Brazil the ninth country to produce large amounts of enriched uranium, which can be used to generate nuclear energy and, when highly enriched, to make nuclear weapons.
Brazilians, who have long nurtured hopes of becoming a world superpower, are reacting with pride to the new facility in Resende, about 70 miles from Rio de Janeiro. more at link

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/13842944.htm

[poskonig]

86. Brazil isn't threatening to wipe countries "off the map."

The Death to America, Death to Israel crowd in Iran is a different case.

[Name removed]

91. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[poskonig]

95. Look what Ahmadinejad said today:

"Palestinians and other Islamic groups will eventually remove the Zionist Entity from the region."

That's not surprising, given Iran supports Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Hezbollah.

Do we really want any of these terror groups Iran supports to have the bomb? We need to be serious about this.

[DemInDistress]

99. sorry..i don't support israel..nt

[Colorado Blue]

171. Even so - there are 6 million human beings living there - do

you want them all to die? That's what's being planned here - another Holocaust. LISTEN to the man.

One of the ranking mullahs has actually stated that wiping out Israel would be easy, and the Islam with its 1.3 billion and it's huge territory would survive any counterattack.

Whether you "support" Israel or not - are you prepared to sacrifice her people?

[Clara T]

102. Do "we" want any terror groups at all

to be using "the bomb(s)" and what does the historical record show us? And where are the bombs flying today on a daily basis from which terror groups?

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[poskonig]

104. No, perhaps I'm in the wrong party.

If one believes that Tel Aviv deserves to be nuked, the discussion is over.

[Caretha]

126. Seems you like putting words in people's mouths

You said to DemInDistress:

"If one believes that Tel Aviv deserves to be nuked, the discussion is over."

No where. Not anywhere. Not once did DemInDistress say Tel Aviv deserved to be nuked. You owe an apology.

[Name removed]

127. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Colorado Blue]

177. Israel has been defending itself since 1948. I have charts

showing the terrific increase in casualties just since the Oslo Accords were signed. The attacks by terrorists in the two intifadas have taken a tremendous toll - primarily of civilians. The violence has hardly been one-sided and the Israelis have in fact ceded territory and pulled their own citizens from their homes on several occasions - from the Sinai, from the West Bank, most recently from Gaza, in pursuit of an elusive peace. In return for this, they're promised extermination - by Hamas, by Hizbollah, by elements of PLO, and now by Iran.

People started murdering Middle Eastern Jews in the 1920's. That's just in modern times of course. I think you're not seeing this situation clearly.

World Jewry TOTALS 13 million people. Over 5 million live in Israel, along with over 1 million Arabs, and of course many others.

Most of the Israelis, apart from the sabras, are refugees from persecution. The Middle East is now almost completely judenrein, due to the persecution and expulsion of nearly 1,000,000 people from ancient communities, after 1948. Others came from the former Soviet Union where they were under tremendous pressure; still more continue to arrive from Ethiopia, from India; others survived the Holocaust.

In any case I'm sorry you don't think "the jews", in the fact of this brutal history, deserve defense or even life itself.

[Name removed]

192. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Colorado Blue]

170. Agreed, thank you. EOM.

[Gregorian]

100. Just another war crime, George?

Well he did tell the truth once. He IS a war president. A war crimes president.

Edit- This is going to be a great way to keep the heat off all of the criminal activies these clowns are involved in here at home.

[Jim Sagle]

193. Even that was a lie since he's not really the President.

[okieinpain]

109. some times I think they are screwing with iran, so that gas prices

will go up.

[Strelnikov_]

136. 06 Election, 08 Election

Resolution in fall 06, just like 02.

War in 08, just like 03 (This time they will wait until closer to the election. Don't want the blowback until after the election).

Or maybe no war in 08. I have a feeling most of this is the constant war principal from 1984 at work, and Iran is being set up to be the perpetual enemy.

[okieinpain]

138. quite possible.

[truth2power]

116. Words fail! Rummy and Cheney are insane....

Bush is the anti-christ. :cry:

May they all rot in hell!

[Strelnikov_]

135. "Uh, I'd Like To Hold Off Judgment On A Thing Like That, Sir, . . .

until all the facts are in."

Yep, these guys are definitely in the running for the General Jack D. Ripper memorial 'Most Likely To Dropkick Armageddon' award.

[Strelnikov_]

131. “Home Before The Leaves Fall”

I really don’t get all these posts assuming that a military strike on Iran will be a linear operation. Don’t you think the Iranians have a few cards up their sleeves, particularly considering their recent intransigence regarding their activities?

History is riddled with ‘leaders’ that assume the ‘enemy’ are just monkeys who can be easily beaten due to their supposed ‘superiority’.

Is ‘our’ Schlieffen plan superior to ‘their’ Grandmaison plan?

What happens if we find that our highly touted anti-ASM systems, that have never been tested in combat, are less than effective? What happens is the Strait of Hormuz is closed, along with 1/4 +/- of the worlds daily petroleum supply.

I am afraid that with the advances in modern missiles, surface ships are going to prove even greater deathtraps than they were in WW II when the ascendance of the airplane dealt mortal blows to ships previously thought unassailable. My concern with the modern missile is that they are relatively simple compared to the countermeasure systems needed to protect against them. And our Navy, as evidenced in the Stark, Cole, and a recent incident where one of our carriers ran over an Iranian dhouh (small boat) in the gulf, has a track record of letting security slip.

And this is just one scenario how things can become a 'catastrophic success'. Let’s forget even ASM’s. What happens with plain old mines, in the hands of a determined ‘adversary’, one with ‘elan vitale’, one with ‘Victoire c’est la volonte’?

History is riddled with weapons systems that looked good until the bullets fly, then the limitations become apparent. Some militaries adjust, as we did in WW II. Others are destroyed when the system they relied on is so massively flawed, such as the French in 1940.

I am sure the French thought their Franco-Prussian war style maneuver would overcome entrenched German machine gun positions during the great center thrust (August 1914).

Equally, the German’s thought having “The Last Man On The Right Brush The Channel” was bound to succeed. They thought the ‘superior’ Prussian military leadership in August of 1914 would overcome the obviously inferior opponents. And it almost did.

Look where ‘almost’ took them.

I shake my head at those who continually take view that actual armed conflict is like a strategy game where the one with the stronger ‘strength rating’ on their token wins (the ‘Janes Defense’ crowd).

If history has taught us anything it is that there are many paths to losing a war, and the ultimate ’winner’ is not immediately apparent.


Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events.

- Sir Winston Churchill


The German Emperor is ageing me; he is like a battleship with steam up and screws going, but with no rudder, and he will run into something some day and cause a catastrophe. He has the strongest army in the world and the Germans don't like being laughed at and are looking for somebody on whom to vent their temper and use their strength. After a big war a nation doesn't want another for a generation or more. Now it is 38 years since Germany had her last war, and she is very strong and very restless, like a person whose boots are too small for him. I don't think there will be war at present, but it will be difficult to keep the peace of Europe for another five years.

Sir Edward Grey, Britain's foreign secretary, from an article in response to the comments made by Kaiser Wilhelm II in the Daily Telegraph (November, 1908)

[Boneman]

144. This Obama person assumes all will go perfectly. The US

military does not do things anywhere near perfectly. I was in the US military. Also, I would be my bottom dollar that after the debable in Iraq, Iran gets more and more organized everyday. They'll attach chem and bio to those Shahab-3 4's and 6's and everyone in the Green Zone in Iraq will be hit in some way. Also, Iran has Kill Cells all over the world. They will be killing Americans like its nobody's business. AND THE DO NOT FEAR DEATH. They welcome it. One other things: what if Iran has nukes? What if they bought a couple of warheads.

[Solo_in_MD]

149. It would be very messy

And I for one am fervently hoping it will not come to air strikes or worse yet boots on the ground. However, on the purely military front, its no contest. The aftermath is what has me seriously worried for many of the reasons you and others bring up.

Europe wants Iran pushed back as much as Bush does. However, they do not want the blow back which would come with military action. I believe they will push things until the US or Israel takes action and then publicly condemn what they advocated in private. I don't hold France/England/Germany in much higher esteem than I do Bush.

I've been harping on the military ineptness of some of the posters in this thread because I know they are wrong, and by taking that tack they are missing the critical areas. I'll back off since it clearly is not getting though.

[Boneman]

162. A more reasonable post. Some of these people talk like we're

getting ready to invade Iceland.

[Strelnikov_]

152. I Have Wondered About That Myself

They are definitely acting like they have an Ace up their sleeve. It would not surprise me if there is brief seismic activity, along with trace EMP, from one of the salt deserts in Iran one night.

[Boneman]

164. That's what I think too. A test.... Can you imagine the reaction?.nft

ddd

[Senator Obama]

184. What if George Bush were president...

Kipling wrote a whole poem about IF. You were in the military. What exactly did you do for them? Were you part of the worry wart patrol? No everything will not go perfectly. It never does. You keep talking about all of these missiles these folks have in a vacuum. Those missiles have to be intact and functional to be a threat. Bio warfare...oh well tactical nukes. We lose a few they lose a lot. Terror cells..no doubt. But not as substantial as you'd like to beleive given our increased awareness of their activity since 9/11. I am well aware they do not fear death. Thankyou for making that point. Given that you should be well aware of the urgency to not put at their disposal weapons that they will cavalierly use. I would seriously doubt if they have any functional warheads and I wouldn't want to be the country that sold them if we should find out they do and they deploy them.

As with any discussion like this there is a bunch of wild ass guessing going on here on both sides. I'm trying to respond to some of this hysteria with some realities. The realities are if we decide to attack Iran, we will be successful at achieving our military objectives the same way we have been successful with achieving those objectives in Iraq. The military is not the be all end all to bring political stability in Iraq no more than a military victory in Vietnam would have assured a political victory. I hope like hell we never have to see what an attack on Iran looks like. I believe that going into Iraq was a collasal mistake. I fully support our response in Afghanistan and wish we hadn't lost focus. But I think there's an awful lot of people on the left and maybe even a few on the right that need to wake up up when it comes to the eventually necessiity to follow through with the military. We have no foreign policy without the military and the fact is we'd have no United States to bicker about had we not used that military in our defense. I have serious misgivings about the deployment of the military post WW2 and our intervention in world hotspots. I often wonder where the world would be and where we'd be as a country had we just stayed at home an minded our own business. While I ponder that question, I am mindful of the situation on hand. Life handed me lemons. I have to make lemonade. I can only pray that people wiser than me can come to a peaceful solution that avoids millitary conflict. I don't relish the use of the military. But there comes a time when force is prudent. I am a believer that we must be prepared to follow through when such a time arises.

Obama

[Strelnikov_]

208. What, Praytell, Does Iran Have To Do With Defense Of The United States?

Other than they are sitting on a stockpile of oil, in an oil rich region.

Why not simply pull back to our bases in Kuwait, Qatar and Bahrain, which provide more than adequate forward deployment to deter any nation from making a petro grab like Bush I gave Hussein the green light for in '91?

[cliss]

190. Now, there's a frameable post.

Stan Goff wrote, "man for man and dollar for dollar, the U.S. military is the most inefficient in the world". He wrote that a 23-year old who comes from a soft, consumer-oriented lifestyle is no match for a hardened mujahedeen who is prepared to fight for his country, his home, his faith. We spend billions on weapons. We can't keep it up forever. We're broke as it is.

There's another point that no one's brought up yet: the Shia in Iraq (the majority party now) have allied themselves with Iran. They have promised the Iranians that if it comes to an attack from the US, they will come to Iran's defense. They will rise up against the occupiers. Don't forget: there's 22 million Iraqis against 150,000 Americans. I cn guarantee you that's one fight we will not win.

Just imagine the mess if Bush decides to do it, anyway.

[Strelnikov_]

206. Or A Vietnamese Peasant. How Quickly We Forget

On Hartmans show last week he stated that the new Iraqi government has a mutual defense treaty with Iran. The whole situation reeks of massive geo-strategic defeat.

I just think this whole thing is a big Kabuki dance for the 06/08 elections. Man or Monkey and his handlers can't really be this stupid, can they?

[lovuian]

142. Bush & Rumsy had plans for this months ago...

This has always been in their plans... who will stand with Iran???

Thats the ???

Bush is determined to have WWIII

[Boneman]

145. What exactly does Iran have to lose? Playing devil's advocate,

were I Iran, I would launch a dozen Shahab-4's and/or 6's at Tele Viv and another dozen Shahab-3's into the Green Zone. Will this PO the Americans? Sure. But so what? Again, what does Iran have to lose?

[lovuian]

163. Iran is pushed in the corner Bush wants its oil wells

it really has no choice... look at iraq...

This is a vulnerable time for Iran America Israel Iraq everybody in fact...

Pushing us to WWIII :nuke:

[Boneman]

166. Yep. I say this year. I live in LA. Topeka is looking better.......nft

ddd

[Jim Sagle]

196. Who will stand with Iran?

Yeah, that's the right question to ask on a Democratic site.:sarcasm:

[LibertyorDeath]

154. A chilling new look at Iran's military capability

A chilling new look at Iran's military capability in response to a U.S. strike will appear in Sunday editions of The Boston Globe, RAW STORY has learned. Headlined "IRAN IS CALLED CAPABLE OF LAUNCHING STRIKES," the piece provides a sobering analysis of Iran's capabilities.

"Iran is prepared to launch attacks using long-range missiles, secret commando units, and terrorist allies planted around the globe in retaliation for any strike on the country's nuclear facilities, according to new US intelligence assessments and military specialists," the Globe's Brian Bender writes. Excerpts: "US intelligence officials have said that Iran, which fought a war with Iraq from 1980-1988 that cost one million lives, still has the most threatening armed forces in the immediate region. Its combined ground forces are estimated at about 800,000 personnel. The CIA has concluded that Iran is steadily enhancing its ability to project its military power, including by threatening international shipping.

A major worry: newly acquired long-range missiles. Obtained with the assistance of North Korea, the Shahab 3 could strike Israel and perhaps even hit the periphery of Europe, according to a recent report by the Pentagon's National Air and Space Intelligence Center. "The missiles could also be tipped with chemical warheads and threaten US military bases in the region. Iran is believed to have at least 20 launchers that are frequently moved around the country to avoid detection.

"Iran has an extensive missile-development program and has received support from entities in Russia, China, and North Korea," the Pentagon report said, estimating their range to be at least 800 miles. "New missile designs under development could travel 400 miles farther, it said, while Iran purchased at least a dozen X-55 cruise missiles from Ukraine in 2001 that are capable of carrying a nuclear warhead as far as Italy."


http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Military_analysts_say_pri...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=391485&mesg_id=391485

[savemefromdumbya]

161. We've heard all this before

[savemefromdumbya]

172. US prepares military blitz against Iran's nuclear sites (Telegraph)

who is approving this?

Strategists at the Pentagon are drawing up plans for devastating bombing raids backed by submarine-launched ballistic missile attacks against Iran's nuclear sites as a "last resort" to block Teheran's efforts to develop an atomic bomb.

Central Command and Strategic Command planners are identifying targets, assessing weapon-loads and working on logistics for an operation, the Sunday Telegraph has learnt.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/02/12/wiran12.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/02/12/ixnewstop.html

[Gman]

173. Last resort???

What a crock of shit. The corporations that build cruise missles have already rebuilt and sold to the US a shit load of them in the last 3 years. They need to make more money so we need to blow up the ones we have.

[roguevalley]

174. ballistic missiles. oh. gawd. I wish I was 84. I would stick my head in

an oven and get it over with.

[DemInDistress]

175. and what about Brazil?

Posted on Fri, Feb. 10, 2006
Brazil poised to join the world's nuclear eliteBy Jack ChangKnight Ridder NewspapersRIO DE JANEIRO, Brazil - While the world community scrutinizes Iran's nuclear plans, Latin America's biggest country is weeks away from taking a controversial step and firing up the region's first major uranium enrichment plant.
That move will make Brazil the ninth country to produce large amounts of enriched uranium, which can be used to generate nuclear energy and, when highly enriched, to make nuclear weapons.
Brazilians, who have long nurtured hopes of becoming a world superpower, are reacting with pride to the new facility in Resende, about 70 miles from Rio de Janeiro.
Other countries enriching uranium on an industrial scale are the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Russia, China and Japan.

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/13842944.htm

[Colorado Blue]

179. Brazil has not suggested that a UN member state be wiped

off the map.

[DemInDistress]

187. ok when bush decides its a no no for brazil and they say

we'll nuke america..then what? besides chavez hates bush and has friends in brazil. hugo will also get nukes.
its ok for israel to have nukes, pakistan to have nukes but not iran. another thing, amanjani said,of israel were to attack they'd wipe out israel..bush and israel dont have carte blanche to attack anyone anymore. also
iran claims to want nuclear energy..who can dispute that and show me the evidence and not rhetoric..

goodnight and I'll reply tomorrow..

[Tom Joad]

176. What about Israel? The only Middle East nation to actually possess

nuclear weapons? As documented by Mordechai Vanunu, a true hero, btw.
Israel has refused to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
It is illegal for the united states to give military aid to such a nation. It does anyway.

[Behind the Aegis]

209. You answer your own question.

Israel is not a member of the NPT, therefore, doesn't have to abide by its rules. Can you show where it is illegal for the US to give military aid to such a nation?

[magellan]

181. So they think they can bomb Iran and that'll be it, huh?

They think the Iranians (those still alive) will sit back and contritely say to themselves, "Well, fuck, we won't do THAT again."

Fucking Bush** and his fucked administration have had plans to bomb Iran's ALLEGED nuclear sites for months if not years -- they aren't just "drawing them up". And if they do this, Iran will react. They might not have the might to inflict much damage, but they do have a better military than Iraq.

However, the AFTERMATH is the scary part. The ME will BURN in revolt. Enraged Muslims will do their best to throw Israel on the fire. And the result in terms of global Islamic insurrection will be no less frightening. We'll have riots everywhere, across Europe and perhaps even here this time.

And more than anything, the affront will NEVER be forgotten.

Think we've got a terrorism problem now? Just wait till Junior drops bombs on Iran.

[Oversea Visitor]

186. I am not anti US

Anti bush
But fuck if Iran get attack
You see the disgust we have for all things American
Enough bullshit

US can dig the bloody hole and crawl in hibernate from the rest of the world for the next 100 years.
What the fuck you think the people worldwide will do?
There be bad anit US things happening.
There be extreme boycott.
We already sick enough of this suituation.

Open your eyes bush
You an idoit if you dont use your brain here
You can win the battle
But in the long run
US FUCKED.

[ECH1969]

213. Pentagon plans to derail Iranian atomic bomb test

Iran has drawn up designs for a deep underground tunnel with remote-controlled heat and pressure sensors as part of what Western intelligence officials believe are preparations for a secret atomic test.

The existence of the sophisticated sketches for a 400-metre long subterranean test shaft was made public last week in The Washington Post. The welter of documents and disclosures provides what Western governments believe is an overwhelming circumstantial case that Iran is seeking an "Islamic bomb".

Richard Perle, a senior defence official at the time of the Iraq war and who maintains close links to the military, said that 12 B2 bombers, each carrying dozens of precision-guided weapons, could deliver a serious blow to Iran's nuclear ambitions.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/02/12/wiran112.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/02/12/ixnewstop.html

[MisterP]

214. by "derail" they mean "spill the blood of people other than themselves"

[JCMach1]

215. Notice the racist overtones of their comments...

a bomb is neither Christian, Jewish, or Islamic...

It just kills!

More reichwing scree from the neocons (i.e. Perle)

[punpirate]

220. And, they're wrong, too...

... Pakistan is an Islamic country, and has had nuclear weapons for at least eight years. But, there's no mention of that because Pakistan is currently best of buds with the US and the UK.

[Kablooie]

216. Oh god. Here we go again!

Remember all the detailed diagrams of the sophisticated underground Al Kaeda headquarters.
All absolute fantasy lies!!!

How can everyone fall for the same thing AGAIN!!??

Of course by the time we go through the whole business of unearthing proof of the lie, all these assholes
will be long gone and making book and lecture tours while the rest of America tries to patch up their
inconceivable messes.

I think I'm going to go thow up.

[Solo_in_MD]

225. Its in the Post

so what did you expect

[MetaTrope]

217. I suppose a 400 meter tunnel must be easier to detect

than the 140-meter one through which those al Qaeda officers were permitted to escape in Yemen?

[punpirate]

218. A few observations...

... first, The Telegraph fails to note that Richard Perle was, until recently, on their parent company's board of directors, and that Perle has come under scrutiny in Conrad Black's scheme to defraud Hollinger Intl. That's a press obligation, no matter the story.

Second, I find this a curious choice of language--"a 400-meter long tunnel...." Underground testing of nuclear weapons requires a deeply-buried weapon to contain the blast, so a long horizontal tunnel, which "long" implies doesn't cut it. And, one doesn't "remote-control" sensors--sensors detect, that's what they are and what they do. That sounds as if it were a phrase lifted from the text of someone who doesn't know what the fuck they are talking about--even standard laboratories have pressure and temperature sensors.

Third, take this in context with reports attributed to the NCRI (a PR offshoot of the MeK in this country) in the third week of December that plans for underground tunnels were discovered on the "laptop of a defector" which were meant to connect underground labs in order to avoid destruction in an attack. Y'know, if the various labs are underground, maybe it makes sense to have connections between them underground, too. This assertion would tie into the suggestion above that the information is coming from people who don't know what the fuck they are talking about, technically, but do have a political agenda in getting the US to pave the way for their takeover of the Iranian government.

Basically, this one stinks to high heaven.

[Strelnikov_]

219. Is This A Different "Islamic Bomb" Than Pakistans?

It seems this 'Islamic Bomb' term is intended to instill more fear in the sheeple. The propagandists are confident in their assumption that the sheeple will forget that the capital of the Islamic Republic Of Pakistan is Islamabad.

[ConcernedCanuk]

221. Iran with ONE bomb, Herr Boosh with thousands

.
.
.

I don't see an Iranian threat here -

but I DO see a USA threat

USA could hit us within minutes

It's doubtful that Iran even has the means to deliver an Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile, nor the will. Even if it be true that Iran is attempting to develop nuclear capabilities - I am of the opinion it is for defence, not as offense, as I see the USA doing with it's "superpower" capabilities.

I fear the Administration of our neighbours to the South much more than I do Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Iran, North Korea, etc. all put together.

Even Iraq was never a threat to it's neighboring countries, and I believe that Iraq's attack on Kuwait was probably justified for the little-published accusations that USA interests in Kuwait were slant drilling into Iraq's oil fields

But shame on me for thinking that the USA would try to steal someone else's resources . . . .

yeah, right . . .

[dailykoff]

224. How nice for Halliburton shareholders.

I'm sure they'll increase their charitable giving, so that should take care of the rest of the planet.

[banana republican]

244. Do they really think that the people (ie the GOVERNMENT)

of this country will stand idly by while this happens???????

[Solo_in_MD]

251. Depends

If Iran shoots first, retalitory air strikes would be met with domestic approval. Preemptive strikes on nuclear sites would be more iffy, depending haevily on how the media spins the threat. Given the astroturfed rioting over cartoons, some Western nation citizens believe that the Muslim world is backwards and uncivilized has been reinforced. "We can't trust savages with nuclear weapons" could resonate.

[Moderator]

260. Lock

This thread is not providing constructive discussion.
There are too many flames, personal attacks, and off topic posts.