They are gearing up totally for the destruction of Iran

mjs020294

The US military has been preparing for operations against Iran for several years. I doubt a war is imminent but removing Irans nuclear facilities is definetely a possibility.

Plechazunga

My point is I don't think the US can exactly be held up as a paragon of nuclear restraint.

711

That must have involved some major calculations. Unless you cheated and used Wikipedia.

Sir Matt

They were used in a case where dropping two bombs guaranteed there would be fewer casualties. Then, in the 65 years since, the US hasn't used them again despite being involved in several wars. Knowing you can use them and win a war by destroying a city and not using them is showing quite a bit of restraint. Besides, had the US not used them and demonstrated the damage it would cause, it's likely that another country would have used them.

RedKaos

Really? I mean lets face its not like they've used weapons of that magnitude before on civilians....

If the middle east wasn't an oil haven then who knows what extreme measures the US would have carried out..possibly involving nukes.

VidaRed

Those 40-80 figure if from 30 years ago. I suggest you multiply that by 5.

But russia has more nukes than the whole world combined and to think they reduced there stockpile considerably in the last couple of decades or so

Also im curious to know what you wrote in that essay ?

Team Brian GB

It is of strategic importance that the Russians are coming round to the western camp of thinking on Central Asia, by allowing the US to use their airspace on supply routes and by softening their position with regard to Iran. Perhaps that is quid pro quo for abandoning the missile batteries in Poland but nevertheless it is significant as Russia have been one of the biggest blocks on action with regard to Iran. It is also intriguing as this coming together occurs whilst the United States and China are trading tit for tat insults at each other, whatever is going on behind the scenes it will have a profound impact on global power relations which Iran ought to be concerned about if it doesn't come to the table quickly.

Team Brian GB

Russia at her peak it is believed near 40,000 - whilst the US got to around 25,000 I believe.

And on India's figures, they come from the IAEA, US DoD estimates, The Nuclear Threat Initiative and the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists who calculate based on how much plutonium and uranium they are able to produce, how many nuclear scientists they have etc. etc.

Team Brian GB

That India talks herself up as a great power and invites herself to the top table of global affairs, but her military remains too antiquated and her nuclear capabilities and power projection are not sophisticated enough to warrant that yet. For instance whilst India is fast developing her own technologies and buying them from abroad, the backbone of her military is still 1970s era tanks and aircraft with hundreds of tanks dating back to the fifties. Whilst Pakistans much smaller army is far more modern as is China's.

I did say it is fast changing, though India as of yet doesn't maintain a second strike nuclear capability or muster significant blue water capabilities, and that she would be best served by concentrating on her civilian and economic powers and use the fact that she is a rising power that isn't China to propell her forward, which was able to bag her the US nuclear deal and increasingly advanced EU relations that could lead to a trade deal, simply because she is a rule of law, democratic country that could counter-weight Beijing.

Sir Matt

China doesn't really have much of a blue water navy, which is why it would be important for India to develop one. Cut off the Strait of Malacca, and China would suffer greatly.

VidaRed

Since the Indian army is fucking massive some parts will have old military hardware but you are forgetting that India has T-90 tanks which is the best tank till date! and the sukhoi rapes anything pakistan has. China has the same hardware india has along with numerous cheap knockoffs. I agree that the navy is slightly lagging behind. But our ballistic missiles and air to air missiles are good. Infact India does have a second strike capability because it can launch nukes through various means like submarines, fighter jets and frigates! Though the ICBM will be ready in a couple of years.

Plechazunga

There are good arguments for and against their use on the Japanese (at least on Hiroshima). Nevertheless, the fact that in 64 years they're the only country to use the bomb inevitably makes advancing them as the height of restraint a little rich. They were damn close to using them in Korea too, and a lot closer in the Cuban crisis than people realise.

EZee

and so would all the countries who trade with china... and pissing off them probably isnt the best move or they tend to bring hope and freedom by the bombload

Plechazunga

This thread exemplifies people's reluctance to entertain two thoughts at the same time:

The Iranian leaders hold some irrational beliefs - but that doesn't mean all their decisions are irrational.

The Iranians have dreams of domination - but that doesn't make them immune from fear of being dominated.

The regime has been strengthened by the fall of Saddam - but also weakened by internal dissent.

The US has differing goals in the many Muslim countries where it's currently engaged - but that doesn't mean there are no commonalities, or that they're not perceived as such by Muslim countries.

It is reasonable for the US and its allies to be keen for the Iranian regime to fall, and desperate to stop them getting the bomb... but that doesn't make attacking Iran a good idea.

The Israeli occupation of the West Bank is unjust... but that doesn't make everything they do unjustified.

To point out that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been comparatively non-lethal doesn't mean you approve of it or want it to continue.

The Israelis have the bomb, but that doesn't make them all-powerful.

American foreign policy is, like almost all countries' foreign policy, self-interested. But that doesn't mean everything they do is malign.

I'd rather the Americans had nukes than the Russians, Chinese or Iranians. But that doesn't mean they've been wonderful stewards of nuclear technology for peaceful ends.

Sir Matt

Of course nukes were considered during the Korean War, they were new and easy to use, but most of the calls to use them were from General MacArthur who was dismissed for it. The Cuban Missile Crisis is one of the scariest situations ever for nuclear weapons, but the imminent threat of Soviet nuclear weapons in Cuba would have immediately brought nukes to the table. Ultimately, the danger to both the Soviets and the US prevented anything from happening.

I'm of two minds on whether or not the Guardian Council are rational actors. Saddam was always a rational actor, but he was secular. I think the use of suicide bombers brings their "rational" status into some question, but I still doubt they would use the weapons if it would threaten their regime. Their continuted involvement in Iraq is also a big threat to them.

I've said before that the best possible outcome would be to wait out the eventual downfall of the "revolution" and hope that they take the South Africa route in disarming themselves. The problem with it is that it leaves so much up to chance. If the current regime gets the bomb, it could be used as a means to maintain control(though perhaps not very convincing). Also, general upheaval in Iran would inevitably threaten the safety of the weapons and lead to them falling into the wrong hands.

Pretty much the only reason that Israel still exists is that they have the bomb. They are a means of deterrence from pretty much all other countries, but they also require the West to have some positive relations with them. If the US did not support or aid Israel, I would be afraid of Israel's actions in "defense" of their lands.

Team Brian GB

I didn't deny there were not good points to the Indian military but across the board it is lacking, the international concensus is that India doesn't have a second strike option due to the small amount of nuclear weapons she possesses and the fact she is known not to keep them on alert which means they are not forward deployed and therefore vulnerable to a surprise attack in a couple of locations, whilst her incoming ballistic submarines have been ravaged by delays and are yet to enter service. Saying that when Agni-V becomes operational that will be a very big stick to wield as a deterrence to China.

Plus India loses out as geopolitics are against her especially as far as China is concerned, should any border war take place in the future China will have the mountainous terrain of the Himalayas and Tibet behind her whilst India has her northern heartlands. China has literally nothing in her far western extremities with Beijing nearly 3,000 miles over mountains away whilst the Chinese border is only 250 miles or so over relatively flat land from New Delhi.

Not to mention that Pakistan would probably kick off simultaneously should such occur, and whilst it is unlikely it is the number one contingency the Indian Army must prepare for.

Sir Matt

China vs India...battle of the Zerg Rush.

Plechazunga

Yeah, have you heard the tapes smuggled out of the Kennedy meeting with his cabinet and chiefs of staff? "Let's nook 'em, Mr. President" is one repeated refrain.

The Iranian government is not solely composed of clerics and religious fanatics. There are powerful army and business interests too. And in general the clerics have proved themselves to be very canny politically.

They survived two full-scale wars against all their neighbours before they got the bomb, and one since they got it - that being a combined invasion by eight countries which having the bomb didn't prevent. (Though they came quite close to using it.)

It may enable them to survive in future, but it's not correct to say it's a reason, let alone the only reason, they've survived up till now.

Team Brian GB

I wouldn't say that, as the vast coordination and superiority of the IDF would batter senseless any loose pan-middle-east coalition against her. Israel is equipped with American technology, and we all saw what the United States did in wars against Iraq twice.

Not to mention the fact that Israel was attacked by a far stronger numerical force in 1967 but in less than a week was well on her way toward occupying much of Egypt and Syria, with deja vu in 1973, and the consequences of that being they hold the very strategic Golan Heights - high ground only thirty miles from Damascus.

Plechazunga

Agreed in the main, as I just posted too.

Saying Israel was attacked in '67 is stretching it a bit mind. The Arabs had mobilised, but it was the Israelis who attacked.

Team Brian GB

Fair enough, I stand corrected on that point.

Team Brian GB

He had his hands full with them, in the 1968 election George Wallace who was a pro segregation southern governor ran for the Presidency basically on an anti civil rights campaign and picked Curtis LeMay to be his running mate who was the Air Force Chief of Staff during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and it is well documented that the campaign staff had to stay up well into the early hours of the morning before his first press conference as a Vice Presidential Nominee to convince him that the American public would be turned off if he spoke the truth about how wildly enthusiastic he was about using nuclear weapons, and he spent much of the campaign discussing them in a positive manner which sunk him and Wallace allowing Nixon to sweep the south and win the presidency.

Sir Matt

I've seen a few things where Robert McNamara talks about it and several other documentaries. It's a good thing that JFK learned not to listen to people after the Bay of Pigs.

The most powerful aspect of the government though is the Guardian Council. I've heard that the army and clerics were starting to have issues with one another over the protests, especially the non-RG parts. Ahmadinejad has very little power, but he's the mouthpiece of the government. I can't see very many businessmen being pro-nuclear weapons though because it would inevitably bring sanctions on them.

I realize they all have an intertwined role in determining policy, but I think that the clerics are the most powerful part. The clerics are starting to realize that they aren't domestically in control as much as they thought. Moussavi began as a reform candidate who has taken on a completely different meaning to the people since the elections. Others realize that the people are starting to dismiss reform for all out changes. It remains to be seen though how long the army will continue going along with their interests. Their job isn't to oppress their own people, which will always cause issues when there is dissent.

I didn't mean during the 60s-70s. As their neighbors have advanced, Israel has always had that leg up on them preventing any further attempts.

Fearless

And exactly what other choice did Israel have?

Sir Matt

Part of the reason the IDF is such a potent fighting force is psychological. It's always "us vs. them" in a battle for survival. For Israel, wars are fought with the knowledge that losing means annihilation. Also, Israel's original nuclear program was a result of both French and British aid rather than American. The combination of American arms, the psychological strength, and nukes make them damn hard to defeat. It also helps that they don't really hold back.

Plechazunga

It's common to say Ahmadi has no power but I'm not sure how true it is anymore, he's Khamenei Junior's man, and it's unclear to what extent the stolen election last year on the part of them and the IRG.

Though that doesn't advance my case much admittedly, as Ahmadi is very much a religious nut himself.

I still don't see much backing up the claim. They had peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan. Syria hasn't 'advanced' very much, and is strategically compromised by Golan. Saddam was kept busy by the Iranians and Americans, but still managed to get a few missiles off at the Israelis. Iran has been attacking as best it could via its proxies.

I think it's treaties and lack of capability that have stopped any more major wars, rather than nukes. Though I dare say the nukes played a part in bringing Egypt to the table. It's safe to say they've made the idea of eradicating Israel - rather than winning back lost territory - suicidal... though oddly that didn't stop them in '73.

711

The US committing to remove the intermediate-range nuclear missiles that they had already put in Turkey prevented anything, as Russia then agreed to stop it's own implementation of similar missiles in Cuba. The US publicity machine presented this as a victory for the USA, and a triumph for Kennedy, who had saved the world.

US nuclear weapons were removed from Turkey, permanently.

Plechazunga

Yes it was Khrushchev who lost face to save the world, and it cost him his job.

I wasn't saying attacking was unjustified.

The truth is, elements on both sides were itching for a fight and in the end it was inevitable.

Sir Matt

The missiles were fairly antiquated though so it wasn't much of a loss. That's why it's perceived as a victory for the US.

711

Really, I thought the intermediate-range missiles were new?

Regardless of their age it was the combination of their location and speed of delivery that mattered, as they introduced the possibility of a first strike, the ability to hit the opposition before they could react and launch their own counter-strike. MAD was quite cosy in a way, the Turkish missiles might have allowed MAD to be bypassed, hence the gravity of the threat.

Fearless

The truth is....

“Our forces are now entirely ready not only to repulse any aggression, but to initiate the act ourselves, and to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland of Palestine. The Syrian army, with its finger on the trigger, is united. I believe that the time has come to begin a battle of anihilation.”- Syria’s Defence Minister Hafez Assad (later to be Syria’s President) June 1967

“Israel wants to make it clear to the government of Egypt that it has no aggressive intentions whatsoever against any Arab state at all”-Israel’s Prime Minister Levi Eshkol June 1967

Plechazunga

I don't think the public rhetoric proves the case. Nasser veered between belligerence and despondency - Eban said Nasser "didn't want war. He wanted victory without war." Amer was gung-ho. Eshkol was nervous, and Eban would have talked a marathon to avoid war, but Dayan and the top brass thought they were a bunch of jokers, and were mad for it.

Anyway let's not turn this into another Arab-Israeli thread, it's a bit more interesting than that currently.

Fearless

You sure?

You seem to be even more addicted to it than me - and I've fecked off for two years.

Plechazunga

I find it hard to resist posting on the subject, but I wish I wouldn't. I held off for as long while too...

Fearless

Maybe we should come up with some sort of nicotinel style patch to help ween us off.

But then again I'd post about the withdrawl symptoms which would flare the whole thing up again.

Plechazunga

Hehehe... not bad

Team Brian GB

Hitler claimed he wanted peace, as did Hirohito.

Fearless

Yeah, Mein Kempf said as much.

711

Not to mention 27 Miss Worlds.

RedKaos

As have your previous prime ministers:

"We must expel Arabs and take their places." - David Ben Gurion.

"The Partition of Palestine is illegal. It will never be recognized .... Jerusalem was and will for ever be our capital. Eretz Israel will be restored to the people of Israel. All of it. And for Ever. - Menachem Begin

"Israel should have exploited the repression of the demonstrations in China, when world attention focused on that country, to carry out mass expulsions among the Arabs of the territories". - Benjamin Netanyahu

"If we thought that instead of 200 Palestinian fatalities, 2,000 dead would put an end to the fighting at a stroke, we would use much more force...." - Ehud Barak.

"Everybody has to move, run and grab as many (Palestinian) hilltops as they can to enlarge the (Jewish) settlements because everything we take now will stay ours...Everything we don't grab will go to them." - Ariel Sharon.

I think it's safe to conclude that Israel truly has peaceful intentions