War with Iran.

[walker 0]

Hi all

As I pointed out earlier the wikileaks method seems more productive. Less death, less treasure spent, less destruction.

If Palestine is recognised by the UN then one of the legs the current Iranian prime minister relies on to excuse his power is removed. A less threatening Israeli regime also would help kick out his other leg.

Kind Regards walker.

Edited November 15, 2011 by walker

[katipo66 94]

Conclusion: We are all f***ed

Maybe the mayans were right and apokalypse is just a year away (I think a year is enough to start WW3)

:butbut:

F**k, better not be before Arma3 :eek:

[Tonci87 163]

Well if Arma 3 is ready next summer, then we will still have some months to play ^^

[PELHAM 10]

We could also launch a 1st strike and send half the names above to bore them to death. lol

@Walker - nice long post, it illustrates:

a) You don't understand nuclear technology (it's not the reactor they would be targeting)

b) Don't read Tom Clancy just before doing any strategic thinking.

I particularly like the radioactive oil sketch - that's a classic!

Edited November 15, 2011 by PELHAM

[walker 0]

Hi all

In reply to PELHAM

I think I know I little bit about the nuclear power industry and the physics involved; at least enough to know that you do not knock out the power to the cooling and control system of a reactor, which is what any attack on a reactor complex has a very high probability of doing.

But pray explain to us with your apparent expertise what you think would happen.

By the way I don't read Tom Clancy perhaps you can explain some of his books to us.

Kind Regards walker

Ps did you read Professor Paul Rogers's professional assessment?

Edited November 15, 2011 by walker

[ryfle 10]

You have the only police force in the world willing to defend your own world intrests.

Not sure what you mean...

You have bigger global intrests than anybody else, so you do more world policing than anyone else.

If you choose not to, many other countries such as Iran are all queuing up to take them over from you.

I get your first remark, but not sure what exactly you're implying in the second. Please explain...

What happens to your economy right now if oil prices quadruple?

Can you afford a military even?

We actually can't afford anything as of now. US fiscal policy is a disaster, monetary policy an atrocity. Maintaining our present course we will have a financial meltdown quite soon, the likes of which we've never before seen.

But... oil prices will not quadruple because of Iran. NYMEX Crude futures are trading at $99.29/b as of now. So you're basically asking "what if oil goes to $400+/b?" Not going to happen... at least not because of Iran (if it does ever happen, I'm going to liquidate everything -- all my stocks, my car, my home and land, my dog, everything -- to put all on oil futures and I'll just become a billionaire overnight and buy a private island lol). Only the Federal Reserve's dollar destruction campaign could cause such a thing... :o

Our countries are very close to going the way of the Soviet Union currently.

It won't take much.

True. And it's our own faults, not Iran...

So what we have to weigh up is whether we will be more hurt by going to war with them than if we allow them to take more control over our vital trade routes.

The choice is quite clear... We need to have sweeping, fundamental changes at all levels of government...

[PELHAM 10]

Hi all

In reply to PELHAM

I think I know I little bit about the nuclear power industry and the physics involved; at least enough to know that you do not knock out the power to the cooling and control system of a reactor, which is what any attack on a reactor complex has a very high probability of doing.

But pray explain to us with your apparent expertise what you think would happen.

By the way I don't read Tom Clancy perhaps you can explain some of his books to us.

Kind Regards walker

Ps did you read Professor Paul Rogers's professional assessment?

I said they will not attack the reactor that means anything to do with it - Proff Paul knows what they will go after but does not explicitly say it, and I will not either, I suspect for the same reasons.

His is a far more balanced analysis than yours.

Edited November 16, 2011 by PELHAM

[walker 0]

Hi all

In reply to PELHAM.

The worst case scenarios were in reply to the post of some one who thought Israel would do the attack and and that there be only minor consequences from the action then that that would be it, I was pointing out the error in this assumption.

Most of the worst case scenarios paraphrased the consequences that Professor Paul Rogers report highlights that is why I posted the link for people to read.

So you agree that attacking the nuclear reactors and radioactive storage is never going to happen.

So you are agreeing with the professional report of Professor Paul Rogers that Israel can only target the non nuclear part. Eg personel and infrastructure.

In which case you are aware that tit for tat attacks will take place on Israel's scientists and their families and universities until Iran feels it has exacted retribution, which as Israel will retaliate means basically forever.

You do know they have a host of very educated people in Iran who will have done critical path analysis of their nuclear power industry and know full well what their key infrastructure sites are?

And that those will have been: hardened, backed up and dispersed just as they learned to do during the long years of war with Iraq?

It always amazes me that people make the classic error of assuming the enemy is stupid. That was the reason the stuxnet virus failed.

Perhaps you can explain it to us with the plot of one of your Tom Clancy novels how an attack might work? Because I think it is only in fiction that it would.

Kind Regards walker

Edited November 16, 2011 by walker

[PELHAM 10]

There is a part of the nuclear program to attack, not including personnel and infrastructure. The fact that it is hardened is actually helpful.

I would not take Roger's report too literally as he is a prof of peace studies not a military thinker. He simply lists what he thinks is every possible target but actually 50% of it is not really militarily or politically feasible for Israel.

PS don't use annoying spaces between every line - it makes it hard to read and I don't read Tom Clancy.

Edited November 16, 2011 by PELHAM

[Baff1 0]

Not sure what you mean...

I get your first remark, but not sure what exactly you're implying in the second. Please explain...

We actually can't afford anything as of now. US fiscal policy is a disaster, monetary policy an atrocity. Maintaining our present course we will have a financial meltdown quite soon, the likes of which we've never before seen.

But... oil prices will not quadruple because of Iran. NYMEX Crude futures are trading at $99.29/b as of now. So you're basically asking "what if oil goes to $400+/b?" Not going to happen... at least not because of Iran (if it does ever happen, I'm going to liquidate everything -- all my stocks, my car, my home and land, my dog, everything -- to put all on oil futures and I'll just become a billionaire overnight and buy a private island lol). Only the Federal Reserve's dollar destruction campaign could cause such a thing... :o

True. And it's our own faults, not Iran...

The choice is quite clear... We need to have sweeping, fundamental changes at all levels of government...

America is "the police force of the world". What should not be lost on americans, is that the parts of the world America polices, are the parts it most benefits from being policed.

It would be a mistake for Americans to expect others to do the same instead of them... or at least, it woul be a mistake for America to expect others to do the same as them without taking over their trade routes, alliances and military bases for themselves in the process.

With the specific example of Iran, America keeps the Persian Gulf open to its shipping, and polices it's oil intrests in that area.

Very few other countries have vested intrest in this as their own oil supplies come from other places.

There are however rival intrests who wish to take over those trade routes to the exclusion of the US. Namely China, Russia and Iran.

And even allied intrests such as the UK and Turkey which wouldn't mind an increased share of the pie.

Any time America wishs to syop being the world policeman, there are plenty of others who seek that position of hegemony.

That Americans so clear wish to stop being the policeman of the world, is viewed as a sign of weakness by Iran who seeks to exploit that for it's own gain.

They plan on picking up where the U.S. (and U.K.) withdraw.

Since the oil shock of the 70's many other oil fields in many other places have been developed. The Persian Gulf can no longer bring the world to it's economic knees. It can however still make a very signifcant jump in oil prices.

I don't know enough to tell you if it's 4 x, 2x, 1.5x or whatever.

But it is going to be well enough to cause us all a lot of problems. Especially right now when we are already in economic crisis.

I don't especially disagree about the root causes of our own economic woes.

I only mention them to point out that war with Iran will have dire economic consequenes for us and while there is never a good time for war, sometimes are going to be worse than others.

War with Iran will cost us dearly as a society, even if we don't lose a single man in combat. Right now it will cost us immensley more than it would have done 4 years ago.

Recessions and war are historically linked. As our grip loosens, other will seek to exploit the slack.

Edited November 16, 2011 by Baff1

[walker 0]

Hi PELHAM

You raised the Tom Clancy slur and I threw back in your face. Lesson learned I presume.

On the matter of hardened sites. They are easy to fake so knowing which are the dummies is Damn near impossible. Consider Serbia. And of course I pointed out we know Iran backs up and disperses its critical infrastructure, we had that proved by the stuxnet failure.

Kind Regards walker

[Baff1 0]

Given that the Israelis hid their nuclear program in a building that UN inspectors actually inspected...

I think it's safe to say that the Iranians will be able to develop their bomb if they really really want to.

Equally Iraq could have done.

But all the facilities cost absolute fortunes to build and takle many years. If we blow them up and keep blowing them up, will the much amplified cost of development dissuade them?

We have two historical expamples to compare to. Iraq and North Korea.

Iraq we can see was disuaded by the increased expense of any nuclear development, but NK was willing to give up even the food imports on which it's populace depend, in order to meet the price.

[PELHAM 10]

Hi PELHAM

You raised the Tom Clancy slur and I threw back in your face. Lesson learned I presume.

On the matter of hardened sites. They are easy to fake so knowing which are the dummies is Damn near impossible. Consider Serbia. And of course I pointed out we know Iran backs up and disperses its critical infrastructure, we had that proved by the stuxnet failure.

Kind Regards walker

Looks like no lesson was learned. RE dummies - It's possible to identify dummies, I have noticed one or two myself. You can't back up and disperse everything, if you only have limited supplies and qualified staff it's not possible.

@baff1 - if you destroy certain elements of a nuclear weapons program it's not always possible to rebuild because you may not have access to components and materials that you need.

Another example - Syria. You make a good point about the economic consequences - that's probably why it will not happen any time soon.

Edited November 16, 2011 by PELHAM

[mrcash2009 0]

Another example - Syria. You make a good point about the economic consequences - that's probably why it will not happen any time soon.

Or do this instead:

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/11/15/world/meast/syria-isolation/?hpt=hp_t3

Turkey threatens to cut electricity as Syria is more isolated

[PELHAM 10]

Western states step up sanctions on Iran

(Reuters) - The United States and European Union are set to impose more sanctions on Iran, with Britain on Monday banning dealings with the central bank and France calling for measures on an "unprecedented scale" over Tehran's nuclear programme.

The steps come in response to a November 8 report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that presented intelligence suggesting Iran had worked on designing an atomic bomb and may still be secretly carrying out related research. Iran says its nuclear work is entirely peaceful.

The range of unilateral steps planned by Western powers reflects the difficulty of persuading Russia and China not to veto further measures at the U.N. Security Council, where they have supported four previous sanctions resolutions.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/11/21/uk-iran-sanctions-idUKTRE7AK1JI20111121

Iran official slams "preposterous" U.N. condemnation

(Reuters) - A senior Iranian official rejected as "preposterous" a resolution condemning the human rights situation in Iran, which was adopted by the U.N. General Assembly's rights committee on Monday.

The resolution received 86 votes in favour, 32 against and 59 abstentions. It showed a decrease in support for Tehran compared with last year, when a similar resolution received 80 votes in favour, 44 against and 57 abstentions.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/11/21/uk-iran-un-idUKTRE7AK21Y20111121

[hellfire257 3]

Makes you wonder why the USAF ordered this:

http://defensetech.org/2011/11/15/air-force-now-has-the-mop/

[HyperU2 11]

Tom Clancy is a prophet.

Also a lot of stars will be going up at Langley.

http://rt.com/usa/news/cia-iran-lebanon-hezbollah-861/

[Dosenmais 10]

Tom Clancy is a prophet.

Tom Clancy has many ources in the intelligent agencies.

By the way, does someone remember "Ghost Recon"? It wasn't wrote by Clancy but showed us 2001 a War between Russia and Georgia about South Ossetia which would started 2008.

Isn't that strange?

[NoRailgunner 0]

Israel will use all of their military (incl nuclear) capabilities + power to strike first if they believe that its existence is at stake. In this situation they don't wait till they get a green light and don't consult anyone beforehand.

Problem are hardliners, warmongers and religious/nationalistic fanatics on all sides.

[Rusvolk 10]

Hopefully it doesnt escalate into a major conflict between the allies of both nations.

[hellfire257 3]

*BUMP*

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15936213

Not good at all... :O

Someone is going to have had enough soon. The question is who, and when?

[HyperU2 11]

Even worse.

http://www.insidegamingdaily.com/2011/11/29/bf3-banned-in-iran/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=bf3-banned-in-iran

[nodunit 397]

I like how they dismiss it and then have the audacity to go on to say they hope it will deter piracy...what flat out assholes, pretty much tells you what they care about...cha ching.

Either way if the world economy is hurting so much then the last thing we all need is another bloody 'war'.

Edited November 29, 2011 by NodUnit

[HyperU2 11]

More people dead = more job openings.

[nodunit 397]

Actually I'll scratch my post for now, tell us in what ways that would create more job openings please.

Edited November 29, 2011 by NodUnit