No, I don’t mean nukes. Obviously they would change the equation. Its just reading between the lines of some of the posts (not just in this thread) I get the impression that several folks think that Iran is stronger (or the US weaker) than my own impressions by looking at the OOB and other factors on both sides. I was just curious…most likely I’m just reading more between those lines than exists.
-XT
Has it not occurred to you that Kim Jong-Il’s acquisition of nuclear weapons has, paradoxically, stabilized the Korean situation? Since we know NK actually has weapons of mass destruction (and, almost certainly, the willingness to use them), nobody will dare to invade; therefore the NK regime will be suffered to endure until it collapses on its own.
If it has not occurred to you, it has, I assure you, occurred to the Iranians. And quite reasonably, too.
Er…how was it unstable before? Afaik the US and SK weren’t preparing to invade NK before they got nukes…it wasn’t even on anyones mind again afaik (you are of course welcome to provide cites to the contrary if you like). Just about everyone had pretty much written the NK’s off in fact prior to their getting nukes…they were contained and merrily going along their path to complete destruction without any outside help. I doubt even the NK’s REALLY thought anyone was going to invade them…though of course this wasn’t what they told their people. Hell man…what would be the point?
Since they GOT nukes though the situation has been pretty unstable…in the extreme. And its a nightmare considering that eventually they WILL collapse. What happens then BG? Will whoever winds up in power be sane and use (or not use) the nukes they have wisely? Will they be used in some desparate last ditch effort…or used against an internal uprising by an unstable Kimmy trying to hold onto power (this could be as bad as actually dropping in on SK considering the proximity of both countries)?
-XT
Israel has struck and defeated Arab nations, but Iranians are not Arab so your comparison falls flat. In addition, all previous Israeli victories came with the full support of Iran as an ally. If it were not Iran, Israel would have had no oil from the 60s up until the 80s, due to an Arab oil embargo on Israel.
A quick note on Osirak. Iraq was at war with Iran at the time of the attack, thus it was not fully capable of defending itself. Plus, do not forget that a few month prior top the Israel raid, Iranian jets knocked out most of the Iraqi air defenses on a failed attempt to destroy Osirak. Hence, Israel succeeded with the help of Iran.
The American Navy is at risk in the Persian Gulf. It might be sunken Navy ships blocking the Strait due to Iran’s ability to launch Excocet and Sunburn missiles under any radar the US possesses due to the mountains bordering the Iranian border of the Gulf.
Even if the Exocets are mostly stopped, the Sunburns will without a doubt damage and possibly sink every American ship in the Gulf including aircraft carriers. That is one of the main reasons why an air strike against Iran is being carefully considered by the military.
If the US strikes Iran, then Iran with undoubtedly fire at least a few Sunburn missiles at Navy ships in the Gulf. With no defense against the Russian missiles, there will be a great deal of damage and extensive loss of life.
Or Iran may send a cruise missile toward Qatar or Dimona. There are reports that Iran has S-300 batteries around some sites and that could knock down a few jets. Finally, Iraq’s south would probably escalate out of control and occupy the US forces in Iraq to the point of exhaustion.
There is no doubt that the US could bomb Iran back to the Stone Age. That is not at issue. The issue is that the blowback from Iran’s asymmetric response would not be worth the risk.
Exactly… why do you think the Sunburns will be so effective against alerted Navy ships? They’re old, highly complex, a known threat, and it’s really doubtful any of them will be nuclear. I figure about 80% of them will work, and something tells me we might just have considered them a threat enough to plan against.
Er…when you say Navy, do you mean OUR Navy? If so, why do you think our ships would be defenseless against old Russian missiles exactly? Why would there be extensive loss of life?
If you are talking about Iran attacking someone elses Navy, or perhaps attacking tankers and such…even then I’m unsure that there would be EXTENSIVE loss of life. I’ll tell you one thing…they will only get to launch those missiles once before they are hammered (and thats IF they launch before hostilities start of course…if the US strikes first they may not even get one mass launch).
If you are talking about S-300PM (the SAM varient) I haven’t seen any confirmation that Russia sold them to Iran for one thing (if you have a cite it would be helpful). For another, they are rather older SAMs…and we’ve dealt with them before after all (there were reports that they were used in Kosovo against NATO air craft). I don’t think they would be a major worry…and again, they would get to use them once before they were obliterated (they are radar guided IIRC…bad mojo when we have HARMS and such).
As for Iraq’s south escalating out of control if we invade Iran…well, it could certainly happen though I doubt it. In fact I expect Iraq to quiet down as everyone with a gun goes THERE to fight American’s. Even if that doesn’t happen I never said we’d need to strip Iraq bare to invade Iran…nor that any of this would be cake. It would be ugly in the extreme, but it wouldn’t be because of Iran’s sooper dooper Russian surplus crap. It would be for the same reason Iraq is so ugly…multiplied by a factor of 10 (larger population, even less secular, etc).
I wasn’t really talking about bombing Iran back to the stone age or whatever…I was asking about an invasion. To me there is little doubt the US COULD successfully invade and occupy Iran…if it was willing to pay a heavy price in terms of blood and money (and of course willing to commit a huge percentage of our GDP and our military reserves to such a stupid end). Certainly there would be blowback…hell, it would be much worse than the shit we got ourselves into in Iraq and Afghanistan combined.
-XT
Precisely. Kim Jong-il acquiring nukes has not stabilized anything; it has merely raised the stakes of the nearly inevitable collapse. What was formerly a suicide now has the potential for murder-suicide on the Korean peninsula, or a nuclear strike against Tokyo.
Similarly, Iran acquiring nukes to prevent invasion is not the point. Nobody was planning on invading Iran (now that Iraq has been pacified), but the stakes of Iran-sponsored terrorism have been raised - as has the chances of nuclear strikes against Israel, or Egypt.
BrainGlutton, if you are implying that the stability of the world situation would be enhanced by every tin-pot dictator on the planet acquiring nukes, that strikes me as a trifle - well, out-of-the-box, to say the least. Are there other terrorism-sponsoring nations that you feel should be armed with nuclear weapons? Do you feel the security of the Indian subcontinent has been improved now that both India and Pakistan have The Bomb? How about Ghaddafi? Castro?
Are you saying that nuclear non-proliferation is simply a bad thing?
Regards,
Shodan
What does Iranians not being Arab have to do with Israel’s chances in an attack? If I mistakenly lumped Iranians in with Arabs I do not see how that changes the substance of what I was getting at.
Huh?
Iran officially despises Israel and has since the fall of the Shah.