Iran threatening USA carrier group
Discussion
"In the administration's view, it's when [Iran] has a nuclear weapon, and in Israel's view, it's when Tehran has reached the level where they can quickly assemble a nuclear weapon," McCain told CBS' Face the Nation. "That's a big difference."
The threat of war, however, remains severe, according to Martin Indyk, a former US ambassador to Israel.
"I'm afraid that 2013 is going to be a year in which we're going to have a military confrontation with Iran," he said
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/09/2...
The threat of war, however, remains severe, according to Martin Indyk, a former US ambassador to Israel.
"I'm afraid that 2013 is going to be a year in which we're going to have a military confrontation with Iran," he said
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/09/2...
When they talk about a nuclear weapon I wonder if they're talking about something which is actually deliverable via a missile or something which goes bang in a big way, but weighs 15 tons. They could build the latter tomorrow (probably) but I'd guess the former is still a good way off.
thats the funny thing about nuclear weapons- they aren't as fucntionally useful as people think.
If you really want to do damage, you need an airburst missile, but these aren't easy to deliver accurately (and they do need to be surprisingly accurate unless you are lobbing hundreds). Thing with airburst is that they don't leave much radiation around.
Conversely you could go for ground burst, but they only do a relatively small amount of damage (and isay relatively)- they produce a nice mushroom cloud, and a lot of radiactive carp, but its in a relatively small area- 4 mile radius for example.
If the iranians lobbed one a the straits of homeeuz (sp?!?) then they certainly woudlnt' take out enough of the carrier groups to ensure they woudlnl't be destroyed in the following firefight.
If you really want to do damage, you need an airburst missile, but these aren't easy to deliver accurately (and they do need to be surprisingly accurate unless you are lobbing hundreds). Thing with airburst is that they don't leave much radiation around.
Conversely you could go for ground burst, but they only do a relatively small amount of damage (and isay relatively)- they produce a nice mushroom cloud, and a lot of radiactive carp, but its in a relatively small area- 4 mile radius for example.
If the iranians lobbed one a the straits of homeeuz (sp?!?) then they certainly woudlnt' take out enough of the carrier groups to ensure they woudlnl't be destroyed in the following firefight.
PugwasHDJ80 said:
thats the funny thing about nuclear weapons- they aren't as fucntionally useful as people think.
If you really want to do damage, you need an airburst missile, but these aren't easy to deliver accurately (and they do need to be surprisingly accurate unless you are lobbing hundreds). Thing with airburst is that they don't leave much radiation around.
Conversely you could go for ground burst, but they only do a relatively small amount of damage (and isay relatively)- they produce a nice mushroom cloud, and a lot of radiactive carp, but its in a relatively small area- 4 mile radius for example.
If the iranians lobbed one a the straits of homeeuz (sp?!?) then they certainly woudlnt' take out enough of the carrier groups to ensure they woudlnl't be destroyed in the following firefight.
If you really want to do damage, you need an airburst missile, but these aren't easy to deliver accurately (and they do need to be surprisingly accurate unless you are lobbing hundreds). Thing with airburst is that they don't leave much radiation around.
Conversely you could go for ground burst, but they only do a relatively small amount of damage (and isay relatively)- they produce a nice mushroom cloud, and a lot of radiactive carp, but its in a relatively small area- 4 mile radius for example.
If the iranians lobbed one a the straits of homeeuz (sp?!?) then they certainly woudlnt' take out enough of the carrier groups to ensure they woudlnl't be destroyed in the following firefight.
Guam said:
They wouldnt survive the First Boomer being given Go codes, Iran would be one big glass sheet if they ever used a nuke against a major power.
Their Nuke program is an attempt at disabling Israels Nuke ability <version of MAD> I believe no more than that.
Exactly. Their Nuke program is an attempt at disabling Israels Nuke ability <version of MAD> I believe no more than that.
Netanyahu's claims are along the same lines as the 45 minute WMD claims, and for the same purpose. Surprising how gullible some people are.
Guam said:
They wouldnt survive the First Boomer being given Go codes, Iran would be one big glass sheet if they ever used a nuke against a major power.
Their Nuke program is an attempt at disabling Israels Nuke ability <version of MAD> I believe no more than that.
That's obvious so either take the nuke away from Israel, or guarantee Iran's safety.Their Nuke program is an attempt at disabling Israels Nuke ability <version of MAD> I believe no more than that.
Mermaid said:
Guam said:
They wouldnt survive the First Boomer being given Go codes, Iran would be one big glass sheet if they ever used a nuke against a major power.
Their Nuke program is an attempt at disabling Israels Nuke ability <version of MAD> I believe no more than that.
That's obvious so either take the nuke away from Israel, or guarantee Iran's safety.Their Nuke program is an attempt at disabling Israels Nuke ability <version of MAD> I believe no more than that.
Israel's neighbours however regard Israel as something to be removed. Even when benign...Egypt for the last few yrs...the underlying desire remains.
The West's best hope with Iran is it educated and liberal leaning middle class and stay out of any Israel-Iran dispute. Hope and council Israel the good sense to keep its targets strictly within the chain of command and the military and let Iran's domestic unrest with its leadership do the rest of the work. There has to be a concerted effort to differentiate between Iran's leadership and the Iranian people.
DJRC said:
The West's best hope with Iran is it educated and liberal leaning middle class and stay out of any Israel-Iran dispute. Hope and council Israel the good sense to keep its targets strictly within the chain of command and the military and let Iran's domestic unrest with its leadership do the rest of the work. There has to be a concerted effort to differentiate between Iran's leadership and the Iranian people.
I agree with this one. If you disable any nuclear capability or target it's leaders then fair enough, but given our track record with Iraq, if we start with the 'collateral damage' then thats not going to work in the long run to get people on our side.Apache said:
I admire your conviction chaps but I think you are underestimating the Israelis sense of being cornered here
Yep! Remove the Nukes from Israel, even if it was possible, would remove a huge and vital part of their defence strategy and a part they have never been terribly subtle about. The thing people forget is that a disproportional strong Israel is obviously in their own best interests but also oddly, in the interests of their neighbours, including the hostile ones. Should Israel be weaker than it's neighbour states it is a fair to assume there is a strong likelihood of a Israeli / Arab war again. If Israel fell (forgetting all the other connotations thereof) it is very possible that the armies involved would end up fighting each other both for control of Jerusalem in particular and possibly to try to create a single pan Arabic State which each country would hope to rule. That is even before you kick in countries such as Lebanon who are unlikely to want to get involved in such a thing which would make it even more difficult. Having parity is not only no assurance of peace but in fact is more likely to lead to war in the region. Having Israel with her military power, and the ever present threat of US intervention is a massive aspect in keeping the peace out there which is too everyone advantage.
Pappa Lurve said:
Apache said:
I admire your conviction chaps but I think you are underestimating the Israelis sense of being cornered here
Yep! Remove the Nukes from Israel, even if it was possible, would remove a huge and vital part of their defence strategy and a part they have never been terribly subtle about. The thing people forget is that a disproportional strong Israel is obviously in their own best interests but also oddly, in the interests of their neighbours, including the hostile ones. Should Israel be weaker than it's neighbour states it is a fair to assume there is a strong likelihood of a Israeli / Arab war again. If Israel fell (forgetting all the other connotations thereof) it is very possible that the armies involved would end up fighting each other both for control of Jerusalem in particular and possibly to try to create a single pan Arabic State which each country would hope to rule. That is even before you kick in countries such as Lebanon who are unlikely to want to get involved in such a thing which would make it even more difficult. Having parity is not only no assurance of peace but in fact is more likely to lead to war in the region. Having Israel with her military power, and the ever present threat of US intervention is a massive aspect in keeping the peace out there which is too everyone advantage.
drivin_me_nuts said:
Pappa Lurve said:
Apache said:
I admire your conviction chaps but I think you are underestimating the Israelis sense of being cornered here
Yep! Remove the Nukes from Israel, even if it was possible, would remove a huge and vital part of their defence strategy and a part they have never been terribly subtle about. The thing people forget is that a disproportional strong Israel is obviously in their own best interests but also oddly, in the interests of their neighbours, including the hostile ones. Should Israel be weaker than it's neighbour states it is a fair to assume there is a strong likelihood of a Israeli / Arab war again. If Israel fell (forgetting all the other connotations thereof) it is very possible that the armies involved would end up fighting each other both for control of Jerusalem in particular and possibly to try to create a single pan Arabic State which each country would hope to rule. That is even before you kick in countries such as Lebanon who are unlikely to want to get involved in such a thing which would make it even more difficult. Having parity is not only no assurance of peace but in fact is more likely to lead to war in the region. Having Israel with her military power, and the ever present threat of US intervention is a massive aspect in keeping the peace out there which is too everyone advantage.
Generally though there can only be peace in the ME when certain things happen that will allow people to move forward. These include, but are not limited to, an understanding that the religious aspect is largely a red herring or a tool used to manipulate as opposed to a major causational factor. Israel either has to dump PR or more realistically, break the power of the right wing / orthadox parties (the latter is happening but PR makes it very hard and will take a very long time sadly). Also, the Arab states, and I include Egypt and Iran in this even though they are arguably not technically Arab States at all, need to open up politically and educationally. Those changes, especially when also applied to the Palestinians as well, are critical. What you have there at the moment though, and what my view is based on, is a country with a disproportional large stick who have no advantage in actually using it and some other countries who have much to gain by talking the talk and nothing by walking the walk as they would be stumble pretty damn rapidly should they try. That leads to a broad status que, and much like the MAD of the cold war, it is not perfect, but it is better than many other options.
All IMHO of course.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/davidblair/10018...
Israel could probably destroy only two of Iran's nuclear plants – it would take America to do the rest
Israel could probably destroy only two of Iran's nuclear plants – it would take America to do the rest
Marf said:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/davidblair/10018...
Israel could probably destroy only two of Iran's nuclear plants – it would take America to do the rest
Stuff like that always amuses me. I can't see Israel doing it without US support of some sort but I often wonder how much these commentators know about Israel or indeed US capabilities. I only think this as I have seen so much old footage and read so many articles in major publications announcing Israel's imminent defeat only for them to turn it around. The neighbour states there are far, far more realistic these days about Realise determination, ability to think outside the box and their superb hardware, training and moral. Of course, the article could be perfectly right as I don't know either but just making an observation and yes, I am very, VERY bored this afternoon and none here can see my screen so I am posting away to keep me occupied :-PIsrael could probably destroy only two of Iran's nuclear plants – it would take America to do the rest
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff