Politics

[Corey0372]

Pretty good troll going around the internet...

 

[Red Leg]

So leaving them to actually attain nuclear status is preferable? Do you think they will then dial back their aggression? Easier to deal with?

I genuinely appreciate the detailed response. I assume we are talking about Iran as Korea already has a nuclear arsenal. It is indeed a tough problem. To date, as far as I am aware, we have been unable to actually stop any country from acquiring nuclear weapons except Iraq. Assuming they were actually making progress in that regard, that required a full scale invasion of the country. There would be zero support in this country for such an incursion. So how do we stop it by other means?

Many was to skin a cat. Israel showed with the speeding up of their nuclear centrifuges. Cutting off funding. Embargos. Blockades. Isolation of allies et al

I agree whole heartedly. My comments were directed to those who seem so excited with the prospect of a kinetic response directly against Iran.

Ukraine has shown remarkable ability to think outside the box. To adapt and penetrate. I'm certain that it is possible with Iran. And yes, I am aware of the differences in theatre and practicalities.

I am not sure what your point is. I noted I was confident that we could penetrate their air defense systems, though at some cost. I assume you are aware that drones carrying a few pounds of explosives would be of no utility on deeply buried facilities that can't be breached by a cruise missile and may not be reachable by any conventional deep penetration bomb. Obviously we could destroy them with nuclear weapons. I assume you would agree first use of nuclear weapons against Iran probably isn't going to happen.

If were being honest with each other their proxies are attacking everything anyway. Making Iran prioritise Iran is far batter than allowing them to fund and equip their proxies. When your own house is falling down you don't lend your shovel to the neighbour.

You are honestly ignoring my point. When and how do we end this air campaign against Iran? What constitutes mission accomplishment? What targets would we hit that would cause Iran to suspend its political goals and not retaliate against this country's regional partners? You tell me.

Even a minor disruption of oil flowing from the Persian Gulf would cause broad economic chaos in the West and in Japan with all sorts of unintended second and third order consequences. And Iran can easily accomplish that even under US led air bombardment. For instance, all of Saudi Arabian and Emirati oil production is well with range of Iranian missiles. And I am not talking Hamas bottle rockets. These are battlefield ballistic missiles with thousand pound warheads. What would be the economic impact of long term damage to that infrastructure?

Agreed but they ALL want to wipe Israel of the map regardless of their differences. (The enemy of my enemy is my friend) and when it comes down to Islam we are all their enemy. We are just used and tolerated until we are not.

That is simply not true. The US has had a long mutually beneficial relationship with much of the Middle East. Jordan and Egypt both cooperate closely with the US and Israel. Saudi Arabia is ready to normalize relations with Israel. In fact it is this normalization of relations that Iran most wants to undermine, because it weakens its strategic hegemonic goals.

And no, we are not all the enemy to Islam. There are indeed fanatics who would turn international issues into cultural and religious ones. They exist in all cultural groups including ours. But in spite of the original Islamic conquests, the subsequent crusades, and British and French Imperial ambitions, the respective predominant religions are not the primary issues.

Iran's goal is a hegemon that it dominates in the Middle East. That is a political/military objective that it decorates in religious bunting.

What most frustrates me about the current strategy is that massive strikes against the Proxies should have been initiated weeks ago, with no telegraphing of intent. The current methodology guarantees a longer drawn out - even perhaps, an unsuccessful effort.

 

[Doubleplay]

And no, we are not all the enemy to Islam. There are indeed fanatics who would turn international issues into cultural and religious ones. They exist in all cultural groups including ours. But in spite of the original Islamic conquests, the subsequent crusades, and British and French Imperial ambitions, the respective predominant religions are not the primary issues.

Iran's goal is a hegemon that it dominates in the Middle East. That is a political/military objective that it decorates in religious bunting.

What most frustrates me about the current strategy is that massive strikes against the Proxies should have been initiated weeks ago, with no telegraphing of intent. The current methodology guarantees a longer drawn out - even perhaps, an unsuccessful effort.

I whole heartedly agree, having spent a lot of time in the region in different capacities.
The biggest mistake people make is trying to put all muslims in the same basket and declare a religious war.
Iran has big aspirations in the region and they aligned with other Bricks countries to achieve that regardless of our or European sanctions.
All the other countries in Brics are predominantly not muslim and they formed close ties with Iran. South Africa is being one btw...
On the other hand Egypt and Turkey both muslim are arch rivals of Iran in the region and don't like their attempts of dominance.
Food for thought...

 

[375 Ruger Fan]

 

[Zambezi]

I highly suggest reading the other posts.

I genuinely appreciate the detailed response. I assume we are talking about Iran as Korea already has a nuclear arsenal. It is indeed a tough problem. To date, as far as I am aware, we have been unable to actually stop any country from acquiring nuclear weapons except Iraq. Assuming they were actually making progress in that regard, that required a full scale invasion of the country. There would be zero support in this country for such an incursion. So how do we stop it by other means?

If i remember correctly the nuclear program in Iran was "permitted" under the condition that it was an energy only program. The international atomic agency does a pretty good job of monitoring nuclear material produced and what happens to it. There seems to be, strike that, there IS a lack of will to ensure the program remains an energy only one.

I agree whole heartedly. My comments were directed to those who seem so excited with the prospect of a kinetic response directly against Iran.

I'm not adverse to direct action.

I am not sure what your point is. I noted I was confident that we could penetrate their air defense systems, though at some cost. I assume you are aware that drones carrying a few pounds of explosives would be of no utility on deeply buried facilities that can't be breached by a cruise missile and may not be reachable by any conventional deep penetration bomb. Obviously we could destroy them with nuclear weapons. I assume you would agree first use of nuclear weapons against Iran probably isn't going to happen.

As mentioned, there are many ways to skin a cat. Your leap from drones to nuclear attack ignores everything else in between.

You are honestly ignoring my point. When and how do we end this air campaign against Iran? What constitutes mission accomplishment? What targets would we hit that would cause Iran to suspend its political goals and not retaliate against this country's regional partners? You tell me.

my answer to your request: You set strategic goals and accomplish them. No hearts and minds regime change, no prolonged holiday in the sun. Set targets. Smash them.

Targets I would choose include road and rail infrastructure, ruling regime personnel, All military targets of value. Targets that retard their nuclear program. Air defences and operational troops that have the ability to wage war on their neighbours.

When you have given them a bloody nose and few cracked ribs they will not retaliate against the allied regional partners, They will be picking up the pieces. You seem in some ways to give them a lot of credit for being level headed is some ways but think they will strike back against the region. I don't understand this.

Even a minor disruption of oil flowing from the Persian Gulf would cause broad economic chaos in the West and in Japan with all sorts of unintended second and third order consequences. And Iran can easily accomplish that even under US led air bombardment. For instance, all of Saudi Arabian and Emirati oil production is well with range of Iranian missiles. And I am not talking Hamas bottle rockets. These are battlefield ballistic missiles with thousand pound warheads. What would be the economic impact of long term damage to that infrastructure?

So what you are saying is that some lives are worth a battle and some not. As long as Israeli lives are at stake it's ok, afterall they have nothing of strategic value to offer. But if it is Saudi Arabian or Emirati lives and oil then we should take it more seriously. My point of view is that whatever nightmare scenario one may conjure up currently one must multiply that by 10 when they are a nuclear AND emboldened adversary. If anyone should be worry about a nuclear Iran it should be the regional partners, What is to stop them.

They can sow strife in the Middle East as long as they don't touch the oil or stop the global economy...

That is simply not true. The US has had a long mutually beneficial relationship with much of the Middle East. Jordan and Egypt both cooperate closely with the US and Israel. Saudi Arabia is ready to normalize relations with Israel. In fact it is this normalization of relations that Iran most wants to undermine, because it weakens its strategic hegemonic goals.

Sorry but it is true. Yes the US has managed to have a decent relationship with the Middle East after all they don't want to be pounded with the US big stick and the US is probably their biggest market. Don't tell me you think they love us...

Jordan and Egypt have had their noses bloodied too many times to take on Israel again, Especially with USA backing Israel. So it's not holding hands because everyone is in love.

I agree that Iran wants to destroy the peace that is my point. They will continue and only get stronger and do more damage. Should I be facetious and say it's cool it's only Israel at the moment..

And no, we are not all the enemy to Islam. There are indeed fanatics who would turn international issues into cultural and religious ones. They exist in all cultural groups including ours. But in spite of the original Islamic conquests, the subsequent crusades, and British and French Imperial ambitions, the respective predominant religions are not the primary issues.

Yes we are all enemies of Islam if we are not Islamic. Appeasement is just hoping we'll be the last to be eaten. And I'm not talking about the moderate Muslim. Unfortunately the moderates will always be ruled by the fanatics and dictators. You only have stability in the Middle East countries because each is ruled with an iron fist by their respective despots or royals.

Iran's goal is a hegemon that it dominates in the Middle East. That is a political/military objective that it decorates in religious bunting.

So back to the original question: why wait until they are stronger and a nuclear power..?

What most frustrates me about the current strategy is that massive strikes against the Proxies should have been initiated weeks ago, with no telegraphing of intent. The current methodology guarantees a longer drawn out - even perhaps, an unsuccessful effort.

This I wholeheartedly agree with. 100% It would seem the will to inflict serious and decisive (and long lasting) damage is seriously lacking.

 

[Zambezi]

I whole heartedly agree, having spent a lot of time in the region in different capacities.
The biggest mistake people make is trying to put all muslims in the same basket and declare a religious war.

Condescending much? Just because I haven't smoked the hookah in every souk doesn't mean I am uninformed. I dare say I could hold my own.

Iran has big aspirations in the region and they aligned with other Bricks countries to achieve that regardless of our or European sanctions.

I agree on their aspirations, ergo doing something about it now. Let's agree to be honest with each other, you get sanctions and you get sanctions. The screw has not even begun to get tightened.

All the other countries in Brics are predominantly not muslim and they formed close ties with Iran. South Africa is being one btw...

No shit. They are all an axis of evil. But combined BRICS has the might of a third rate global power. China and Russia are the dominant players there and they have their hands full and/or don't or won't come to Iran's assistance.

On the other hand Egypt and Turkey both muslim are arch rivals of Iran in the region and don't like their attempts of dominance.

100%
As an aside, Turkey is the Jeckle and Hide of the world. They will play their hand as they see fit and according to which way the wind blows. (For as long as they can get away with it)

Food for thought...

.

 

[Red Leg]

If i remember correctly the nuclear program in Iran was "permitted" under the condition that it was an energy only program. The international atomic agency does a pretty good job of monitoring nuclear material produced and what happens to it. There seems to be, strike that, there IS a lack of will to ensure the program remains an energy only one.

I'm not adverse to direct action.

As mentioned, there are many ways to skin a cat. Your leap from drones to nuclear attack ignores everything else in between.

my answer to your request: You set strategic goals and accomplish them. No hearts and minds regime change, no prolonged holiday in the sun. Set targets. Smash them.

Targets I would choose include road and rail infrastructure, ruling regime personnel, All military targets of value. Targets that retard their nuclear program. Air defences and operational troops that have the ability to wage war on their neighbours.

When you have given them a bloody nose and few cracked ribs they will not retaliate against the allied regional partners, They will be picking up the pieces. You seem in some ways to give them a lot of credit for being level headed is some ways but think they will strike back against the region. I don't understand this.

So what you are saying is that some lives are worth a battle and some not. As long as Israeli lives are at stake it's ok, afterall they have nothing of strategic value to offer. But if it is Saudi Arabian or Emirati lives and oil then we should take it more seriously. My point of view is that whatever nightmare scenario one may conjure up currently one must multiply that by 10 when they are a nuclear AND emboldened adversary. If anyone should be worry about a nuclear Iran it should be the regional partners, What is to stop them.

They can sow strife in the Middle East as long as they don't touch the oil or stop the global economy...

Sorry but it is true. Yes the US has managed to have a decent relationship with the Middle East after all they don't want to be pounded with the US big stick and the US is probably their biggest market. Don't tell me you think they love us...

Jordan and Egypt have had their noses bloodied too many times to take on Israel again, Especially with USA backing Israel. So it's not holding hands because everyone is in love.

I agree that Iran wants to destroy the peace that is my point. They will continue and only get stronger and do more damage. Should I be facetious and say it's cool it's only Israel at the moment..

Yes we are all enemies of Islam if we are not Islamic. Appeasement is just hoping we'll be the last to be eaten. And I'm not talking about the moderate Muslim. Unfortunately the moderates will always be ruled by the fanatics and dictators. You only have stability in the Middle East countries because each is ruled with an iron fist by their respective despots or royals.

So back to the original question: why wait until they are stronger and a nuclear power..?

This I wholeheartedly agree with. 100% It would seem the will to inflict serious and decisive (and long lasting) damage is seriously lacking.

I respect all your posts Zambezi, but this is military idealism. It sounds exactly like the "shock and awe" crowd under Rumsfeld who were convinced Iraq would collapse under precision strikes and any US ground force involvement would be purely as a mop up effort lasting a few weeks.

I didn't leap from drones to nuclear weapons ignoring everything in between. However, I did leap to the first weapon that I would be certain could actually take out such buried facilities. The only other military option, in my professional opinion, that I could offer that same certainty would be an infantryman. There is whole is a whole lot of Iran between any entry point and those facilities.

Second, what strategic goals do you believe a military could accomplish that would assure destruction of Iranian nuclear development and inability to retaliate destructively across the Middle East that didn't entail invasion? The targets you mention would certainly be on any target list, but none of them assure the first two goals are met. I mean this is a serious question. The oil refining facilities of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are simply impossible to defend against a wave of ballistic missiles. Like all such refineries, they do not respond well to even the smallest explosions, much less several thousand pound warheads going off inside the wire. Iran would be irrational not to respond to a an air campaign in just that way.

I will again note that no war or undeclared military campaign has been won by air power alone. If you haven't, you should read T.R. Fehrenbach. I wish Donald Rumsfeld had,

You may fly over a land forever; you may bomb it, atomize it, and wipe it clean of life - but if you desire to defend it, protect it, and keep it for civilization, you must do this on the ground, the way the Roman Legions did - by putting your soldiers in the mud.

And you are correct, a nuclear weapon into the Jafurah Gas Plant would indeed be far more destructive than a couple of 1K warheads. But the effect on world markets would be very similar and very nearly equally economically destructive. A real conundrum isn't it.

One other thing about nuclear weapons. Iran would quickly realize if nuclear armed is that any attempted first use would free the United States to retaliate in kind. It is one reason we actually do not pay much attention to North Korean nuclear saber rattling.

So, striking Iranian proxies does seem to me to be the most logical course of action. What frustrates me is the administration's dilatant approach to that decision. The first strikes should have been as decisive as possible with no warning. The intent should have been to kill as many of the RGC advisors as possible. For reasons I find unfathomable, we decided to telegraph this operation for days. I am sure Iranian losses were minimal. That to me was a lost opportunity to deliver a far more destructive message.

Finally, perhaps it is because I have spent much of my professional life around Arabs and Islam, but Muslims are not my enemy, and the vast majority of Muslims do not see me as theirs. More importantly, except for a proportionately few Shia fanatics, the Arab world does not see Iran as a religious confrontation. As I noted above, Iran is a non Semitic regional power that threatens Arab goals and objectives.

One other point. The one real catalyst, beyond Iranian strategic goals, to the current situation is Israel and the lack of any sort of Palestinian solution. It is a festering sore that Tehran and every religious radical in the region exploits every single day.

 

[Red Leg]

The GB24 is a capable penetrator that has been around since the 80's. It and some custom penetrators were used extensively against Iraqi command and control bunkers. I will simply say that Iran was fully aware of its capabilities as it designed and built its nuclear development sites.

 

[CoElkHunter]

I respect all your posts Zambezi, but this is military idealism. It sounds exactly like the "shock and awe" crowd under Rumsfeld who were convinced Iraq would collapse under precision strikes and any US ground force involvement would be purely as a mop up effort lasting a few weeks.

I didn't leap from drones to nuclear weapons ignoring everything in between. However, I did leap to the first weapon that I would be certain could actually take out such buried facilities. The only other military option, in my professional opinion, that I could offer that same certainty would be an infantryman. There is whole is a whole lot of Iran between any entry point and those facilities.

Second, what strategic goals do you believe a military could accomplish that would assure destruction of Iranian nuclear development and inability to retaliate destructively across the Middle East that didn't entail invasion? The targets you mention would certainly be on any target list, but none of them assure the first two goals are met. I mean this is a serious question. The oil refining facilities of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are simply impossible to defend against a wave of ballistic missiles. Like all such refineries, they do not respond well to even the smallest explosions, much less several thousand pound warheads going off inside the wire. Iran would be irrational not to respond to a an air campaign in just that way.

I will again note that no war or undeclared military campaign has been won by air power alone. If you haven't, you should read T.R. Fehrenbach. I wish Donald Rumsfeld had,

You may fly over a land forever; you may bomb it, atomize it, and wipe it clean of life - but if you desire to defend it, protect it, and keep it for civilization, you must do this on the ground, the way the Roman Legions did - by putting your soldiers in the mud.

And you are correct, a nuclear weapon into the Jafurah Gas Plant would indeed be far more destructive than a couple of 1K warheads. But the effect on world markets would be very similar and very nearly equally economically destructive. A real conundrum isn't it.

One other thing about nuclear weapons. Iran would quickly realize if nuclear armed is that any attempted first use would free the United States to retaliate in kind. It is one reason we actually do not pay much attention to North Korean nuclear saber rattling.

So, striking Iranian proxies does seem to me to be the most logical course of action. What frustrates me is the administration's dilatant approach to that decision. The first strikes should have been as decisive as possible with no warning. The intent should have been to kill as many of the RGC advisors as possible. For reasons I find unfathomable, we decided to telegraph this operation for days. I am sure Iranian losses were minimal. That to me was a lost opportunity to deliver a far more destructive message.

Finally, perhaps it is because I have spent much of my professional life around Arabs and Islam, but Muslims are not my enemy, and the vast majority of Muslims do not see me as theirs. More importantly, except for a proportionately few Shia fanatics, the Arab world does not see Iran as a religious confrontation. As I noted above, Iran is a non Semitic regional power that threatens Arab goals and objectives.

One other point. The one real catalyst, beyond Iranian strategic goals, to the current situation is Israel and the lack of any sort of Palestinian solution. It is a festering sore that Tehran and every religious radical in the region exploits every single day.

I haven't heard anything about hydrogen bombs forever. Do they still exist? NOT that I'm suggesting their usage anywhere, but aren't they non nuclear with the absence of radiation? I would think they would be effective in destroying an enemies nuclear mountain facility without spreading radiation everywhere?

 

[Red Leg]

I haven't heard anything about hydrogen bombs forever. Do they still exist? NOT that I'm suggesting their usage anywhere, but aren't they non nuclear with the absence of radiation? I would think they would be effective in destroying an enemies nuclear mountain facility without spreading radiation everywhere?

The first nuclear weapon designs employed fission and used enriched uranium or plutonium as the fissile material. These were simpler to build and employ, but were not particular efficient.

A "Hydrogen bomb" or warhead is the common name given to nuclear weapons that employ fusion to achieve critical mass. They are more commonly referred to in layman terms as thermonuclear weapons. They use hydrogen isotopes like tritium and deuterium. They can be built in a smaller form factor than fission weapons while providing far greater yields. Essentially all modern nuclear weapons are thermonuclear or hydrogen bombs. They produce radiation, and depending on the altitude of burst, they are capable of producing vast quantities of it.

You may be thinking of neutron warheads which irradiate a burst area with neutron radiation. They are also thermonuclear, but use a smaller yield and neutron generators to primarily produce neutron radiation rather than blast. It kills people effectively in buildings and most armored vehicles, but the radiation is absorbed by sufficient overhead cover such as an underground facility.

 

[Pheroze]

An interesting analysis of Canada. I have often thought that the only politician that had an idea for state structure in Canada was Trudeau Sr. All the rest, whether conservative or liberal, have played within the parameters he created. Yes, even Harper who squandered any real opportunity to change how the federal and provincial governments interact. Only Quebec has maintained its control over its constitutional jurisidcition. All the rest have bargained off their legislative control to a strong central government. This all has been a terrible experiment that emphasizes all of Canada's weaknesses and does nothing for its strengths.

Eric Lombardi: The death of merit, the birth of aristocracy, and Canada’s quiet descent into neofeudalism

thehub.ca

 

[rookhawk]

As @Red Leg alludes, virtually all nukes today are indeed, Hydrogen Bombs. Using a “nuke” is the third rail of world geopolitics and nobody wants to use one. That said, a Hydrogen bomb detonated above ground is just a very efficient bomb, and the radiation is minimal.

Nothing about nuclear war actually resembles the post-apocalyptic movies we all have seen, nor does it involve radioactive wastelands with bunkered people eating iodine pills for months or years. The gamma radiation given off is gone in a nanosecond and you either got a lethal dose (doubtful) or you didn’t. The bomb’s goal is to lay waste to huge swaths of land efficiently, while making it habitable for an occupying force.

 

[Brent in Az]

I haven't heard anything about hydrogen bombs forever. Do they still exist? NOT that I'm suggesting their usage anywhere, but aren't they non nuclear with the absence of radiation? I would think they would be effective in destroying an enemies nuclear mountain facility without spreading radiation everywhere?

The "Tsar Bomba" was built by Russia as a 3 stage Hydrogen bomb. Yield was estimated at approx 55 Megatons. The most powerful thermonuclear detonation in history. That was 1961.
Not sure if there are any true Hydrogen bombs in service today vs. Plutonium/Uranium fusion.

A hydrogen bomb is a fision / fusion process

 

[CoElkHunter]

As @Red Leg alludes, virtually all nukes today are indeed, Hydrogen Bombs. Using a “nuke” is the third rail of world geopolitics and nobody wants to use one. That said, a Hydrogen bomb detonated above ground is just a very efficient bomb, and the radiation is minimal.

Nothing about nuclear war actually resembles the post-apocalyptic movies we all have seen, nor does it involve radioactive wastelands with bunkered people eating iodine pills for months or years. The gamma radiation given off is gone in a nanosecond and you either got a lethal dose (doubtful) or you didn’t. The bomb’s goal is to lay waste to huge swaths of land efficiently, while making it habitable for an occupying force.

What about the "nuclear winter" we've heard about where the sun is blocked out for several years from the debris from a nuclear blast?

 

[Brent in Az]

What about the "nuclear winter" we've heard about where the sun is blocked out for several years from the debris from a nuclear blast?

This is a pretty good documentary of a nuclear war scenario, with an explanation of nuclear winter.
It's worth watching

 

[sestoppelman]

Well it looks like the much vaunted Senate bill has been released for consumption for those that want to wade thru it. The news folks on FOX were talking about it and it sounds like it was just as bad as we have been hearing, no surprise there of course.
Hopefully Johnson in the House keeps his word and makes this POS DOA.

 

[rookhawk]

What about the "nuclear winter" we've heard about where the sun is blocked out for several years from the debris from a nuclear blast?

I’m not a nuclear physicist or nuclear engineer, but my understanding is that nuclear winters and post-apocalyptic devastation is not a feature of hydrogen bombs. They are fairly clean, detonated in air so the concussive shockwave levels a city, and the radioactive materials created during the explosion have very, very brief half lives.

Put simply, an H-bomb is not anything similar to the Chernobyl disaster or Hiroshima/Nagasaki when it comes to contamination.

 

[Corey0372]

I'm writing Bukele in for 2024

https://twitter.com/x/status/1754307883586494722

 

[Red Leg]

The issue, as @rookhawk suggests, is how a thermonuclear weapon is employed. To cause long term meaningful fallout, the actual fireball must reach the surface and directly irradiate the dust created by the blast. The Western way of war puts emphasis on immediate destruction and not the creation of long term radiation. However, there is no reason for a potential opponent to agree to the Western way of war.

For instance, the Russians have been loudly proclaiming the potential effects of their new nuclear underwater drone. It is a nuclear tipped "torpedo" with a nuclear powerplant. It essentially has unlimited range and is difficult to intercept due to its high speed, maneuverability, and capability to travel at significant depth. The concept is to detonate it in a harbor creating a highly radioactive tsunami that would sweep inland and leave the affected area contaminated for a very long time.

 

[Brent in Az]

A ground burst creates significant radioactive fallout in the detonation area, as well as the ability of the radioactive dust particles to reach up into the atmosphere and Jetstream and be carried afar.

Airbursts create a much smaller local fallout, but the radioactivity can reach the stratosphere and can be spread globally