BF2S Forums How Worried Would You Be?

JahManRed wrote:

They assaulted us with with big words like Precision, tactical, etc on the run up, then they hit a hospital or maybe an Airliner when they actually get the go ahead. Its not about the Nukes. If it was why didn't they bomb India or Pakistan(the real loose cannon of the middle east) or perhaps Israeli. Its about regime change and getting a western friendly government in Terran and the only way to do that is boots on ground.

And who are you to encourage the destruction of a countries nuclear programme? The reality is, that we are all going to have to rely on nuclear power in the not too distant future. Who are you to advocate holding a country back from progression and the safeguarding of millions of peoples right to switch on a light bulb in 60 years time?

Eh...what?

ATG wrote:

Braddock wrote:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c … n_iran.jpg
The Azadi Stadium in Tehran (90'000 capacity)
A pretty insulting and seemingly ill-informed judgement on your behalf. The Iranians aren't a bunch of simpletons rolling around in the sand throwing rocks at each other you know.

That where the morality pilice hold public executions?

I don't know about executions but it is supposedly a 'men-only' stadium! Although Irish women were able to get in during our world cup qualifier there a few years back. The level of Iran's censorship and oppression seems to me to be frequently exaggerated, if the State were so oppressive on issues like this I don't think a film about the issue would ever be allowed to be released...but it was: Offside.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Stop threatening them with annihilation and you won't make a problem for yourself.

so, what?
are they the only ones that can make that threat?
are they special or something?

FEOS wrote:

And neither I nor anyone else has "threatened them with annihilation". The only one who has threatened anyone with annihilation is Iran.

Actually the Whatshisnameijad's comments were completely mis-translated and were in no way a threat to anhialate Israel. The supreme leader of Iran, who's decisions actually matter offered normalisation of relations with the US, full recognition of Israel and talks over their nuclear program. It was the US that rejected the offer.

The stated position of the supreme leader of Iran, Khamenei, is compliance of the Arab league position, ie. a two state solution.

The notion of Iran threatening to annihilate anyone if pure western propoganda.

It's not just the US.

Braddock wrote:

How would the US feel if Mexico and Canada were both invaded and by occupied Iranian troops?

Amused.

nukchebi0 wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Braddock wrote:

How would the US feel if Mexico and Canada were both invaded and by occupied Iranian troops?

Amused.

Happy, for the Mexican invasion.

A better question, I suppose, would be "how would Iranians feel if Mexico and Canada were both invaded and occupied by Iranian troops?" I would say there'd be a run on cinder blocks and mortar for bomb shelters.

FEOS wrote:

It's not just the US.

The first link seems to show more fear of a strike against Iranian facilities than of the facilities themselves. That's fear of a US attack. The second one concludes that Iran can't win a conventional war in the area, and obviously couldn't use nukes due to being destroyed if they did. It's also worth noting Iran's lack of history of aggression and conquest. Plus, that as much as the people of the middle east may fear Iran to some extent, they fear the US far more.

Kamiron wrote:

http://www.wbzt.com/cc-common/news/sect … le=3625253
Here we go.

Yeah, threats against other countries are serious violations of the UN charter, so Iran has every right to get stroppy about it. Note the use of the 'wipe Israel off the map' quote that has been time and again shown to be a load of crap. But I guess the truth shouldn't get in the way of a good story should it.

PureFodder wrote:

FEOS wrote:

It's not just the US.

The first link seems to show more fear of a strike against Iranian facilities than of the facilities themselves. That's fear of a US attack. The second one concludes that Iran can't win a conventional war in the area, and obviously couldn't use nukes due to being destroyed if they did. It's also worth noting Iran's lack of history of aggression and conquest. Plus, that as much as the people of the middle east may fear Iran to some extent, they fear the US far more.

That's certainly one way to spin it. Another way would be that the GCC (all Arab states in the ME) are worried about Iran...particularly their nuclear aspirations. There have been multiple stories referencing that both the GCC and the EU feel the US is being too diplomatic with Iran over their nuclear program.

But it's just the US...

Dilbert_X wrote:

As do most governments of the world, but their GOVERNMENT facilities are still lawful targets. They are not "assumed to be civilian" except by those unversed in LOAC.

I see, so any nuclear reactor in America is a legitimate target for anyone who decides they want to take it out?

If it provides power to a military facility (or supports weapons development) and the only way to disrupt that is to take out the plant...and the collateral effects of striking that plant are worth the military advantage gained...then yes. BUT...since our plants aren't run by the government and aren't R&D facilities for developing nukes...the analogy falls short.

Even your beloved "Beeb" lays out the issue:

BBC wrote:

What precisely does the Security Council and the IAEA want Iran to do?

It wants Iran to stop all enrichment activities, including the preparation of uranium ore, the installation of the centrifuges in which a gas from the ore is spun to separate the richer parts and the insertion of the gas into the centrifuges. It also has to suspend its work on heavy water projects, notably the construction of a heavy water reactor. Such a reactor could produce plutonium, an alternative to uranium for a nuclear device.

The IAEA reported in August 2007 that Iran had not suspended enrichment and was continuing to construct the heavy water plant.

What if Iran does stop?

Iran is being offered help to develop a civilian nuclear power programme including light-water reactors. Crucially, Iran would not be allowed to make the fuel itself. This would be done in Russia in a partnership with Iran. However, as a condition for any substantive talks, Iran has to suspend enrichment. It does not accept such a pre-condition.

There are other parts to the offer, including help for Iran to join the World Trade Organisation and the possible lifting of some US sanctions in the aircraft, telecommunications and agricultural machinery sectors.

So...Iran has been offered help from the international community to develop purely peaceful nuclear power. And they refused. And they don't cooperate with the UNSC or IAEA on their nuclear program.

Dilbert_X wrote:

I looked up your LOAC

Military Necessity.
Military necessity requires combat forces to engage in only those acts necessary to accomplish a legitimate military objective. Attacks shall be limited strictly to military objectives. In applying military necessity to targeting, the rule generally means the United States Military may target those facilities, equipment, and forces which, if destroyed, would lead as quickly as possible to the enemy’s partial or complete submission.

Military Targets

The LOAC governs the conduct of aerial warfare. The principle of military necessity limits aerial attacks to lawful military targets. Military targets are those that by their own nature, location, purpose, or use make an effective contribution to an enemy’s military capability and whose total or partial destruction, capture, or neutralization in the circumstances existing at the time of an attack enhance legitimate military objectives.

I'm not sure how attacking a reactor or enrichment plant, which has an operating cycle of years - much longer for weapons grade material - would meet the requirements.

If the objective is to prevent them from developing nuclear weapons...and the facility's primary purpose is nuclear enrichment to produce weapons-grade fissile material...wouldn't destroying that facility prevent the production of weapons-grade fissile material, thereby preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons?

See what I did there?

Do I need to type slower?

Dilbert_X wrote:

Unless and until Iran declares war on the US any attack would be a war crime anyway.
But no matter, with a bit of luck the US will manage to provoke something.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/ma … eignpolicy
'"Cheney believes this administration has to take military action against Iran before it leaves office. Gates echoes the rhetoric publicly but he doesn't support Cheney's position," '

So now you're relying on CIA analysts to support your position? Quite a change for you, Dilbert. And relying single-source human reporting...another thing you've decried in the past as folly.

The number of CSGs in the PG has nothing to do with anything other than force rotations. Hell, there were three there in 2007. How did that war go? Oh, that's right...there wasn't one.

As for your "war crime" remark...what world do you live in? Countries simply don't declare war on each other any more. I guess by your logic, any military action since the end of WW2, by any country, under any conditions, has been a war crime. Go chase all those down.

Dilbert_X wrote:

BUT...since our plants aren't run by the government and aren't R&D facilities for developing nukes...the analogy falls short.

We don't have proof Iran is developing nukes, and if they privatise their uranium enrichment operation - as the US has - does that make it OK?

First, our enrichment isn't privatized. It is the nature of the activity, not the "ownership" of it, that determines necessity under LOAC, which is based on international law and treaty. Enrichment activities for the purpose of weapons development makes it a legitimate target.

Dilbert_X wrote:

If the objective is to prevent them from developing nuclear weapons...and the facility's primary purpose is nuclear enrichment to produce weapons-grade fissile material

We have no proof of this, Iran has offered to cooperate fully with the IAEA and only develop fuel grade material, so your argument falls.

Did you bother to read the BBC article I provided for you? Iran has clearly not been meeting IAEA requirements. There's enough evidence to concern not just the US, but the EU, the GCC, and the IAEA.

And I was addressing the hypothetical of whether the facilities would be a legitimate target, not saying they needed to be struck today.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Many installations are dual use, this is how aspirin and anti-malarial drug factories get bombed.

Yeah, countries that try to keep their weapons production secret do tend to hide them in normally off-limits areas. They can be real assholes to their own people in that regard.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Preventing someone obtaining nuclear weapons is not justification for a military attack either so the argument falls too.

Says you.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Pakistan is the home of the Taleban, but they are a good customer for US weapons so no worries about them having nukes?
The genie is out of the bottle and its not going to be stuffed back in.

Weren't you the one decrying the US getting involved with Pakistan, trying to firm up their nuke C2, a while back? No worries? Hardly. With regard to Pakistan, it's true, the genie can't be stuffed back in the bottle...same with North Korea. With Iran, THE WORLD is trying to keep the genie from getting out of the bottle.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Do I need to type slower?

Yes, you need to let your brain catch up.

Clearly, it was too fast for you to bother reading the BBC article.

Dilbert_X wrote:

So now you're relying on CIA analysts to support your position? Quite a change for you, Dilbert. And relying single-source human reporting...another thing you've decried in the past as folly.

I'm going to stick my neck out here and guess CBS didn't waterboard the guy.
Maybe you need to actually read it.

How do you think I knew it was a former CIA analyst? Or that it was a single guy making the claim? Was it fucking osmosis?

I DID read it. And I addressed the carrier thing.

Dilbert_X wrote:

I guess by your logic, any military action since the end of WW2, by any country, under any conditions, has been a war crime. Go chase all those down.

Unless it were in self-defence it would be.
It seems you've been stuck in the miltary-industrial machine which is America too long and its clouded your judgement.
Have you noticed how it now seems necessary to have a major military engagement every ten years just to keep the economy going.

Because there was a major military engagement between 1975 and 1991?

I think you've been on the "hate America and Bush" bandwagon too long and your judgment is clouded when it comes to looking at matters objectively.

Dilbert_X wrote:

First, our enrichment isn't privatized.

Yes it is.
http://www.usec.com/quickfacts.htm

Sorry, thought we were talking about weapons grade enrichment.

USEC wrote:

USEC Inc. (NYSE:USU), a global energy company, is a leading supplier of enriched uranium fuel for commercial nuclear power plants

Through its subsidiary, the United States Enrichment Corporation, USEC operates the only uranium enrichment facility in the United States: a gaseous diffusion plant in Paducah, Kentucky.

Production of enriched uranium is a key step in producing nuclear fuel used by nuclear power plants worldwide to generate electricity.

Strange...it doesn't say anything about weapons-grade enrichment.

Dilbert_X wrote:

It is the nature of the activity, not the "ownership" of it, that determines necessity under LOAC, which is based on international law and treaty.

But you said any government facility was a legitimate target.

No I didn't.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Because there was a major military engagement between 1975 and 1991?

Wow, a whole 16 year gap, most countries can manage about 50 years between wars, some don't even seem to need o have them at all. BTW operation Desert Shield was in 1990.
Anyway, no need, the Taleban and Al Qaeda were doing your work in Afghanistan during that period

You're right Desert Shield started in 1990. Desert Storm (that would be the "engagement" part) started in 1991.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Strange...it doesn't say anything about weapons-grade enrichment.

The Iranians haven't said anything about weapons grade enrichment either.

They also haven't said anything about supplying arms and training to Hezbollah or JAM, but they do.