Korean Job Discussion Forums

[spliff]

[chris_J2]

bassexpander beat me to it. Another source:

http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2007/09/C45C14E3-5084-4C1F-A07B-FB02CDD19589.html

[mack4289]

I've posted these before, in a similar thread.

Why it's dumb to make a lot of noise about invading:

1. What do you think is the most effective way to make the Iranians unite around Ahmadinejad, who's even unpopular with the religious authorities in Iran (http://www.worldpress.org/Mideast/2776.cfm#down)? Probably making a lot of noise about invading, even if you have to change the words to an old Beach Boys song to do it. This gives Ahmadinejad the chance to continue blaming Iran's problems on America and the West and distract them from how incompetent he is and what a disaster his policies have been. He's been such a failure that they have to ration gas in Iran, for Christ's sake (http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/07/02/opinion/ediran.php). Thank God America isn't dumb enough to make it easier on him by making a lot of empty threats that our overextended military could never actually make good on. That would be really stupid.


Why any sort of military action, from targeted bombing to a full scale invasion would be a disaster

What do we mean by take out Iran? Our military is already heavily engaged in two wars, one which it's losing dramatically and one that we're letting slip through our fingers. On top of this, we're going to invade/bomb a country that's almost 4 times the size of Iraq, with triple the population, not to mention 900,000 trained troops (if Wikipedia is correct)?


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,149657,00.html

"Ali Akbar Salehi, a nuclear affairs adviser to the foreign minister, said U.S. and Israeli threats forced Iran to take precautions to protect its technology, including the string of centrifuges used to enrich uranium � a process that can produce fuel for nuclear reactors that generate electricity but also make material suitable for atomic warheads.

"To protect the safety of equipment against possible danger of aerial attack, a major part of the plant has been constructed underground, especially where thousands of centrifuges need to be located," Salehi told The Associated Press."

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iran-strikes-doubt.htm

"One major uncertainty concerning the probability of disarming preventive strike against Iran's nuclear infrastructure is the question of American and Israeli assessments of their confidence in their assessments of the completeness of their understanding of Iran's nuclear infrastructure. It will be recalled that when the US contemplated striking China's nuclear infrastructure in mid-1964, prior to China's first nuclear test, their were doubts about the completeness of US intelligence. In fact, the US was surprised when China detonated a uranium bomb, since the US had overestimated the progress of China's plutonium program, and seriously underestimated the progress of China's uranium enrichment program.

.... Elements of these facilities have been hardened against attack, notably the uranium enrichment facility at Natanz, which has been buried under a thick layer of earth. All of these facilities are heavily defended by anti-aircraft missiles and guns.

One cannot exclude the possibility, however, that some or all of the visible nuclear weapons complex is simply a decoy, designed to draw attention. It is possible that Iran, like North Korea and unlike Pakistan, has buried nuclear weapons production capabilities that have escaped detection, and would continue in operation even if the visible facilities were destroyed. There are persistent rumors of such hidden facilities, but little in the way of circumstantial evidence to give credence to these rumors.

... Iran may have understood very clearly from the outset that its above ground facilities would be detected not too long after construction began. Indeed, the uranium conversion facility at Esfahan is at a site that was selected for such a capacity at the outset of the Shah's nuclear program in the 1970s, a fact that must have rendered this piece of real estate a suspect site long before actual construction began. The construction activity at Natanz and Arak would be visible even in 10-meter resolution wide-area imagery, so there could have been no realistic hope that these facilities would escape notice by the obscurity of their location. Although it is possible that the Iranians completely miscalculated the detective powers of the US and Israel, this does not seem plausible. Thus one must assume that Iran foresaw the crisis that would arise when their plans became clear, and planned accordingly.

..... A September 2004 analysis by the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center concluded that, "As for eliminating Iran's nuclear capabilities militarily, the U.S. and Israel lack sufficient targeting intelligence to do this. In fact, Iran has long had considerable success in concealing its nuclear activities from U.S. intelligence analysts and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors (the latter recently warned against assuming the agency could find all of Iran's illicit uranium enrichment activities). As it is, Iran could have already hidden all it needs to reconstitute a bomb program assuming its known declared nuclear plants are hit."

But the preponderance of evidence and reasoning leads to the assumption that there is no underground nuclear infrastructure, and that the above ground infrastructure constitutes Iran's nuclear weapons program."

"Regarding the "hit Iranian nuclear facilities with a bunker buster" argument: which site do you want to hit? According to this article, there are 4 major sites, spread over a large area http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4617398.stm.

[NAVFC]

Oh please.. this is not a "Neo con" game etc.. This situation is far diffrent then Iraq.. you have the Germans and French both now saying military action may be necessary. I predict if air raids are launched it will be more united then the iraq invasion, probabaly involving multiple nations.
Iran can not be allowed to go nuclear, nd it seems this time the world agrees with the US and is open to the possibility of force.

[igotthisguitar]

Abizaid: World Could Abide Nuclear Iran
By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer

WASHINGTON - Every effort should be made to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, but failing that, the world could live with a nuclear-armed regime in Tehran, a recently retired commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East said Monday.



John Abizaid, the retired Army general who headed Central Command for nearly four years, said he was confident that if Iran gained nuclear arms, the United States could deter it from using them.

"Iran is not a suicide nation," he said. "I mean, they may have some people in charge that don't appear to be rational, but I doubt that the Iranians intend to attack us with a nuclear weapon."

The Iranians are aware, he said, that the United States has a far superior military capability.

CONT'D ...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070917/ap_on_go_ot/abizaid_iran

[mack4289]

Why couldn't the world live with a nuclear Iran? We already live with a nuclear Pakistan and North Korea. It's not something I want to see, but I can't imagine Iran using the bomb. They want it for the same reason everyone else does: leverage. They know a nuclear attack is regimental suicide.

[jinju]

Theres a choice:

1. Allow Iran have the bomb.
2. Not allow Iran have a bomb.

Consider what kind of a state Iran is: a terrorist sponsor and a terrorism exporter with a clearly stated wish for the destruction of Israel, the only democratic, pro-Western state in that region.

To me the choice is clear. Iran must be stopped and stopped at any cost. if its done by talking, thats better. if its done through massive strikes on Iranian military and nuclear targets, thats good too. I would not shed a tear for Iran as there really isnt a more dangerous and evil state in the world today.

Bush isnt the one who is forcing a war here, if there is a war. It is Iran thumbing its nose at Washington and the EU who have been more than willing to talk Iran out of this. Iran knows full well what is going to happen of they do go after the bomb.

[jinju]

[mack4289]

But it's not a simple matter of eliminating the nuclear sites. We're not even sure where they are. The ones we do know are protected by anti-aircraft missiles and guns. We might wipe out every site we know of but still not wipe out the nuclear program.

The only way to verify that we did wipe it out would be an extensive ground campaign in Iran. If Wikipedia correct, Iran is 4x the size of Iraq, has triple the population and 900,000 trained troops. How would we manage this, considering the American military is already tied up in two wars?

I know some European leaders have asserted their willingness to go after Iran, but the people of Europe would not support a pre-emptive war. Military support from those countries would be minimal and would run at the first sign of serious trouble.

The only way military action against Iran becomes possible is if Iran comes after us first. Otherwise, our only feasible choice is talking them out of the bomb. If we do anything pre-emptive, support for it will be shallow and, when it proves to be at least as difficult as Iraq, we'll be left in an impossible situation.

[igotthisguitar]

For what it's worth, it is generally understood that Israel has between 2-300 warheads

[Pligganease]

[Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee]

Project Thor will make it much easier to live with a nuclear Iran.

PROJECT THOR

If Iran behaves themself they won't have a problem.

[NAVFC]

iran cant be allowed to have a nuke. The Norks just got caught tying to sell nuclear know-how to the Syrians, what makes you think trhe Iranians wont sell their nuclear know how to terrorists under their cotnrol such as hezbollah, or to their "fellow brothers in arms"



and even the French and the Germans are coming onboad with military action. Thats got to say something even to the most hardened libbies.
This is no joke. This isnt Iraq.

[thepeel]

[The_Conservative]