Will the US use Nukes against Iran?

[alexandra]

vanesch, I wish *you* were ruling the world - I'd feel a lot safer, and I'd be able to get some sleep too!

 

[vanesch]

vanesch, I wish *you* were ruling the world

I'm working on it

 

[alexandra]

I'm working on it

I think we should all help you become Grand Ruler of the World! A worthy PF community project - just say what needs doing

 

[vanesch]

I think we should all help you become Grand Ruler of the World! A worthy PF community project - just say what needs doing

Ok, let's start by nuking out all those that do not agree with me

 

[alexandra]

Ok, let's start by nuking out all those that do not agree with me

 

[jhe1984]

Not to give into your nuclear blackmail, but I think you're essentially right. I too doubt any sort of large scale invasion: I simply don't think we've got the troop capacity, equipment readiness, etc to do it - unless it became absolutely urgent. We might differ on the likelihood of a major strategic air campaign (I think it is almost guaranteed if the Moscow deal doesn't work), but yeah for the most part any sort of grand coalition isn't likely.

PS - I'm coming to your country in July, so save some bird flu for me!

 

[vanesch]

We might differ on the likelihood of a major strategic air campaign (I think it is almost guaranteed if the Moscow deal doesn't work), but yeah for the most part any sort of grand coalition isn't likely.

A *major* air campaign, I don't see where that can lead the US. It is in any case an act of war, with lots of civil casualties. It would even be considered as an act of state terrorism: bombing the s**t out of a population in order to obtain political change induced by terrorising a population. And it won't work: the Iranian population supports their regime, and any aggression will only reinforce the support for the regime. So the net result would simply be some more hatred towards the West and a stronger regime in Teheran. And it is not even said that all facilities are taken out.
However, tactically taking out some facilities, that's something else. The number of casualties would be low, and it would slow down the technical advancement of the programme (although it would probably re-inforce the political will to do so). For instance, I'm pretty sure some cruise missiles will hit that enrichment factory, if nothing else. But then, the Iranians are not stupid, and have probably other such facilities elsewhere, so the hit would be largely symbolic. It could then go both ways: the Iranian leadership might harden its position (probably), or it might realize that they are not so invulnerable as they thought, and back off a bit.

However, given their current attitude, I think they have been "war gaming" a lot in Teheran, and they came to the conclusion that nothing really bad is going to happen to them, because the other side worked itself each time into more troubles. And I think they are right. I also think that their negotiation with Moscou is seen in a wrong light. The US seems to think that the Iranians got a bit scared and might be, finally, backing off. However, I think the Iranians and the Russians are simply trying to find out how they can get most out of a common deal. The Russians couldn't care less about a nuclear Iran (they probably even like it that it pisses off the west). But they might like to play a more important role as "buddy" of the Iranians, and hence get a major partner in the ME back. And the Iranians might like the fact that they have the opportunity to improve their relationships with the Russians - always good to have. So as long as it doesn't stop them from achieving their goals (which is, I think, to become nuclear, so that they do not have to be affraid for a US invasion anymore, or any other invasion, and have regional power status), they might adapt their plans to be buddy-buddy with the Russians. And if they both could laugh in the face of the West, that's always some fun to take.
Also, a nuclear agreement with the russians, with russian experts coming and so on, do you really think that that will *slow down* their weapon development ? No matter what is stated officially... who knows, the deal could even include some exchange of a few nukes of russian fabric.

 

[jhe1984]

I meant major in the sense of a lot of ordnance dropped on the nuclear facilities (and perhaps relevant air defense systems). I do not believe at all that the US'd bomb Tehran (even gov't buildings) or any major metropolitian area - they'd lose what little support they had, even in the USG.

"Major" in the sense that it's B-2s and not just cruise missiles.

 

[vanesch]

I meant major in the sense of a lot of ordnance dropped on the nuclear facilities (and perhaps relevant air defense systems). I do not believe at all that the US'd bomb Tehran (even gov't buildings) or any major metropolitian area - they'd lose what little support they had, even in the USG.

"Major" in the sense that it's B-2s and not just cruise missiles.

Yes, that's a possibility. I haven't gotten any idea what material the US would use, but I meant, just tactical take-outs of facilities.
Nevertheless, I doubt about their "productivity". It would probably NOT harm seriously the capacity of the Iranians to proceed, it would increase their determination, and it would tarnish even more the US image in the ME (and elsewhere). In other words, it wouldn't achieve much except making people nervous, and probably introduce an ecological disaster locally. It would just satisfy those who think that "something" ought to be done - which might be a sufficient reason.

 

[Art]

Yes, that's a possibility. I haven't gotten any idea what material the US would use, but I meant, just tactical take-outs of facilities.
Nevertheless, I doubt about their "productivity". It would probably NOT harm seriously the capacity of the Iranians to proceed, it would increase their determination, and it would tarnish even more the US image in the ME (and elsewhere). In other words, it wouldn't achieve much except making people nervous, and probably introduce an ecological disaster locally. It would just satisfy those who think that "something" ought to be done - which might be a sufficient reason.

If the US were to bomb strategic sites in Iran it is very likely the Iranians will retaliate with missile strikes against US forces in Iraq and possibly against Israel too. If America hits back then in no time you have a fully fledged war if they don't they look weak. So although the US may want a short sharp air campaign the Iranians may not be accommodating especially as they would probably have the support of the shi'ites in Iraq which would mean the insurgency there would treble.

The problem with taking aggressive action is unfortunately you can't rely on the other side to behave as you would wish.

 

[crazycalhoun]

"Major" in the sense that it's B-2s and not just cruise missiles.

Since we employ both as a package, what's minor? In fact, if we break that package apart, we'd still have to deploy a surface action group to the Gulf of Oman at least to get within extreme range of Iran's northeastern interior.

 

[crazycalhoun]

If the US were to bomb strategic sites in Iran it is very likely the Iranians will retaliate with missile strikes against US forces in Iraq and possibly against Israel too. If America hits back then in no time you have a fully fledged war if they don't they look weak.

The target list would presumably include Iran's missile cache, if only to keep the Gulf open.

So although the US may want a short sharp air campaign the Iranians may not be accommodating especially as they would probably have the support of the shi'ites in Iraq which would mean the insurgency there would treble.

I've seen no evidence that SCIRI, Da'wa or even the Sadrists have any intentions of fighting a war on the Persians behalf. What've you seen?

The problem with taking aggressive action is unfortunately you can't rely on the other side to behave as you would wish.

Which is why you hit them hard enough so that they do behave as you wish.

 

[Art]

The target list would presumably include Iran's missile cache, if only to keep the Gulf open.

Assuming they know where they all are and that Iran are stupid enough not to conceal them.

I've seen no evidence that SCIRI, Da'wa or even the Sadrists have any intentions of fighting a war on the Persians behalf. What've you seen?

BAGHDAD, Jan. 23 -- An Iraqi Muslim cleric who leads a major Shiite militia pledged to come to the defense of neighboring Iran if it were attacked, aides to the cleric, Moqtada Sadr, said Monday.

The commitment, made Sunday in Tehran during a visit by Sadr, came in response to a senior Iranian official's query about what the cleric would do in the event of an attack on Iran. It marked the first open indication that Iraq's Shiite neighbor is preparing for a military response if attacked in a showdown with the West over its nuclear program.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/23/AR2006012301701.html

Which is why you hit them hard enough so that they do behave as you wish.

It hasn't worked too well in Iraq.

 

[crazycalhoun]

Assuming they know where they all are and that Iran are stupid enough not to conceal them.

Which is why you reconnoiter. Worked well enough in Iraq.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/23/AR2006012301701.html

I didn't say Sadr. I said Sadrists.

It hasn't worked too well in Iraq.

Sure it did. That's why we were in the capital within three weeks.

 

[vanesch]

If the US were to bomb strategic sites in Iran it is very likely the Iranians will retaliate with missile strikes against US forces in Iraq and possibly against Israel too.

That's why I said that even that is a dangerous game, and that I think that the Iranians have been wargaming enough over the issue to be rather confident that nothing much beyond rethoric is going to happen. A full scale war with Iran is the last thing the US needs (even if it is only not to get Muscharaf in too deep doodoo).

That said, it is not sure that the Iranians are going to retalliate openly after a minor strike, but they might become a bit more subversive in Iraq, something the US could not really afford. Again, if the US government has an ounce of reason left, they are going to stick with rethoric, and maybe a few sanctions (of which the Russians will make some good use to get more influence in the region).

 

[crazycalhoun]

That's why I said that even that is a dangerous game, and that I think that the Iranians have been wargaming enough over the issue to be rather confident that nothing much beyond rethoric is going to happen.

By that reasoning, Hussein should've been scared witless by his wargames.

A full scale war with Iran is the last thing the US needs (even if it is only not to get Muscharaf in too deep doodoo).

Why not? You've got four divisions of battle hardened force sitting in Iraq, and another division in Afghanistan.

 

[vanesch]

Sure it did. That's why we were in the capital within three weeks.

The situation was totally different. Iraq was weakened and surveyed for about 10 years. You were in the capital in 3 weeks (heh, you're still there :-) mainly because the military on the other side QUIT. You were in the country of a secular dictator which wasn't liked much by its population.

This time you face an *elected* government, with religious leaders which have popular support. They are not going to quit so easily. You'd need a massive occupation force to work against the web of resistance made up by religious leaders, mosquees, and just the people there. It's not "taking out a few bad guys". It's overthrowing a popular political system... to put what in place ? Elections ? What are you going to do, once you're in, with your 500000 soldiers ?

 

[vanesch]

Why not? You've got four divisions of battle hardened force sitting in Iraq, and another division in Afghanistan.

Ok, and while they are fighting in Iran, what's then going to happen in Iraq ?

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Not to give into your nuclear blackmail, but I think you're essentially right. I too doubt any sort of large scale invasion: I simply don't think we've got the troop capacity, equipment readiness, etc to do it - unless it became absolutely urgent. We might differ on the likelihood of a major strategic air campaign (I think it is almost guaranteed if the Moscow deal doesn't work), but yeah for the most part any sort of grand coalition isn't likely.

PS - I'm coming to your country in July, so save some bird flu for me!

Sorry we haven't got any bird flu yet. Just the mundane type.

I think personally America should just invade the whole middle east and be done with it. Seems like that's what they're are going to do sooner or later. Then they can claim that terror has been beaten and have a nice source of oil for the next 50-100 years till it runs out

 

[Art]

Which is why you reconnoiter. Worked well enough in Iraq.

Actually it didn't. Most of Iraq's missile technology was destroyed under the weapons inspection program, not through military attacks.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/23/AR2006012301701.html

I didn't say Sadr. I said Sadrists.

Are you suggesting Sadr doesn't speak for his followers? Or do you just have a problem in acknowledging when you are wrong?

Sure it did. That's why we were in the capital within three weeks.

Dream on...

 

[crazycalhoun]

Actually it didn't. Most of Iraq's missile technology was destroyed under the weapons inspection program, not through military attacks.

I didn't know that most of Iraq's missile technology constituted IRBMs.

Are you suggesting Sadr doesn't speak for his followers?

I'm suggesting I've seen no evidence that the Sadrists will fight a war on the Persians behalf. If you have, feel free to present it.

Dream on...

Just helping you out with the facts, ma'am.

 

[crazycalhoun]

Ok, and while they are fighting in Iran, what's then going to happen in Iraq ?

Not sure what you mean.

 

[crazycalhoun]

The situation was totally different. Iraq was weakened and surveyed for about 10 years.

With all due respect, I think the Gulf War four years before Desert Storm could be viewed as having weakened Iran.

You were in the capital in 3 weeks (heh, you're still there :-) mainly because the military on the other side QUIT.

What can I say? They couldn't fight very well. Why would the Iranians be any different?

You were in the country of a secular dictator which wasn't liked much by its population.

And now the US can go up against a bunch of religious crackpots that aren't held in high esteem either. Either way, the opposition is the same old sad story. Political, unprofessional, poorly trained, and poorly equipped.

This time you face an *elected* government, with religious leaders which have popular support.

I think we'll disagree over whether Qom enjoys popular support, but our target isn't Qom or even their chemical and biological weapons. It's their nuclear weapons program we care about, and presumably the naval, air and land forces they intend to invest in protecting it.

They are not going to quit so easily.

Good. Maybe then they'll stay in tight enough groups to hammer easily.

You'd need a massive occupation force to work against the web of resistance made up by religious leaders, mosquees, and just the people there.

Why occupy? Why even go for regime change in this instance? Our objective is the destruction of Iranian special weapons.

What are you going to do, once you're in, with your 500000 soldiers ?

Try 215 thousand tops, and less than a 100 thousand of those attached to shooting units.

 

[Art]

I didn't know that most of Iraq's missile technology constituted IRBMs.

And like US intelligence at the time you probably didn't (and it seems still don't) know Iraq had the ability to build it's own indigenous SCUD missiles and thought all their stocks had come from the USSR. So much for the effectiveness of reconnoitring.

I'm suggesting I've seen no evidence that the Sadrists will fight a war on the Persians behalf. If you have, feel free to present it.

I did. Now you present something, other than your opinion, to the contrary.

Just helping you out with the facts, ma'am.

As with most of your assumptions you are wrong about the gender. And when you do deign to post a fact it is irrelevant to the discussion.

 

[crazycalhoun]

And like US intelligence at the time you probably didn't (and it seems still don't) know Iraq had the ability to build it's own indigenous SCUD missiles and thought all their stocks had come from the USSR. So much for the effectiveness of reconnoitring.

I'm not quite sure why you're telling me that yes, the Iraqis had al Husayns. My point addressed your contention that the bulk of Iraq's missile program was invested in IRBMs, not whether they had them.

I did. Now you present something, other than your opinion, to the contrary.

And once again, I said Sadrists, not Sadr. If you have any indication of the al Mahdi army preparing to defend Iran, then feel free to share it.

As with most of your assumptions you are wrong about the gender.

I think your gender is immaterial for the quip's purposes. I just liked Dragnet

And when you do deign to post a fact it is irrelevant to the discussion.

Of course, you're free to try and make that case. I don't think you can, though.

 

[Art]

I'm not quite sure why you're telling me that yes, the Iraqis had al Husayns. My point addressed your contention that the bulk of Iraq's missile program was invested in IRBMs, not whether they had them.

I didn't claim the bulk of Iraq's missile program was tied to IRBMs. You did.

Al Husayns were modified imported SCUDs. The SCUDS they built themselves were short range missiles not intermediate range.

So returning to the point; most of Iraqs offensive special weapons capabilty was destroyed under the weapons inspection program not through military action.
Here's a hint - You might have noticed a few press clippings noting that no WMD have been found in Iraq so now think about why.

And once again, I said Sadrists, not Sadr. If you have any indication of the al Mahdi army preparing to defend Iran, then feel free to share it.

Unless you present evidence to the contrary it is reasonable to believe Sadr speaks for his followers.

I think your gender is immaterial for the quip's purposes. I just liked Dragnet

That was a quip?? Your sense of humour is as off the wall as your logic.

 

[crazycalhoun]

I didn't claim the bulk of Iraq's missile program was tied to IRBMs. You did.

Um, no I didn't. You did. When you said that the bulk of Iraq's missile program had been destroyed by the inspectors.

Al Husayns were modified imported SCUDs. The SCUDS they built themselves were short range missiles not intermediate range.

Then we're talking about the al Samuds, which are not covered under 687 prohibitions.

So returning to the point; most of Iraqs offensive special weapons capabilty was destroyed under the weapons inspection program not through military action.

That we can definitely agree on.

Here's a hint - You might have noticed a few press clippings noting that no WMD have been found in Iraq so now think about why.

That, we may not.

Unless you present evidence to the contrary it is reasonable to believe Sadr speaks for his followers.

So if Sadr said the al Mahdi Army would slit their own throats at high noon, it's reasonable to believe he speaks for them in that case? Let's put it this way, the Sadrists have never fought for Iran. They weren't around at the time. And since SCIRI has apparently no intentions of fighting Teheran's battles for them, if you have reason to believe Sadr has that much control over the al Mahdi Army, then share it with us.

That was a quip?? Your sense of humour is as off the wall as your logic.

I'm sure you can resist the personal attacks. We're reportedly all grown ups here.

 

[Art]

Um, no I didn't. You did. When you said that the bulk of Iraq's missile program had been destroyed by the inspectors.

Then we're talking about the al Samuds, which are not covered under 687 prohibitions.

The standard unmodified SCUD had a range of 300 km the 687 prohibitions applied to any missile with a range greater than 150 km. The Al Samoud was claimed to slightly exceed this figure and so the weapons inspectors ordered the destruction of Iraq's inventory of 72 missiles and the destruction of the production equipment which they used to build solid rocket motors.

That, we may not.

Source please?

So if Sadr said the al Mahdi Army would slit their own throats at high noon, it's reasonable to believe he speaks for them in that case? Let's put it this way, the Sadrists have never fought for Iran. They weren't around at the time. And since SCIRI has apparently no intentions of fighting Teheran's battles for them, if you have reason to believe Sadr has that much control over the al Mahdi Army, then share it with us.

For the third and last time I have already shared it with you. Read the link I provided. Now if you have a source or ref to back up your opinion please post it.

I'm sure you can resist the personal attacks. We're reportedly all grown ups here.

Oh, so you don't like my humour either.

 

[crazycalhoun]

The standard unmodified SCUD had a range of 300 km the 687 prohibitions applied to any missile with a range greater than 150 km. The Al Samoud was claimed to slightly exceed this figure and so the weapons inspectors ordered the destruction of Iraq's inventory of 72 missiles and the destruction of the production equipment which they used to build solid rocket motors.

Those would be the al Samud 2 drives. And Iraq's arsenal, even in ISG's best case estimate, did not consisted of 121 such missiles, of which 22 were destroyed or captured during OIF. That still leaves 50 Al Samuds and 30 Al Fatahs.

 

[Art]

Then we're talking about the al Samuds, which are not covered under 687 prohibitions.

I presume you now concede this statement was incorrect?

Those would be the al Samud 2 drives. And Iraq's arsenal, even in ISG's best case estimate, did not consisted of 121 such missiles, of which 22 were destroyed or captured during OIF. That still leaves 50 Al Samuds and 30 Al Fatahs.

I have no idea what your point is here but if you are arguing about the number I quoted here's a reference.

Missile
Iraq purchased considerable numbers of short-range Scud missiles and launchers from the Soviet Union beginning in the early 1970s. Towards the end of the Iran-Iraq War, Baghdad extended the range of the Scud to 650km; many of these modified missiles (known as the al-Husayn) were used during that war and, later, in Desert Storm. With extensive assistance from foreign companies, Iraq pursued a variety of other missile projects; these efforts were largely halted by UN weapon inspections that began in 1991. From 1991 to 1998, working under the proscriptions contained in the UN ceasefire resolution, Iraq developed various types of ballistic missiles with ranges of less than 150km, including the al-Ababil and the al-Samoud. During their time in Iraq, UNMOVIC inspectors destroyed 72 al-Samoud-2 missiles that violated the 150km-range limit, as well as certain equipment for the production of solid rocket motors.

http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/Iraq/

 

[crazycalhoun]

I presume you now concede this statement was incorrect?

Um, no. Why would you thnk that?

I have no idea what your point is here but if you are arguing about the number I quoted here's a reference.

My point is that your statement "Iraq's inventory of 72 missiles" is factually incorrect [1]. That, and you looked up the al Samud 2 drive, not the al Samuds.

 

[Art]

Um, no. Why would you thnk that?

You claimed the Al-Samuds were exempt from 687 prohibitions. They clearly were not.

My point is that your statement "Iraq's inventory of 72 missiles" is factually incorrect [1]. That, and you looked up the al Samud 2 drive, not the al Samuds.

Still trying to wriggle your way out?

Then we're talking about the al Samuds, which are not covered under 687 prohibitions.

There was no Al-Samud 1, the program was canceled in the development stage in the early 90's as they didn't work! When you mentioned the Al-Samuds I presumed you were talking about a missile that actually existed. Then again maybe you weren't.

 

[crazycalhoun]

You claimed the Al-Samuds were exempt from 687 prohibitions. They clearly were not.

Al-Samud 2's aren't.

Still trying to wriggle your way out?

No, I don't think so.

There was no Al-Samud 1, the program was canceled in the development stage in the early 90's as they didn't work!

Um, you just made that up.

 

[Art]

Um, you just made that up.

The original Al Samud program was canceled in 1993 due to flight instability. It was resurrected in 1995 with a new design by Maj. Gen. Ra’ad Jasim who was fired when it still didn't work in 1999. He was replaced by Brig. Gen. Dr. Muzhir Saba’ Sadiq al-Tamimi. Following continuing failures, on 15th June 2001 Muzhir’s request to replace the 500-mm diameter Al Samud with a 760-mm design, called the Al Samud II was agreed to. The first experimental test flight of Al Samud II occurred on 18th August 2001.

The first 10 Al Samud II ballistic missiles were delivered to the Iraqi Army in December 2001.

 

[crazycalhoun]

The original Al Samud program was canceled in 1993 due to flight instability.

Al Samud I was canceled after its last flight test 12 Dec 2000. And they still had the drives from the static tests afterwards. The point is they weren't destroyed.