U.S. may be gearing up for Iran strike

[Degreez]

I salute you for your skill. You cite the fas.org material in support of your contention. Do you know of the existence of other reports prepared by any other group of equal or superior standards who arrived at a different conclusion than fas.org? Please tell me the truth.

Not of equal or superior standards, no. None have been as credible either.

Then you go on to make the following arrogant statement: "It could approach the coast unannounced? Do you know how laughable that sounds?" Professionals demonstrate superior competence without arrogance by walking a fellow through his logic, rather than making a statement that demonstrates superior knowledge and inferior consciousness.

Just because something is plausible does not make it realistically possible. It's plausible for aliens to come to Earth and rid us of our technology. Logically, you cannot contradict this. Realistically, you can.

The Youtube video is the sales video for the Club K container missile system directly from the Moscow based manufacturer/marketer.

OK? It's still a CGI video with no real demonstration. And you're trying to use that as evidence that an Iranian commercial vessel can approach the US coast unannounced.

I don't agree with your assumptions regarding the applicability of MAD to the deterrence of Iran.

What don't you agree with? Be specific, not extremely vague. Iran using a nuclear weapon in a preemptive strike will not assure Iran's security in any way whatsoever. Iran developer a nuclear warhead as a military deterrent highly assures Iran security from attacks. If you don't agree with that, fine. Just disagree with the reasoning behind most countries' development of nuclear material (ie - India/Pakistan).

You haven't addressed EMP launches, and you haven't addressed the use of third party vessels avoiding Iranian territory altogether. Please address these issues in further detail if you don't mind. Thanks.

Why do I have to address things that are purely speculative? You haven't addressed the possibility of aliens giving Iran a nuclear warhead and a capable delivery system. Should you have to address something as asinine as that? Iran currently has no ICMBs. That is the reality of the situation, and is what I will discuss. I won't engage in tangents on how the possibilities of that situation can change when it is embroiled in speculation and faulty logic.

 

[Albert Di Salvo]

Then by all means let's fence. Deg said:

"What don't you agree with? Be specific, not extremely vague. Iran using a nuclear weapon in a preemptive strike will not assure Iran's security in any way whatsoever. Iran developer a nuclear warhead as a military deterrent highly assures Iran security from attacks. If you don't agree with that, fine. Just disagree with the reasoning behind most countries' development of nuclear material (ie - India/Pakistan)."

Who makes the strategic decisions in Iran?

What is the background of these decisionmakers?

Do you believe Iran is a theocratic state?

Has the IAEA stated that Iran is in violation of it's disclosure obligations under the Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty?

If so, why would Iran violate it's disclosure obligations under the NPT?

If Iran does become a nuclear weapons state what will be the impact on the NPT?

If your answer to the preceding question is in the affirmative, what is the impact of Iran's theocracy on the application of the Doctrine of MAD to the strategic decisionmakers in Iran?

Is the Twelver Sect of Shiism messianic with a belief in the return of the Mahdi?

If so, what is the impact of this messianism on the decisions made by the decisionmakers in Iran on deterrence?

 

[Albert Di Salvo]

"Why do I have to address things that are purely speculative? You haven't addressed the possibility of aliens giving Iran a nuclear warhead and a capable delivery system. Should you have to address something as asinine as that? Iran currently has no ICMBs. That is the reality of the situation, and is what I will discuss. I won't engage in tangents on how the possibilities of that situation can change when it is embroiled in speculation and faulty logic."

Why? Because you sought me out for the purpose of discussion. I did not seek you out. You will not set the terms of the discussion. I will. Why?

Because I can. I can tell you have deep knowledge of the subject matter. I can also tell that you are very inexperienced in adversarial confrontation. Posting on DP counts for naught in an adversarial arena. You will accept the terms I set or our exchange will be terminated.

 

[Albert Di Salvo]

Deg said: "Iran currently has no ICMBs."

Borderline deception is not an acceptable debate tactic.

How long before Iran's ballistic missile program develops ICBMs? Since Iran already has IRBMs, do you think it's just possible that they may attempt to extend the range of their ballistic missile program so that it becomes intercontinental?

Deg, I have another question for you? Do you deny that North Korea is transferring ballistic missile technolgy to Iran?

 

[Degreez]

Who makes the strategic decisions in Iran?

The national security council in Iran (SNSC)

What is the background of these decisionmakers?

A lot are figureheads (Ahmedinejad), a lot are quite qualified for their positions (Ali Larijani, Ataollah Salehi), some are a bit stupid to be part of that group (Sadeq Larijani). Not all of them agree with each other and share the same ideals.

Do you believe Iran is a theocratic state?

It's a theocractic republic.

Has the IAEA stated that Iran is in violation of it's disclosure obligations under the Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty?

No, they are not. They provisionally accepted the Additional Protocols, but that was voluntary and have been rejected those same addendums quite a few years ago. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/15_11_07_iran_iaeareport.pdf) They are in violation of numerous UN Security Council Resolutions, however.

If so, why would Iran violate it's disclosure obligations under the NPT?

To show that it is a flawed concept in which nuclear powers dictate the terms to other countries.

If Iran does become a nuclear weapons state what will be the impact on the NPT?

Once again, I don't answer purely speculative questions.

If your answer to the preceding question is in the affirmative, what is the impact of Iran's theocracy on the application of the Doctrine of MAD to the strategic decisionmakers in Iran?

Elements of Iran's theocracy have always been against developing and stockpiling nuclear weapons.

Is the Twelver Sect of Shiism messianic with a belief in the return of the Mahdi?

This has absolutely nothing to do with any supposed Iranian nuclear weaponization program.

If so, what is the impact of this messianism on the decisions made by the decisionmakers in Iran on deterrence?

None.

 

[Degreez]

Why? Because you sought me out for the purpose of discussion. I did not seek you out. You will not set the terms of the discussion. I will. Why?

It's a discussion board. You will not dictate to me how I can or cannot respond to you. I'm posting fully under the guidelines and rules of this forum. And I did not "seek you out" for the purpose of discussion. I commentated on a faulty aspect of your post. You then an engaged with me in a discussion.

Because I can. I can tell you have deep knowledge of the subject matter. I can also tell that you are very inexperienced in adversarial confrontation. Posting on DP counts for naught in an adversarial arena. You will accept the terms I set or our exchange will be terminated.

You can tell me? But can't show me? Because from your posts it's become abundantly clear what type of poster you are. One who engages in hyperbole and fallacious situations that are only driven by speculation.

I will respond to you as I see fit. If you don't like it, don't respond back. That will not stop me from engaging in discussion whenever I like.

PS - I was in the NFL a few decades ago. Apparently you can't characterize a poster that at all. Especially in the limited time you've been active here.

 

[Degreez]

Deg said: "Iran currently has no ICMBs."

Borderline deception is not an acceptable debate tactic.

What is deceptive about the statement? Your accusations are quite trivial. Iran has no ICBMs. That is a statement of fact, and there is nothing deceptive about it.

How long before Iran's ballistic missile program develops ICBMs? Since Iran already has IRBMs, do you think it's just possible that they may attempt to extend the range of their ballistic missile program so that it becomes intercontinental?

3-7 years according to most credible experts in the field. As to your second question, that is just silly. How limited is your knowledge in ballistic missile technology?

Deg, I have another question for you? Do you deny that North Korea is transferring ballistic missile technolgy to Iran?

First off that's a loaded question. Second, it is already a known fact Iran and North Korea have been sharing ballistic missile technology.

 

[Albert Di Salvo]

...No, they are not. They provisionally accepted the Additional Protocols, but that was voluntary and have been rejected those same addendums quite a few years ago. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/15_11_07_iran_iaeareport.pdf) They are in violation of numerous UN Security Council Resolutions, however.

What's the difference between an outright lie and a partial truth? Huh? The IAEA Report you cite is out of date. You should have disclosed that to us. Here is what the IAEA actually says:

"...17. For reasons set out in previous reports to the Board of Governors, Iran remains bound by the
revised Code 3.1 of the Subsidiary Arrangements General Part to which it had agreed in 2003,7 which
requires that the Agency be provided with preliminary design information about a new nuclear facility
as soon as the decision to construct or to authorize construction of the facility is taken. The revised
Code 3.1 also requires that Iran provide the Agency with further design information as the design is
developed early in the project definition, preliminary design, construction and commissioning phases.8
Even if, as stated by Iran, the decision to construct the new facility at the Fordow site was taken in the
second half of 2007, Iran’s failure to notify the Agency of the new facility until September 2009 was
inconsistent with its obligations under the Subsidiary Arrangements to its Safeguards Agreement...."
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2009/gov2009-74.pdf

 

[Albert Di Salvo]

Albert said: "If so, why would Iran violate it's disclosure obligations under the NPT?"

Then Deg said: "To show that it is a flawed concept in which nuclear powers dictate the terms to other countries."

Deg, look at what you've posted above. You have made an admission against interest unwittingly. You have acknowledged why Iran violated the NPT. This is the result of inexperience with people who tear each of your words apart to use against you.

 

[Albert Di Salvo]

Albert said: "Do you believe Iran is a theocratic state?"

Deg said: "It's a theocractic republic."

Answer the questions as they are posed to you. Editorial comment is subject to a motion to strike my dear friend.

 

[Albert Di Salvo]

Deg said: A lot are figureheads (Ahmedinejad), a lot are quite qualified for their positions (Ali Larijani, Ataollah Salehi), some are a bit stupid to be part of that group (Sadeq Larijani). Not all of them agree with each other and share the same ideals.

But Deg, I asked a specific question that you haven't answered. What are the backgrounds of the decisionmakers. You haven't even mentioned the specific factions vying for power and control. Rafsanjani and Ahmadinejad and Khamenei are not pulling at the same oar. You haven't mentioned the fact that Hillary Clinton said that Iran is becoming a military dictatorship with the growth of power of the Pasdaran. Why haven't you mentioned this.

 

[Albert Di Salvo]

Deg said: "Once again, I don't answer purely speculative questions."

Dear friend, I will not allow you to fight a set piece battle with me. This tactic is ineffective against me.

Your refusal to answer or otherwise plead to the question is a demonstration of your consciousness of weakness. You are afraid to answer my questions because truthful answers will establish your error.

 

[Albert Di Salvo]

Albert said: "...what is the impact of Iran's theocracy on the application of the Doctrine of MAD to the strategic decisionmakers in Iran?"

Deg said: "Elements of Iran's theocracy have always been against developing and stockpiling nuclear weapons."

Dear friend, I analyze language for a living. I cannot be fooled with weasel language like that contained in the portion of your post appearing above. Let's examine the exact wording of your post.

You refer to elements of Iran's theocracy. Well, which elements? The Montazeri faction (PBUH)? What you fail to disclose is that only a small minority of Iran's clergy and leadership have articulated even the slightest opposition to Iran's current trajectory on nuclear weapons. The use of the word "Elements...." is designed to confuse the reader. Only lawyers, diplomats, and Deg speak in a manner which is susceptible to many different interpretations.

 

[Snafu]

I have known this for the past four years. There was a reason of Afghanistan... Launching pad. I live in Canada and we produce the beach combers and little else for television. Lately our American channels have been inundated with adds for join the Navy Air-Force the Marines...I remember a quote I heard something to do with a man with a job and a nice home will never go willingly to war. Makes you wonder why the Worlds economy crashed as harshly as it did? Makes me wonder why no one on Wall Street was ever charged or asked to pay back the stupid amounts of bonus's they received. I watched this beautiful bit of propaganda about two years ago on my nightly news. It really could not have been more blatant. First story Ahmadinejad was proudly showing off his nuclear power stations. Very next one Ahmadinejad was inviting all the worlds leaders to a summit to discuss the fraud of the Jewish Holocaust. Someone was translating his speech and it went something along the lines of "We need to eradicate Israel off the planet. Now I am sure the world doesn't need another Kim Jong il. But where is it America's job to police the world? Maybe USA should of not have put Sadam into power of Iraq maybe USA should not have pointed the puppet Sadam to attack Iran all throughout the 1980s. Over a million Muslims died in this conflict. Russia and USA made out like bandits from the arms sales. 911 was an atrocious attack on innocent civilians but directly tied to the USA Government messing around with things they have no business doing. ( I am now going to win alot of friends and influence alot of people.. dont worry I am pulling out my copy and going to re read it!) I want to tell you young people something and I want you to hear this. Rich people make wars and profit in them. Poor people only die in them. I say let all the rich go and end the tyranny of Ahmedinajad. Better yet lets send the candidates who represent the red or the blue parties facade of democracy to war. Let them bring about change. Cause they certainly don't bring about change once in office.

 

[Albert Di Salvo]

Albert said: "Is the Twelver Sect of Shiism messianic with a belief in the return of the Mahdi?"

Deg said: "This has absolutely nothing to do with any supposed Iranian nuclear weaponization program."

If you are unfamiliar with Shiism say so. There is no reason for shame. If you are familiar with Shiism your refusal to answer this question is another manifestation of weakness. The answer to my question bears directly on Iran's motives in obtaining nuclear weapons, and the viability of deterrence of people on a mission from gawd. MAD may not work. It's a relevant question that you are unable or unwilling to answer.

 

[Albert Di Salvo]

Deg said: "It's a discussion board. You will not dictate to me how I can or cannot respond to you. I'm posting fully under the guidelines and rules of this forum. And I did not "seek you out" for the purpose of discussion. I commentated on a faulty aspect of your post. You then an engaged with me in a discussion."

I've already set the terms of debate by compelling you to answer my questions. You have allowed me to manipulate the discussion. This is what I meant when I said you are very inexperienced in adversarial confrontation.

You sought me out because I said something that got under your skin. How do I know that? Experience.

I recognized your expertise, said there were things I could learn from you. You rejected my approach, and my outstretched hand, without realizing that sometimes in life you run into people you really shouldn't screw with.

 

[Albert Di Salvo]

Deg said: "I will respond to you as I see fit. If you don't like it, don't respond back. That will not stop me from engaging in discussion whenever I like."

Dear friend, that's not true. I can follow the Rules of the Forum and nevertheless politely provoke you at will. You will respond because you have an ego, and a reputation to protect. This is what I mean when I say that you are very inexperienced.

 

[Albert Di Salvo]

Deg said: "PS - I was in the NFL a few decades ago."

How impressive! Are you charming too?

 

[Snafu]

I do not think an invasion of Iran is in the cards, but you need to understand how these things work. It is not as simple as a country wanting something and taking it. Things have never been that simple.

A number of factors come into play and what it gets down to is a cost-benefit analysis. The U.S. is not going to war with China or Russia any time soon because the costs are much too high and the benefits not as clear. It is uncertain whether such a venture could even be successful.

The higher the chance of success and the more benefit it brings relative to costs the more likely war becomes. People might say invading Iraq was about taking its oil, but it was just a sweetener when you get down to it. Iraq was the most vulnerable country in the region not aligned with U.S. interests. It was of minimal economic importance directly or indirectly, the military had been completely neutered after over a decade of sanctions following the destructive Gulf War, and had no major allies in the region that might rush to defend it.

To put it plainly the risks were far outweighed by the potential rewards of an invasion. Iraq was the weakest link so it got taken out. With Iran things are not that easy. Iran has many levers it can pull and the clear capacity to engage in direct and indirect action against the U.S. and its allies. Even if we were to destroy all of its sea and air forces as some have suggested that would not seriously diminish the threat Iran poses in a conflict. Unless we are willing to engage in a total war with Iran it is not likely we can actually defeat them.

Whereas Iraq was a pushover, Iran would be a herculean task. While we would undoubtedly avoid anything more than a token invasion of Iranian territory, such a restriction would not apply to Iran as there are several critical areas in the region it can seize with fairly limited cost that can persuade an end to any conflict. Consider the Shiite community and how it can be used as a fifth column in various neighboring countries in conjunction with or in lieu of an invasion.

Still, there are other factors that may compel action even when risks are so high. One of those factors is that failure to act will lead to an irreversible strategic loss that shifts the balance of power. Iran possessing nuclear weapons would amount to such a strategic loss.

USA's puppet stopped taking orders. He had to be removed... Noriega was another. Lesson to you puppets don't bite the hand that put you in power.

 

[Albert Di Salvo]

Deg said: "What is deceptive about the statement? Your accusations are quite trivial. Iran has no ICBMs. That is a statement of fact, and there is nothing deceptive about it."

Deg, what's deceptive is that you have stated a fact without providing the information necessary for your statement to have meaning. NK and Iran are cooperating on ICBM technology based on the Tae Po Dong II in development. You fail to disclose that Iran will have ICBMs in due course. That's deceptive.

 

[Degreez]

Albert said: "If so, why would Iran violate it's disclosure obligations under the NPT?"

Then Deg said: "To show that it is a flawed concept in which nuclear powers dictate the terms to other countries."

Deg, look at what you've posted above. You have made an admission against interest unwittingly. You have acknowledged why Iran violated the NPT. This is the result of inexperience with people who tear each of your words apart to use against you.

... Look at the question you asked before telling me I am inexperienced.

"Why would..."

Why would...?
Why would...?

Do you not get it yet?

 

[Degreez]

Albert said: "Do you believe Iran is a theocratic state?"

Deg said: "It's a theocractic republic."

Answer the questions as they are posed to you. Editorial comment is subject to a motion to strike my dear friend.

I will answer the questions as I see fit. Iran is a theocractic republic. If you disagree with that, state why. Otherwise, bugger off.

 

[Albert Di Salvo]

Albert said: "How long before Iran's ballistic missile program develops ICBMs? Since Iran already has IRBMs, do you think it's just possible that they may attempt to extend the range of their ballistic missile program so that it becomes intercontinental?"

Deg said: "3-7 years according to most credible experts in the field. As to your second question, that is just silly. How limited is your knowledge in ballistic missile technology?"

Deg, I don't know why I am bothering with you. Take a good look:
Iranian missile may be able to hit U.S. by 2015 | Reuters

 

[Snafu]

Does Iran need ICBM's.. You think the Taliban couldn't find a willing suicide bomber to detonate somewhere on American soil....You think Iran wouldn't give one of these weapons away to a willing terrorist group who would detonate on Israel or America? I have heard propaganda linking Iran supplying Taliban with arms. Not sure if this is truth or just strategic planning by the USA defense agencies...

 

[Albert Di Salvo]

... Look at the question you asked before telling me I am inexperienced.

"Why would..."

Why would...?
Why would...?

Do you not get it yet?

Compose yourself. Screaming is unseemly.