Should the west attack Iran?

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
BTW, the International Atomic Energy Agency says that ALL of Iran's nuclear material is accounted for and that there is NO evidence that Iran has an active nuclear weapons program. But you can ignore me and continue plotting your wars of glory. Hope your ship takes a silkworm, Patroklos.

The IAEA also states "The Agency has been able to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran. Iran
has provided the Agency with access to declared nuclear material, and has provided the required nuclear material accountancy reports in connection with declared nuclear material and activities. Iran concluded a Facility Attachment for FEP. However, it should be noted that, since early 2006, the Agency has not received the type of information that Iran had previously been providing [..] [a]s a result, the Agency’s knowledge about Iran’s current nuclear programme is diminishing.

In addition, Iran needs to continue to build confidence about the scope and nature of its present programme. Confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear programme requires that the Agency be able to provide assurances not only regarding declared nuclear material, but, equally importantly, regarding the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran."

Emphasis mine.

[chequita guevara]

In September 2007 the IAEA announced it has been able to verify that Iran's declared nuclear material has not been diverted from peaceful use. While the IAEA has been unable to verify some "important aspects" regarding the nature and scope of Iran's nuclear work, the agency and Iranian officials agreed on a plan to resolve all outstanding issues, Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei said.[37] In an interview with Radio Audizioni Italiane the same month, ElBaradei remarked that "Iran does not constitute a certain and immediate threat for the international community".[38] In October 2007, ElBaradei amplified these remarks, telling Le Monde that, even if Iran did intend to develop a nuclear bomb, they would need "between another three and eight years to succeed". He went on to note that "all the intelligence services" agree with this assessment and that he wanted to "get people away from the idea that Iran will be a threat from tomorrow, and that we are faced right now with the issue of whether Iran should be bombed or allowed to have the bomb".[24]

In late October 2007, according to the International Herald Tribune, the head of the IAEA, Mohamed ElBaradei, stated that he had seen "no evidence" of Iran developing nuclear weapons. The IHT quoted ElBaredei as stating that,

"We have information that there has been maybe some studies about possible weaponization," said Mohamed ElBaradei, who leads the International Atomic Energy Agency. "That's why we have said that we cannot give Iran a pass right now, because there is still a lot of question marks." "But have we seen Iran having the nuclear material that can readily be used into a weapon? No. Have we seen an active weaponization program? No."

The IHT report went on to say that "ElBaradei said he was worried about the growing rhetoric from the U.S., which he noted focused on Iran's alleged intentions to build a nuclear weapon rather than evidence the country was actively doing so. If there is actual evidence, ElBaradei said he would welcome seeing it."[39]

In November 2007 ElBaradei circulated his latest report to the upcoming meeting of the IAEA Board of Governors.[40][41][42] Its findings conclude that Iran has made important strides towards clarifying its past activities, including provided access to documentation and officials involved in centrifuge design in the 1980s and 1990s. Answers provided by Iran regarding the past P-1 and P-2 centrifuge programs were found to be consistent with the IAEA's own findings. . . . The IAEA is not able to conclusively confirm that Iran isn't currently enriching uranium for military purposes, as its inspections have been restricted to workshops previously declared as part of the civilian uranium enrichment program, and requests for access to certain military workshops have been denied; the report noted that "As a result, the agency's knowledge about Iran's current nuclear program is diminishing".

=====

So that's the best information we have on the situation, because frankly, I don't believe a damn thing the American government says on the subject. They only tell the truth when it is convenient.

[Dis]

no, I believe Iran might be able to kick our ass. maybe not at first, but over the long run.

[Wezil]

Don't worry about it Dis. Drop a few bombs, lob a few Tomahawks and it will all be over. The Iranian people will truss up their leaders and hand them over for US justice. Ice cream and apple pie for all after that.

[Patroklos]

Hope your ship takes a silkworm, Patroklos\

Does wishing death or serious bodily harm upon a poster constitute a banning offense Ming?

In any case Che, please read my posts in this thread (as you obviously didn't) and point out the part where I state a desire for conflict with Iran. You can go ahead an gloss over the parts where I say the opposite if it makes if it allows you to maintain your silly persona. In other words, you can shut the hell up.

A silkworm? Funny commies

Real revolutionaries

[Dis]

Originally posted by Pekka
I see only two options:

We attack them together. Really strong attack, none of this previous crap.

OR we let Israel attack first and then follow up and be unprepared.

I don't think we can afford to use stall tactics, where we know Israel has to strike at some point, so then it's their problem. No no, this is the time to share resources and risks.

But I'd still wait until the last minute. So far they're not convincing me at all. THis dude has been talking loud ever since he got to his position. So who knows, he's just a loud mouth.

If we had guarantees that Israel will not attack at any point unless directly threatened, I'd be inclined to ride it out and see what happens, that is no attack. But I'm failry sure Israel can not wait too long so ... if it comes to that, I think we should all go.

Why is it Israel's problem? They have nukes as well. I really can't see Iran using their nukes. They'd be stupid to do so. They'd get nuked back.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
So that's the best information we have on the situation, because frankly, I don't believe a damn thing the American government says on the subject. They only tell the truth when it is convenient.

That's fine, I just wanted to point out that what you originally said (that "ALL" was accounted for) was certainly not the whole truth as what you subsequently quoted shows that information is incomplete and becoming more so with time..

[Patroklos]

Che has an agenda, don't stand in the way of revolution.

[Dis]

yeah he doesn't understand we are just hypothisizing the U.S. effectiveness. No one wants war, but we do want to see if we can win it. We do have attack plans on even Canada after all...

What are your thoughs of the U.S. contrlling the straights of Hormuz? That's the only thing that would really worry me in a war. How could we protect ourselves and oil tankers in those straights? Especially if they resort to using speed boats or civilian craft to bomb the targets?

[Dis]

ahh, I may have found out my own answer with wiki. Seems if we were that effective back then, we should do better today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Praying_Mantis

[Patroklos]

Only a little time, but here is the bare bones

Iran can close off the straights, the only question is how long.

the SOH is only abotu 20 something nm wide at its widest point, and only about half of that is navigable to major warships and tankers. This means that even the for the most woefully ineffective Iranin anti ship missles are going to be effective since all targets are within the range of their shore based radar stations.

The small boats are a problem primarily for the civilian ships. A ski boat running into 2 M60s 8 .50 cals (sixteen if double mounted), a 25mm chain cannon, 2 20mm automatic gradade launchers, 1 or 2 20mm 3000 round a minute gattling guns (the new Phalanx can attack surface targets) and a 54 cal main gun shooting 5 inch buckshot rounds of ball bearings that constitutes the broadside of a DDG isn't going to last long. Especially since we will have air superioroty, and any ship going through the straights or near the Iranian coast is going to have an eye in the sky. There is some other things we can do but I won't go into that.

Despite all that, the small boats are not toothless, which is why I have been saying for years we need a corvette size gun platform surface combatant (just a surface combatant, no gold plating) to operate inside the air defence shields of the DDGs/CGs but that can go into shallower water (no dome) and make mince meat out of small boats. In all likely hood the only direct action our fleet is likely to see for the most is watching Iranian missiles fired blindly over the horizon miles off target as the airforce/naval aircraft will be sinking everything they see. Except for the Kilos...

So for the straights, the Iranians will close them for as long as it takes for air power/cruise missiles to obliterate their shoreside radar stations and missle sites. There is no way to guaruntee we get them all, but losing one or two ships is not "closing the straights," remember the scale of conflict we are talking here.

The Kilos are useless in the gulf just like they ours are (minus shooting tomahawks), it is just too shallow. You can see submarines from the air in alot of the gulf, it is just too shallow. The Gulf of Oman is more difficult, and the most likely place Iran will be successful in closing commerce from the gulf. We will have just as much difficulty hinding their Kilos down as we would any countries submarines (except these are notoriously unreliable and lack features), so think a few weeks. Iran has 3 but if we initiate hositlities one will be in drydock, they have a maitenance schedule like anyone else. With luck we can get one other at the peir side. But we will most definetly have one on patrol.

As I have said before, if Iran attacks us and there is a ship in the straights, we will probably lose it.

And also remember that none of the tankers that go through the staights are American. So will Iran go crazy shooting neutral shipping? Manned mostly by Chinese, Russian, and Indian crews?

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Find me one person, on or off this board, advocating occupying Iran.

We aren't occupying Iraq either. We came as liberators, not as conquerors.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Lancer
We should just let them have nukes then, and when they nuke Israel we nuke them, is that the strategy?

[Dis]

catching up on a bit of late 80's naval action here... What the hell was I doing back then? I wasn't interested in military too much back then. Didn't watch much news I guess.

We seemed to do real good on praying mantis, but the downing of the Iranian airliner is just horrible. Yeah wiki mentions the captain was very aggressive, and AEGIS was brand new didn't help things...

look at this quote

It was, however, a known fact that many of the senior officers on board the Vincennes knew very little about computerized warfare. The tactical officer for surface warfare, Lt Cmdr Guillory, knew so little that he routinely used his computer screens as a surface for sticky notes instead. Petty Officer Anderson, who missed Flight 655 on the schedule because it was so dark, also later claimed that he was confused by the gulf’s four different time zones, something proper training could have easily helped with. Lt Clay Zocher was the boss of Air Alley, which was responsible for air warfare, but he had only stood watch at that post twice before and had never fully learned and mastered the console routines. In fact, when he was finally given the green light to fire upon the incoming aircraft, he pressed the wrong keys 23 times, until a veteran petty officer leaned over and hit the right ones. Nerves were shattered, and the training seemed nonexistent."

How can you press teh wrong key 23 times? (is this story legit?) Why is it naval officers are so dumb? The ones in nuclear power weren't too bad, at least they make the officers go to the school (and prototype). Don't they do that with the guys in the combat room?

We always joked about it in the EOS on the Enterprise. We'd comment how in Star Trek the officers are smart and do everything, and how there only seems to be one enlisted man on the whole ship (Chief O'Brien) . But in the real navy it's the enlisted who know the ship the best and do all the work, officers only seem to be good for administrative duties. And they aren't even that good at that.

[Sandman]

In all likely hood the only direct action our fleet is likely to see for the most is watching Iranian missiles fired blindly over the horizon miles off target as the airforce/naval aircraft will be sinking everything they see. Except for the Kilos...

I expect there'll be a bit of petty shore bombardment, just to give the escorts something to do. Or is the Gulf too shallow for that?