Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Invisusira's playground

Moderators: Aergis, Invisusira

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fivelives » Tue Feb 11, 2014 4:55 pm

So, Iran. I read today that they announced the successful test of two missiles, one ICBM and one an upgrade to one of their already existing platforms that's essentially equivalent to a cruise missile. Between that, and them moving warships toward the Atlantic for the first time in, well, pretty much forever, should we be concerned, or is this just diplomatic saber rattling because of the upcoming and ongoing negotiations over their nuclear program?
- I'm not Jesus, but I can turn water into Kool-Aid.
- A Sergeant in motion outranks an officer who doesn't know what the hell is going on.
- A demolitions specialist at a flat run outranks everybody.
User avatar
Fivelives
 
Posts: 2801
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 7:55 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Koatanga » Tue Feb 11, 2014 6:47 pm

Fivelives wrote:So, Iran. I read today that they announced the successful test of two missiles, one ICBM and one an upgrade to one of their already existing platforms that's essentially equivalent to a cruise missile. Between that, and them moving warships toward the Atlantic for the first time in, well, pretty much forever, should we be concerned, or is this just diplomatic saber rattling because of the upcoming and ongoing negotiations over their nuclear program?


The US spends $682 Billion per year on their military. Iran spends $6 billion. I rate your chances of winning.
Un-Retired. Ish. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1676
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Tue Feb 11, 2014 6:55 pm

Seems its just some saber rattling, just to appease the hardliners, after all the new Iranian president seems pretty moderate.

That said, i'd not be surprised if Israel manages to send Mossad agents to kill scientists in retaliation.
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9426
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Tue Feb 11, 2014 6:57 pm

Koatanga wrote:
Fivelives wrote:So, Iran. I read today that they announced the successful test of two missiles, one ICBM and one an upgrade to one of their already existing platforms that's essentially equivalent to a cruise missile. Between that, and them moving warships toward the Atlantic for the first time in, well, pretty much forever, should we be concerned, or is this just diplomatic saber rattling because of the upcoming and ongoing negotiations over their nuclear program?


The US spends $682 Billion per year on their military. Iran spends $6 billion. I rate your chances of winning.


that said, Iran doesnt spend 400 bucks on a hammer, or millions of dollars on planes that get sent straight to the junkyard or tanks that the army doesnt want. >.>
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9426
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Koatanga » Tue Feb 11, 2014 7:14 pm

Klaudandus wrote:
Koatanga wrote:
Fivelives wrote:So, Iran. I read today that they announced the successful test of two missiles, one ICBM and one an upgrade to one of their already existing platforms that's essentially equivalent to a cruise missile. Between that, and them moving warships toward the Atlantic for the first time in, well, pretty much forever, should we be concerned, or is this just diplomatic saber rattling because of the upcoming and ongoing negotiations over their nuclear program?


The US spends $682 Billion per year on their military. Iran spends $6 billion. I rate your chances of winning.


that said, Iran doesnt spend 400 bucks on a hammer, or millions of dollars on planes that get sent straight to the junkyard or tanks that the army doesnt want. >.>

That said, your best fighter jets aren't old enough to have been "flown" by Tom Cruise and Val Kilmer in Top Gun.

Actually Iran's Tomcats are from between 1974 and 1979, so they even predate the personal computer. Christina Ricci and Kim Kardashian weren't even born.
Un-Retired. Ish. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1676
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Tue Feb 11, 2014 7:26 pm

Oh, I know that, my snark was aimed at wasteful spending in the military. =P
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9426
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Koatanga » Tue Feb 11, 2014 7:45 pm

Klaudandus wrote:Oh, I know that, my snark was aimed at wasteful spending in the military. =P

Yeah, but the crap you throw away is better than the crap they use.

We should talk - New Zealand doesn't even have any fighters, and the only jets in our Air Force are 2 757-200s.
Un-Retired. Ish. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1676
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Tue Feb 11, 2014 8:26 pm

who would want to attack new zealand? plus, they got the eye of sauron
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9426
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Koatanga » Tue Feb 11, 2014 8:48 pm

Klaudandus wrote:who would want to attack new zealand? plus, they got the eye of sauron

We're trying very hard to be an object lesson. Our entire military is based around intelligence-gathering and rendering aid. We're generous in natural disasters, and pretty much keep our noses in our own business unless we're supporting the UN.

As a result, no one wants to kill us.

And we have the eye of Sauron.

And Smaug.
Un-Retired. Ish. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1676
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Shoju » Wed Feb 12, 2014 12:50 pm

Klaudandus wrote:
Koatanga wrote:
Fivelives wrote:So, Iran. I read today that they announced the successful test of two missiles, one ICBM and one an upgrade to one of their already existing platforms that's essentially equivalent to a cruise missile. Between that, and them moving warships toward the Atlantic for the first time in, well, pretty much forever, should we be concerned, or is this just diplomatic saber rattling because of the upcoming and ongoing negotiations over their nuclear program?


The US spends $682 Billion per year on their military. Iran spends $6 billion. I rate your chances of winning.


that said, Iran doesnt spend 400 bucks on a hammer, or millions of dollars on planes that get sent straight to the junkyard or tanks that the army doesnt want. >.>


THey also don't sell off items as surplus for pennies on the dollar, only to buy it back from the same people a couple of years down the road. Not that I would have any first hand knowledge of that.
User avatar
Shoju
 
Posts: 5068
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 7:15 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Io.Draco » Thu Feb 13, 2014 7:17 am

If a war were to ever start between Iran and the US it wouldn't end well for either of them.

That said the Persians have been there for thousands of years, they will remain there for thousands more to come. The notion that some American cowboys have that they can invade and just topple the entire regime there easily is laughable. One should just a long hard look at the war between Iran and Iraq and see the tactics they implemented.

Also Iran is a bloody mountain. Have fun invading THAT against an army that is well prepared, well equipped and has been specifically trained to counter your military. America might win, but it would be a bloody cost.
User avatar
Io.Draco
 
Posts: 1139
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 1:33 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Koatanga » Thu Feb 13, 2014 12:28 pm

Io.Draco wrote:If a war were to ever start between Iran and the US it wouldn't end well for either of them.

That said the Persians have been there for thousands of years, they will remain there for thousands more to come. The notion that some American cowboys have that they can invade and just topple the entire regime there easily is laughable. One should just a long hard look at the war between Iran and Iraq and see the tactics they implemented.

Also Iran is a bloody mountain. Have fun invading THAT against an army that is well prepared, well equipped and has been specifically trained to counter your military. America might win, but it would be a bloody cost.

The US would have air superiority on the first day and could bomb the hell out of Iran at leisure until Iran submits. Terrain and such is not so much the issue. The amount of ordinance the US could deliver to any potential target is truly impressive, and all that is through non-nuclear means. Should Iran initiate a successful nuke strike, the counter-strike would have Iran glowing for centuries. I don't know that there's ever been a more vindictive nation than the US.

The issue is similar to that with Iraq - once you conquer the existing regime, there are several other factions that will fight to control the region. The US would have to prop up its puppet government for years in hopes that when they pull out it won't be instantly mowed down by one of the factions. It would take a military commitment of decades, which would be incredibly unpopular domestically.
Un-Retired. Ish. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1676
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Io.Draco » Thu Feb 13, 2014 1:21 pm

I think that you are a bit mistaken if you think the US could just bomb Iran into submission, or even get air superiority in 1 day. Tehran does have some decent, and I mean decent not good, AA defenses that would inflict casualties on US jet fighters. Of course not talking of F-22s here, but F-18s? After all they do have a few S-300s and are about to receive more from Russia.

Name me on war were bombing a country into submission has won it. The regime won't fall due to your bombs, just like Gaddafi's regime didn't fall simply due to bombs when the entire western world unleashed their mighty combined air forces on him, and Gaddafi's air defenses were anihilated by the bombardment of NATO ships, since they were concentrated on the coast. That won't work in Iran.

It will take a ground assault and the American army in Iran would face a bloody long road to capture Tehran, if they even captured it. Don't assume the Iranian Army will be break like the Iraqi one.
User avatar
Io.Draco
 
Posts: 1139
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 1:33 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Koatanga » Thu Feb 13, 2014 1:57 pm

Io.Draco wrote:I think that you are a bit mistaken if you think the US could just bomb Iran into submission, or even get air superiority in 1 day. Tehran does have some decent, and I mean decent not good, AA defenses that would inflict casualties on US jet fighters. Of course not talking of F-22s here, but F-18s? After all they do have a few S-300s and are about to receive more from Russia.

Name me on war were bombing a country into submission has won it. The regime won't fall due to your bombs, just like Gaddafi's regime didn't fall simply due to bombs when the entire western world unleashed their mighty combined air forces on him, and Gaddafi's air defenses were anihilated by the bombardment of NATO ships, since they were concentrated on the coast. That won't work in Iran.

It will take a ground assault and the American army in Iran would face a bloody long road to capture Tehran, if they even captured it. Don't assume the Iranian Army will be break like the Iraqi one.

We're talking about a potential ICBM attack against the US. Retaliation for such an attack would be extreme. The full might of the US military would descend on Iran like a hammer, and the gloves would be off. No pussyfooting around UN diplomacy or playing hide-and-seek with a terrorist organisation. This would be a justified action the entire nation would be behind, pretty much regardless of whatever force was brought to bear against governmental, military, or even civilian targets.
Un-Retired. Ish. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1676
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Io.Draco » Thu Feb 13, 2014 2:10 pm

Everything short of a nuclear attack would result in a long and costly war against Iran, even if Israel got involved to help you out. Although taking the gloves want means what that the US no longer gives a damn about the Geneva convention. Oh that would never have major political repercussions against the country.

Also that ICBM attack, not going to happen. For all the BS that's in the media that the US is under threat by Iran and North Korea those countries aren't going to launch ICBMs against the US. What would be the gain?
User avatar
Io.Draco
 
Posts: 1139
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 1:33 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Koatanga » Thu Feb 13, 2014 2:58 pm

Io.Draco wrote:Everything short of a nuclear attack would result in a long and costly war against Iran, even if Israel got involved to help you out. Although taking the gloves want means what that the US no longer gives a damn about the Geneva convention. Oh that would never have major political repercussions against the country.

Also that ICBM attack, not going to happen. For all the BS that's in the media that the US is under threat by Iran and North Korea those countries aren't going to launch ICBMs against the US. What would be the gain?

That's my point. Iran is not going to launch at the US because the US would literally go ballistic on them. The US outspends Iran on military budget by two orders of magnitude. Nothing to gain and everything to lose.

As far as the Geneva convention is concerned, don't underestimate (or misunderestimate) the arrogance of the US. They figure they can do what they want because who's going to enforce it?
Un-Retired. Ish. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1676
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fivelives » Fri Feb 14, 2014 1:21 am

We actually do hold pretty tight to the geneva and hague conventions*. It's less a matter of "who's gonna enforce it" and more a matter of "if we break the rules, so will they" and that would be horrifyingly bad. Terrorists aren't exactly an army and even the taliban and al-qaeda haven't gone and broken those treaties wholesale. If we publicly break them, then it becomes the US versus the entire world - and that's something that not even WE are arrogant enough to think we would come out on top of.

Not to mention the massive diplomatic ramifications. Even if our allies didn't dogpile on to attack us, they definitely wouldn't be allies anymore.

* There have been, currently are, and will continue to be, mistakes made and exigent circumstances that force minor violations. But on an individual basis it wouldn't be the same as wholesale violations of the treaties.
- I'm not Jesus, but I can turn water into Kool-Aid.
- A Sergeant in motion outranks an officer who doesn't know what the hell is going on.
- A demolitions specialist at a flat run outranks everybody.
User avatar
Fivelives
 
Posts: 2801
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 7:55 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Koatanga » Fri Feb 14, 2014 2:45 am

Well, it's not like the US gives a damn what the UN has to say about anything, so if I was Iran, I wouldn't want to rely on the US holding to any international accord. It may not be likely they would do anything against international treaties, but that's far from ruling it out as a possibility, particularly in a retaliatory situation.
Un-Retired. Ish. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1676
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fivelives » Fri Feb 14, 2014 5:36 am

The Hague and Geneva conventions aren't a UN thing. And the US has been stopped by the UN before - keep in mind that there are 5 countries (US, UK, China, Russia, and France) that have veto powers in the UN. Most recently, Russia and China vetoed a plan drafted by the US to go into Syria.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18914578
- I'm not Jesus, but I can turn water into Kool-Aid.
- A Sergeant in motion outranks an officer who doesn't know what the hell is going on.
- A demolitions specialist at a flat run outranks everybody.
User avatar
Fivelives
 
Posts: 2801
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 7:55 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Fri Feb 14, 2014 6:02 am

I'll just say this. I miss the days of the surplus.
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9426
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Io.Draco » Sat Feb 15, 2014 10:56 am

Koatanga wrote:Well, it's not like the US gives a damn what the UN has to say about anything, so if I was Iran, I wouldn't want to rely on the US holding to any international accord. It may not be likely they would do anything against international treaties, but that's far from ruling it out as a possibility, particularly in a retaliatory situation.



Considering they didn't do it with Afghanistan when the World Trade Center was bombed I'd doubt they would do it for Iran.
User avatar
Io.Draco
 
Posts: 1139
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 1:33 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Sat Feb 15, 2014 11:48 am

Iran launching ICBM's at us is not on the same scale as the 9/11 attacks, and I'd expect a retaliatory series of strikes designed to make sure they were utterly incapable of launching another sort of offensive for a generation or so. And in that scenario we'd have the full support of our allies regardless of any sort of international laws that may come into play.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6465
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Io.Draco » Sat Feb 15, 2014 12:31 pm

I don't quite agree, especially if the US starts breaking the Geneve and Hague conventions wholesale you would find European support for American action quite frankly limited.

As for the response to the strike. Well that would depend on the targets hit. The only realistic scenario where Iran would fire an ICBM to hit the mainland of the USA would be as part of pre-emptive strike against the US military forces, specifically those in the Arab Gulf. In that scenario the target would be military. This would only happen if Iran firmly believed that the US was being ready to attack them.

While I would expect messages of support from US allies in that event I would not expect any real military or even political support to materialize, at least from the EU. Europe doesn't care at all for the notion of getting dragged into a war against Iran because of American idiocy in preparing to strike/invade Iran.

As for Israel..well let's just say that if they were not getting ready to help the US in their attack on Iran they would not lift a finger to help you, because doing so means facing Hezbollah.
User avatar
Io.Draco
 
Posts: 1139
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 1:33 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Koatanga » Sat Feb 15, 2014 7:41 pm

Io.Draco wrote:Considering they didn't do it with Afghanistan when the World Trade Center was bombed I'd doubt they would do it for Iran.

That's because Afghanistan - the country - didn't attack the US. Instead it was a terrorist organisation that operated out of several countries, including Afghanistan.

When it was Iraq, the US ignored the UN, so I have no doubt they'd do it for Iran.
Un-Retired. Ish. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1676
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fivelives » Sun Feb 16, 2014 7:37 am

The UN didn't tell us we couldn't invade Iraq, they just declined support. Essentially, we didn't even ask for UN support beforehand, because we knew we'd never get it - especially with Russia and China being able to veto any resolution to deploy a joint task force. Iraq is a good customer for arms deals with both Russia and China, so it's pretty close to a sure thing that any attempted resolution to get UN nations to invade Iraq would have been vetoed by one or the other.

Given that the UN stands pretty firmly behind sanctions on Iran's nuclear program, though, if Iran were to launch a preemptive strike against the US then the UN would likely be behind a full scale invasion of Iran from all member nations.

That would change the instant that the US started wiping its collective ass with the Geneva and Hague treaties, though. We would likely be "withdrawn" from the UN for that, or at least severely penalized - probably by taking us off of the security commission, leaving us without veto powers. There isn't any precedent for countries being kicked out of the UN, but there also isn't any precedent for a signatory of either of the "rules of war" treaties being unapologetically violated either. I would argue that they would have to make a pretty severe example of the first country to do so, and by removing the US from the UN that would count as a "pretty severe example". The US would become diplomatically radioactive and NOBODY would want to deal with us, and it would effectively be the end of the United States.
- I'm not Jesus, but I can turn water into Kool-Aid.
- A Sergeant in motion outranks an officer who doesn't know what the hell is going on.
- A demolitions specialist at a flat run outranks everybody.
User avatar
Fivelives
 
Posts: 2801
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 7:55 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Arkham Asylum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest

Who is online

In total there are 2 users online :: 1 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 380 on Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:28 pm

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest