GLORIOUS SPARTAN: Prelude of upcoming events in the Gulf ?

[DarthAmerica]

How the hell rest of the word so need it? There are a lot of oil outside Middle East. Besides, about EVERY country and region on the Earth have something what is very important for the rest of the world short-term - be it food, water , oil, microchips or even simply cloth (cough, China!)
Also, i dont see why Iran would like to threat key oil throughput... at least to higher degree than everyone else do to concurrents (cough, USA!)

Because oil is a finite resource, production & refining capacity is limited and oil is a easy blackmail. Regime survival is the reason. It was done before. It doesn't matter what side of the pool you drain the water from it affects the whole pool!

YES! Finally! Here it is! Threat to USA (hell, let it even be whole WEST) interests! But from OBJECTIVE point of view, why we should take USA interests as more important that Iranian, Chinese, Indian or Russian interests? Yes, i know, for me personally it is better if Iran sell its oil freely and cheap and Germany sells in return its microchips high, embargoing Iran from best tech... but objectively, from the rest of the world point of view - Iranian interests are about is important as American interests.

How naive. Iran doesn't manage global events. Iran doesn't have a 13 billion dollar interconnected economy. Iran can protect Saudi Arabia or other OPEC members. If Germany is threatened again, Iran isn't going to deploy military force to ensure it's safety.

And? Why should Iran suffer cause of others paranoia? The ironic thing, others have nuclear weapons... who should be paranoid? THIS IS NOT FAIR. Yes, i know, world is not fair. But here, we are discussion abstract view, NOT our personal (as USA, Germany, Indian, Russian, Brasilian citizen) view.

No one is discussing any abstract view. This is a real world problem. In the real world things aren't fair. Thats why America has such a huge military advantage. So it's never fair.

Also, let me remind your - if one dont take other interest in account, dont try to reach some agreement, always take own interest over someone everything else - this sooner or later ends bad, and often with blood.

Dont deny foreign country the right do anything your own country also do.

This statement suggest complete ignorance of the global security environment since the advent of the atomic bomb.

Yes, i understand you are extremely pro-West (and even pro-USA). But try to understand others point of view. Try to understand, they and they country have exactly same rights as yours.

NO they don't have he same rights. Countries have a right to defend their interest. Some nations interest extend far beyond their borders. Outside of some utopian world, things will never be fair.

Whats not fair is that Iranian nuclear weapons would have the potential to significantly impede established US military and global logistics infrastructure in the middle east. In addition it would seriously undermine the balance of power in the middle east and provoke a nuclear arms race there in a notoriously violent and war torn society. This is a direct threat to billions of lives globally since the world is living on a oil based economy. Start seeing things as they are and not how you wish them to be. Start arguing logic and not emotion. Think.

-DA

 

[Feanor]

Sneaking it into the U.S. is easy. Just disguise it as a shipment of cocaine :roll:

On a more serious note I don't see any reason for Iran to strike Russia, or Paris for that matter. If Iran got nukes it would hoard them as a last resort defensive weapon. Just like the DPRK is doing right now. A U.S. invasion might prompt a nuclear attack on oil fields, or an attempt to block the straights, definetly at least an attempt to use it against the US forces. But I don't see any way that they would attack Moscow. So again we're back to the same scenario. Oil at 250+ a barrel. The U.S. entangled in another war. Russia making money.

 

[DarthAmerica]

Sneaking it into the U.S. is easy. Just disguise it as a shipment of cocaine :roll:

On a more serious note I don't see any reason for Iran to strike Russia, or Paris for that matter. If Iran got nukes it would hoard them as a last resort defensive weapon. Just like the DPRK is doing right now. A U.S. invasion might prompt a nuclear attack on oil fields, or an attempt to block the straights, definetly at least an attempt to use it against the US forces. But I don't see any way that they would attack Moscow. So again we're back to the same scenario. Oil at 250+ a barrel. The U.S. entangled in another war. Russia making money.

I'm speaking in a military context. The politics don't matter. Defense leaders have a responsibility to protect against threats regardless of the likelihood. This has to be balanced against the consequences of not doing so. Iran getting conventional ballistic missiles with GPS accuracy isn't in the same category as nuclear weapons. The consequences of a mistake are far greater.

I personally don't believe the Soviets would have initiated nuclear war with MRBMs from Cuba in the 1960's if left alone. I don't think the President at the time believed they would either. But the mere existence of the threat and consequences demanded a response. This is no different except that it directly threatens many more nations including Russia.

-DA

 

[stigmata]

I'm speaking in a military context. The politics don't matter. Defense leaders have a responsibility to protect against threats regardless of the likelihood. This has to be balanced against the consequences of not doing so. Iran getting conventional ballistic missiles with GPS accuracy isn't in the same category as nuclear weapons. The consequences of a mistake are far greater.

I personally don't believe the Soviets would have initiated nuclear war with MRBMs from Cuba in the 1960's if left alone. I don't think the President at the time believed they would either. But the mere existence of the threat and consequences demanded a response. This is no different except that it directly threatens many more nations including Russia.

This is not correct, Politics is everything. War is just a continuing of politics, but with other means (Clausewitz). That means war is just a tool among other tools to carry out foreign politics. The only exeption to this rule i'm aware of was the 30 years war, where at times the decision making left politicians, and the war made political decisions. i.e to carry on the war because of starvations and muteny.

Regarding the Cuba crise, Khrushchev had a difficult time to make up his mind if he should wage war or not, and sent two different messages with different interpretation. Fidel urged Khrushchev to nuke USA with everything he got on Cuba soil, -in spite of knowing Cuba would be wiped out the next few minutes! In the movie 'Fog of war' McNamara concluded that mankind is not allways rational. It was cheer luck that prevented war that time.
Lastly, Iran is no more of a threat to Russia and Europe then USA, i believe you are mixing in politics in that suggestion

 

[Feanor]

Oh I completely understand the rationale behind a response to Iranian nukes, and Darth that's a perfectly valid point. My point was that Russia would only benefit from it.

 

[DarthAmerica]

This is not correct, Politics is everything. War is just a continuing of politics, but with other means (Clausewitz). That means war is just a tool among other tools to carry out foreign politics.

Read what I said. I'm not talking about policy. This is strategy. From a military point of view, ie defense chief who advises policy makers, a potentially unstable Theocratic mullacracy with nuclear weapons capable of reaching your capital in minutes is unacceptable militarily regardless of what politicians say. Russian defense ministers and generals would have a military duty regardless of the politics to advise the Russian president of their inability to defend against such a threat. The policy maker then takes that information and develops policy.

We are talking about two separate things.


-DA

 

[DarthAmerica]

Oh I completely understand the rationale behind a response to Iranian nukes, and Darth that's a perfectly valid point. My point was that Russia would only benefit from it.

No, not even the Russians benefit from that. Thats Myopic in the extreme. The world is governed by a lot of unspoken rule-sets. Rule-sets like not using nuclear weapons except for the United States. Changing that rule-set would fundamentally alter the world in ways we cannot predict. Someone just made it ok to use nuclear weapons. The only reasons nations like South Africa, S Korea, Japan, Germany, Poland, Italy, Taiwan and a whole of others including FSU states don't deploy nukes is because the United States has exported nuclear security to them and the rest of the non-nuclear world in return from aggressive counter proliferation and protection. Something like this would immediately make this past arrangement null and void and those nations capable of providing their own nuclear defense would since the USA is no longer reliable in that regard. That isn't in Russian interest or anybody else in the civilized world.

-DA

 

[Feanor]

I doubt that a one time use of rather limited amounts of nuclear weapons by Iran, in response to a U.S. invasion, would lead to the destabilization you predict.

EDIT: I doubt the U.S. would invade if Iran acquired operational nuclear weapons.

 

[stigmata]

Nuke trading would cause a tsunami in every market on the world, stocks, real estate, you name it. If it on top of that messes up oil supply in the critical gulf, destabilization would be an understatement. Riots and revolutions world wide is more like it.
DarthAmerica has had many exellent posts, but this one is his masterpiece

I don't know how long, but I do know irradiated saltwater is very bad as far as fallout goes. This is one of the worse possible things Iran could do in a scorched earth attack. World oil prices are based on the long held view that oil is reliably available and secured by the U.S. Military ultimately. An attack like this would remove major portions of the supply in a very high demand market for considerable time and destroy the credibility of U.S. security guarantees. It would undermine a lot of regional FDI as well as global FDI in heavily industrialized developing nations like China and India who count on the oil and NG. The worse would not be for the more established nations who could afford to buy oil even at much higher prices. The worse would be for poorer nations who would be effectively priced out of the market due to speculation. This would kill millions during the years it would take for the markets to recover. An absolute disaster of the 1st rate and I only described the best case.

Every financial chief around the world would confirm this and this is why Iran would be fiercely opposed if it were to ever get nuclear weapons. Officially or unofficially the US and Israel would have carte blanche to prevent something like this. Yet at the same time, this would also give Iran a lot of deterrent power to negotiate with even during a conflict. Even more than Pakistan has now.

I can't emphasize enough how bad this would be globally. Even the threat of it.

Our civilization runs on oil, and we havnt got a backup.

 

[Chrom]

Read what I said. I'm not talking about policy. This is strategy. From a military point of view, ie defense chief who advises policy makers, a potentially unstable Theocratic mullacracy with nuclear weapons capable of reaching your capital in minutes is unacceptable militarily regardless of what politicians say. Russian defense ministers and generals would have a military duty regardless of the politics to advise the Russian president of their inability to defend against such a threat. The policy maker then takes that information and develops policy.

We are talking about two separate things.


-DA

I assure you, Russian generals care about NATO bases 300km from Moskow 100 times more than some mythical Iranian A-Bomb. EVERYTHING what could slow down NATO development and encircling around Russia is very good and worth it in Russian generals book.

 

[Cooch]

I assure you, Russian generals care about NATO bases 300km from Moskow 100 times more than some mythical Iranian A-Bomb.

Are you in a position to offer such assurance?

 

[DarthAmerica]

I assure you, Russian generals care about NATO bases 300km from Moskow 100 times more than some mythical Iranian A-Bomb. EVERYTHING what could slow down NATO development and encircling around Russia is very good and worth it in Russian generals book.

Chrom,

Somehow, I just don't think that's something a country with a strategic nuclear arsenal really worries about...

http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=55.462641,32.116747&z=6&t=h&hl=en

...especially when it's not possible for a NATO base to be 300km from Moscow. Unless you are suggesting NATO is going to establish this base on Russia proper.

Quiz: What's more mythical

1. Iranian A-bomb when it's been known that Iran has the materials, plans and relationship with two nuclear allies, A Khan and N Korea.

2. NATO base on Russian territory 300km from Moscow.nfloorl:

-DA

 

[stigmata]

Cities located close to Helsinki ... Current local times and distance from Helsinki .... Russia - Moscow *, Mon 11:28 PM, 898 km, 558 miles, 485 nm

Irrelevant data though, Russia has enuff nukes to wipe out NATO, and vice versa. The luckiest guys dies first.

 

[kato]

... and from North-Eastern Ukraine we're getting around 630 km.

 

[swerve]

... and from North-Eastern Ukraine we're getting around 630 km.

From the nearest point of Belarus, I think maybe 500 km, in a straight line. And that's the absolute minimum.

 

[Chrom]

Cities located close to Helsinki ... Current local times and distance from Helsinki .... Russia - Moscow *, Mon 11:28 PM, 898 km, 558 miles, 485 nm

Irrelevant data though, Russia has enuff nukes to wipe out NATO, and vice versa. The luckiest guys dies first.

Here is the surprise for you - Russia (and USA) also have some spare nukes to wipe out Iran. Tell us again, why Iranian nukes are more dangerous than USA, Chinese or Russian ones?

P.S. Ok, ok. Not 300 km from Moskow. But rather 0 km from Russian border, and extremely close from some major russian cities (St. Petersburg..). Either way, Iran is still much, much father and much less capable. Again, why Russia should fear nuclear Iran at even 1/10 rate of NATO or China?

 

[DarthAmerica]

Here is the surprise for you - Russia (and USA) also have some spare nukes to wipe out Iran. Tell us again, why Iranian nukes are more dangerous than USA, Chinese or Russian ones?

P.S. Ok, ok. Not 300 km from Moskow. But rather 0 km from Russian border, and extremely close from some major russian cities (St. Petersburg..). Either way, Iran is still much, much father and much less capable. Again, why Russia should fear nuclear Iran at even 1/10 rate of NATO or China?

Because the Iranians are not a part of the core nations who have all agreed to generally follow common sets of rules. The Iranians also have a very negative history with the Russians. That's on top of the fact that the Iranian government is not stable.

It's the same as giving a gun to a person pre-desposed to violent crime and drug use compared to a normal law abiding citizen. Denying this would be naive.

Also, nuclear weapons cause damage far out of proportion with conventional weapons of similar size. In 1991 Iraq launched over 80 SCUDs and about 38 of those at Israel. Of those 38 many landed near enough to populated areas that if they carried nuclear warheads Israeli would have been destroyed as we know it today. SCUDs landed near enough to US military facilities in the Persian Gulf that with nuclear payloads Operation Desert Storm would have been seriously disrupted. This disruption would have given time for the Iraqis to exploit. Granted the US and France probably would have obliterated Iraq in retaliation, the resulting economic and ecological damage would have had the kinds of global consequences I mentioned before. MAD only works when both sides buy into it. If not you still get the destruction no matter what you do in return.

Ballistic missiles have proven ability to saturate defenses. Nukes have a proven capability even i small yields to cause widespread irrecoverable destruction. This is a completely unacceptable situation. Especially for Israel and many Gulf states that don't have the strategic depth or population to withstand nuclear warfare.

-DA

 

[swerve]

...
P.S. Ok, ok. Not 300 km from Moskow. But rather 0 km from Russian border, and extremely close from some major russian cities (St. Petersburg..). ..

The problem with not wanting potential enemies on your borders is that to move them further away means extending your borders. Then you find a new potential enemy on the new border . . . Where to stop?

BTW, St. Petersburg was built where it is because it was near other countries. It was meant as a channel to the West, to open up Russia. You can't complain because that particular city is near the people it was built to be near to.

 

[Chrom]

Because the Iranians are not a part of the core nations who have all agreed to generally follow common sets of rules. The Iranians also have a very negative history with the Russians. That's on top of the fact that the Iranian government is not stable.

Hmm? I mean, WHAT rules ALL nuclear nations commonly agree to follow, and which of these rules Iran DONT want to follow? Please, explain it!

It's the same as giving a gun to a person pre-desposed to violent crime and drug use compared to a normal law abiding citizen. Denying this would be naive.

I dont see how Iranian government is worse in that regard than most other nuclear countries. Name me even 1 (one) deed what was exclusively done by Iranian goverment and wasnt done by, oh well, let it be USA government. See, i make it easy for you. Not Pakistan... not even China...

Also, nuclear weapons cause damage far out of proportion with conventional weapons of similar size. In 1991 Iraq launched over 80 SCUDs and about 38 of those at Israel. Of those 38 many landed near enough to populated areas that if they carried nuclear warheads Israeli would have been destroyed as we know it today. SCUDs landed near enough to US military facilities in the Persian Gulf that with nuclear payloads Operation Desert Storm would have been seriously disrupted. This disruption would have given time for the Iraqis to exploit. Granted the US and France probably would have obliterated Iraq in retaliation, the resulting economic and ecological damage would have had the kinds of global consequences I mentioned before. MAD only works when both sides buy into it. If not you still get the destruction no matter what you do in return.

Well, this is the whole purpose of nuclear weapon, MAD? I dont see all these dread things stopped other nuclear countries to acquire it.

Yes, i understand it. Guns are very dangerous. Mans with the guns should by all means prevent other peoples to acquire own guns... because, you know, guns in foreign hands - dangerous. Gun in own hand - good and secure.

Only problem, sooner or later such "rights management" usually lead to revolution and big blood.

Ballistic missiles have proven ability to saturate defenses. Nukes have a proven capability even i small yields to cause widespread irrecoverable destruction. This is a completely unacceptable situation. Especially for Israel and many Gulf states that don't have the strategic depth or population to withstand nuclear warfare.

-DA

Yes, i know. As i said, it is perfectly ok for Israel to threat anyone with nuclear weapon (even if unofficialy) , but god forbid any Israel's neighborhood to acquire same capabilities!

MAD, and only MAD can end current world madness with countless "peacekeeping" bombardments, constant bullying and blackmailing from stronger countries toward weaker. MAD stopped major world power post WW2 to go all crazy, MAD saved hundreds millions lives at very least.

The only alternative - is inventing and strictly enforcing so-called "international law". But so far most powerfull countries do everything in they power to NOT give up they "sovereignty" - means to give up they rights to bully weaker countries.

P.S. I see EU as very promising in that regard. Even by all double-standards they EU-wide laws application experience, it is still great example how different countries could give up a part of they sovereignty to actually build some form of common and enforceable "international law", even if only between EU countries.

 

[Grand Danois]

But you need thousands upon thousands of warheads to achieve MAD to be destructive and reliable enough. Less than a few hundred is limited deterrence. Limited deterrence ultimately doesn't deter MAD capable powers as the power with limited deterrence is deterred by total annihilation as opposed to holding a few targets at risk.