Iran Invasion soon ?

[Palnatoke]

Figures. One more reason to never vote for the idiot.

Can you imagine what would happen if he were elected president and acted based on the assumption that these fantasies of his were true?

p.s. What does f.ex. stand for. I googled it and the only translation that seemed to make sense in context was obscene, which I very much doubt is your intent.

If I could, I wouldn't vote for him

Sorry "F.ex." is danish for: , "ex." "e.g.", "i.e."
(for an example, or the like). my fault.

 

[Glimmerman]

Well now lets see.

I respect all warriors and their sacrifices.

War is not as glorius and fun as the movies and games make it to be specially if your on the ground or in a convoy waiting for an EFP to pop or not

That there will be a war with Iran.. or any other nation... deffinately, it's the history of the world and those that think they control it.

War and rumours of wars will always be with us untill the end of time, no peace in case you wondered. We all want peace but man cant institute it... we are too divided and there is too many that want to rule the world...

Iran is sowing seed from which they are going to reap, come hell or high water!

Many people point fingers at other nations and say : "evil, arrogant etc." but they are just as arrogant and evil as those they are pointing at.

Iran wants to destroy Israel, they cant and wont....
I know i'm saying a lot but war, i believe, is the issue here and the motives behind those that want it.

Not all those pushing for it is evil but still if one can avoid it, lets do so!

[Admin Edit: Lets learn to spell and follow forum rules and NO jabs at other countries when they are not even part of the topic!!! http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/rules.php ]

As i said it's easy to say war but fighting it is another ball game... precious blood is going to be spilt. It better be for a better cause than greed.

 

[surpreme]

The U.S. hasn't forgotten about the Iranian hostage ordeal. In the long run the U.S. already have plans draw up to hit Iran or create ideal situation where regime change will take place. The Iranians on the other hand has been planning to defend itself against the U.S. . The Iranians lack the technology they use other way to defend itself such as milllions of miltias. The U.S. will do sometime in the future it will hit Iran in some form whether airstrikes or covert operations. The U.S. just waiting for the right time to strike. Overall it going to happen. The Iranian know its going to happen just can't get modern aircrafts or air defense equipment to counter the U.S. airstrikes.

 

[STURM]

The U.S. hasn't forgotten about the Iranian hostage ordeal.

And the Iranians haven't forgotten that the U.S., and a whole list of other countries, supported Saddam during the Iran/Iraq war - they remained silent when he invaded and they later provided Saddam with political, financial and military support .

TThe U.S. will do sometime in the future it will hit Iran in some form whether airstrikes or covert operations.

What makes you think that covert actions have not been in place these past few years.
Cover actions could be in the form of aiding Iranian exiles, disinformation, the killing of people involved in the Iranian nuclear programme, etc.

The Iranians lack the technology they use other way to defend itself such as milllions of miltias.

The Iranian know its going to happen just can't get the right or modern aircrafts or air defense equipment to counter the U.S. airstrikes.

There are many ways in which the Iranians can cause trouble for the U.S. and its allies away from Iranian soil. Iranian retaliation can come in the form of nuisance attacks on Israel by Hezbollah, increased support for Syria [which was the only Arab country to back Iran during the 8 year war], asymmetric attacks on shipping in the Gulf and maybe even stirring up trouble in Afghanistan, where it has some influence. The question is how many air attacks is Israel or the U.S. willing to launch on Iran, if these air attacks will produce the desired results and what the overall consequences will be? What will the U.S. and Israel do next if even after a number of devastating air attacks, intel comes in that the Iranians are still active in trying to develop nukes?

Certain quarters have argued that instead of using military means to deal with an alleged Iranian nuke weapons programme, which may or may not exist, perhaps certain countries should use it in places where it is needed, like Syria.

 

[PCShogun]

And the Iranians haven't forgotten that the U.S., and a whole list of other countries, supported Saddam during the Iran/Iraq war - they remained silent when he invaded and they later provided Saddam with political, financial and military support

No, but they seem to have forgotten that Israel DID support Iran during this war, selling nearly 750 million USD worth of weapons to Iran. Sure, it was likely in Israels interest to keep the war going for as long as possible, but it may well have prevented an Iranian defeat and did contribute to the stalemate that eventually ended it.

What makes you think that covert actions have not been in place these past few years. Cover actions could be in the form of aiding Iranian exiles, disinformation, the killing of people involved in the Iranian nuclear programme, etc.

You are correct here. I have little doubt that this has been occurring. The deaths of the Iranian scientists is a good indicator of this.

There are many ways in which the Iranians can cause trouble for the U.S. and its allies away from Iranian soil. Iranian retaliation can come in the form of nuisance attacks on Israel by Hezbollah, increased support for Syria [which was the only Arab country to back Iran during the 8 year war], asymmetric attacks on shipping in the Gulf and maybe even stirring up trouble in Afghanistan, where it has some influence. The question is how many air attacks is Israel or the U.S. willing to launch on Iran, if these air attacks will produce the desired results and what the overall consequences will be? What will the U.S. and Israel do next if even after a number of devastating air attacks, intel comes in that the Iranians are still active in trying to develop nukes?

Certain quarters have argued that instead of using military means to deal with an alleged Iranian nuke weapons programme, which may or may not exist, perhaps certain countries should use it in places where it is needed, like Syria.

There is no doubt that Iran could harass U.S. and Israeli interests in the region, however, I believe most would consider that an acceptable risk over the possibility of a nuclear armed Iran. Most Western sources would agree that this is not going to be a simply raid like those at the Osirak nuclear reactor in Iraq or the suspected Syrian reactor in the Deir ez-Zor region. To stop the Iranian program, the Iranian economy would almost be required to be seen as a target. The Iranian military would be hit to prevent sorties into the Gulf and disrupting the oil shipments and incursions into Iraq and / or Afghanistan, and missile attacks against the other Arabian oil producers, and Israel; and the Iranian oil facilities would likely be hit to reduce Iran's ability to recover from the attacks quickly.

Currently, I do not see Syria getting involved until its own internal troubles are brought under control.

 

[STURM]

No, but they seem to have forgotten that Israel DID support Iran during this war, selling nearly 750 million USD worth of weapons to Iran. Sure, it was likely in Israels interest to keep the war going for as long as possible, but it may well have prevented an Iranian defeat and did contribute to the stalemate that eventually ended it.

Very true but the Iranians wouldn't be the first to have selective memory when it suits them. It is questionable if the Phantom spares parts, Uzis, TOWs and Hawks that Israel provided [at hugely inflated prices ] prevented an Iranian defeat. The fact that Iran didn't collapse I think can be laid down to a number of factors and off course 'help' received from Israel played a part. Israeli 'help' to Iran also paled in comparison to the 'help' given to Iraq by Egypt, the Gulf States, China, Russia and numerous European countries.It was in everyone's interest to keep the war going as long as it did not spill over to other countries and effect the global economy. The point I was trying to make is that the Iranians have a lot of grievances that they haven't forgotten about and like other countries, have also concerns and interests to watch out for.

Hopefully common sense will prevail and some sort of deal - that will take into account Iranian interests can be worked out. There are many ways in which the U.S. could benefit from improved ties with Iran and vice versa.

You are correct here. I have little doubt that this has been occurring. The deaths of the Iranian scientists is a good indicator of this.

There was also a reported attempt by a foreign country at infecting Iranian computer networks with a virus. The killing of the scientists actually started 2-3 years ago, but has become more widespread recently. Then there is the Iranian Sunni group that has launched attacks on Iranians targets, and which Iran claims is receiving outside official help. The Iranians on the other hand are active in Iraq and Afghanistan as they see themselves as the protector of all shiites and have key interests there and they have been accused of Saudi Arabia and Bahrain of meddling in the internal affairs of these countries.

 

[lucinator]

Yes but that would be counter productive, would lead to a retaliatory strike against Iran, and would be against the main agenda of the Iranian government - regime survival. It was the Shah who first conceived the idea of having nukes as part of his plan to make Iran a regional power and alongside Israel, a Cold War strategic partner of the U.S. The mullahs when they came to power shelved the programme because it was ''un-Islamic'' and only reluctantly revived it at the urging of the military when things started to go very bad with Iraq.

Though that still does not take into account the possibility of a accidental war, one which is caused by a miscalculation of one side or another, that could lead to a nuclear exchange, the more countries that have nukes the higher the probability of something like this happening. It and other close calls have happened at least four times to my knowledge during the cold war, between the US and the USSR, and those countries have extensive safety measures in place, now imagine five+ countries in the middle east with nukes, the odds greatly increase.

There is a greater possibility of that happening in Pakistan than in Iran. Though the Pakistani military has full control of its nukes, there is always the possibility of things getting worse in the country and ''jihadist'' elements getting hold of a nuke. Personally, I think that there is more danger and much, much greater possibility of things rapidly getting out of control between India and Pakistan - over Kashmir or something else - leading to a war and the possibility of nukes being used, than in the Middle East. In 1999, at the height of the Kargil war, Pakistan made clear that if India crossed into it's border, Pakistan was more than willing to use nukes on its own territory. And in 2002, both sides came very close to war.

This is exactly why we (most of the world) don't want Iran with a nuke, Lets look at the history of this conflict, India gets the bomb, Pakistan is scared shitless, They work hard to get the Bomb, they steal nuclear centrifuge tech and get the bomb in 1997, India ramps up production of its nuclear arsenal, Pakistan and India now both produce dozens of warheads a year with no sign of slowing down. Pakistan then sells its nuclear know how to Iran, Libya, Syria, North Korea, and Myanmar. Now lets imagine all this happens with several unstable states in the middle east. So yeah Pakistan with the bomb is a nightmare, that doesn't mean we need to go and encourage the situation elsewhere, as you stated we have enough to worry about with Pakistan and India.

PSakistan's military has unreliable control over its nuclear arsenal, since it doesn't use the safeguards most countries do to prevent accidental launching theoretically a rouge officer could launch their missiles, or sell them.

 

[Beatmaster]

Though that still does not take into account the possibility of a accidental war, one which is caused by a miscalculation of one side or another, that could lead to a nuclear exchange, the more countries that have nukes the higher the probability of something like this happening. It and other close calls have happened at least four times to my knowledge during the cold war, between the US and the USSR, and those countries have extensive safety measures in place, now imagine five+ countries in the middle east with nukes, the odds greatly increase.



This is exactly why we (most of the world) don't want Iran with a nuke, Lets look at the history of this conflict, India gets the bomb, Pakistan is scared shitless, They work hard to get the Bomb, they steal nuclear centrifuge tech and get the bomb in 1997, India ramps up production of its nuclear arsenal, Pakistan and India now both produce dozens of warheads a year with no sign of slowing down. Pakistan then sells its nuclear know how to Iran, Libya, Syria, North Korea, and Myanmar. Now lets imagine all this happens with several unstable states in the middle east. So yeah Pakistan with the bomb is a nightmare, that doesn't mean we need to go and encourage the situation elsewhere, as you stated we have enough to worry about with Pakistan and India.

PSakistan's military has unreliable control over its nuclear arsenal, since it doesn't use the safeguards most countries do to prevent accidental launching theoretically a rouge officer could launch their missiles, or sell them.

This might be true, however Pakistan is a unstable region but that does not mean they have "bad"control over their arsenal.
Sure security can be improved and this is being done:
The Pentagon's Secret Plans to Secure Pakistan's Nuclear Arsenal | Global Security Newswire | NTI

Keep in mind the US did not have their arsenal secure without trail and error it took a long time for the US to ensure a fail save system for their nukes.
In the US history there have been loads of errors and near launches just because their system glitches as has been pointed out in numerous discovery and other tv programs.
In short said there is always a serious risk that something goes wrong.
Imagine that a computer or sat detects a launch and mistakes it for a nuke...this has happened in the past and i am sure similar things can happen again.
So claiming that Pakistanis control over its nukes is crappy is just not true.
They have a lot of problems and they have serious instability issues but i am VERY sure that the leadership will NOT allow their nukes to be compromised.
Personally i have to say that it troubles me just as much to see the US having Nukes as well as it does that the Chinese, Russians and all other nations have them.
And as long the 3 major powers US, Russia and China (Not counting France, UK and others) do not come to a full agreement to totally disband their nuke piles they cannot demand that a other nation does not get them.
Sure if Germany gets a nuke or any other reliable and solid nation then its a whole different ball game then having some rogue nation with dictator regime get one..i understand that and i also understand that the aim is to stop all nukes.
Fact remains that every nation can build one because the other nation still have them....its a circle that goes round and round.
And its my firm believe that Nukes will remain active (maybe in much smaller numbers) but the major powers will always keep a few around....
As it adds greatly to for example diplomatic power.
Imo the US would not be able to play its role it is playing today without the backup of its nuke subs and silos.
And how weard this might sound but the fear of nukes and the dangers from it are also its biggest security and fail save.
As launching them will mean mutual destruction so technically speaking nukes contribute greatly to stability and security...one way or another.


In regards to the US invading Iran i do not see that happen anytime soon, however the option is there as a last resort.
According to the news Israel has a credible plan to execute military actions against Iran if it comes to it and the US will back that 100%.

However if for whatever reason things go out of hand and personally i do believe that if Israel hits Iran that Iran will fight back with Rockets and medium range missiles.
Short said it will force the US into war one way or another (Small or massive scale it does not matter)
So are there plans to invade Iran ...not really
Are there preparations to make a large scale military action possible? I think yes.

Maybe i say this wrong but the Israeli government even make a plan to go to the toilet and i am sure they are on top of this and i am very sure that they can surgical strike Iran at any time at any moment and do it with succes.
However i have to say that Iran does have the endurance to overcome a attack by Israel.

In the Iraq war it has been shown how resilient Iran can be it also have been shown that even with the low tech they can be effective and can achieve strategic goals.
Israel on the other hand does not have that resilience.
A few medium range missiles targeting the capital will destroy Israeli economy and will disrupt the nation greatly.

A few days ago there was a documentary on the dutch TV where they interviewed some very known and high placed people including officers and pilots who did the raid on Iraq and Syria.
They ain't afraid for the attack itself and the outcome...they say its simple Israel will win that attack and achieve its goals and there is ZIPPO that Iran can do about it.
However the window of attack closes as Iran's installations are getting better protected by the day.
So it might take 2 or 3 years before Iran could make a bomb however to stop the program itself you have to make sure you can hit the targets in the first place and thats a real issue since the layers of protection grow day by day so sooner or later Iran will be having immunity against Israeli conventional arsenal.

Another thing is: The US wants to stop Iran from getting a bomb, Israel however wants to avoid that Iran gets nuclear tech in the first place which is a HUGE difference.

So the so called red line or point of no return for Israel is much closer then that of the US.

Anyway as has been said on the TV by the end of 2012 (Or even sooner) Iran will enter the immunity zone where Israels arsenal cannot harm the installations anymore and thats exactly why Israel pushes so much to get the international community to stop Iran or Israel will be forced to make the hit.
And they will get the job done, HOWEVER those interviewed officers and ex officers said that after the attack the real problem starts.
You can bomb Iran all day and they will survive, however you drop a dozen missiles on key points and cities in Israel and its all over.....

And thats the points when the US will be forced to jump in.
Simply said Israel its armed forces are superior to Iran however the size of Iran is its biggest ally as Israel alone cannot finish what it starts.
Specially with all those hardcore rebel groups in Gaza and Palestinian breathing down their necks.
And a attack upon the installations of Iran will activate every rebel group in the region to come down on Israel.

That is nearly literally what has been said during that documentary from netwerk or nova if i am not mistaken.

So technical speaking we already know upfront that the US must have serious plans in terms of military actions against Iran or even full scale invasion plans.
Because the US military knows exactly that if Israel makes the hit that the US must and will jump in.
Thats exactly what Obama said after the last meeting between him and the Israeli minister.
I quote: We will have Israels back always....

On a personal note: Its not always the strongest who prevail and its not always that the weakest lose.
Its a matter of variables and opportunities to determine of a victorious outcome is possible and to be honest Iran is one of those nations you can bomb back to the stone age and still they will be able to recover and to put up a fight.
The middle east has thousands of years of violence its in their culture and regardless the outcome of those many many wars that have been fought in the middle east the region always recovered and played a prominent role in history and remain to do so.
And thats exactly the point with Iran its size and its vast resources and its large population will ensure that Iran cannot be taken down that easy.

Even the US with all its might cannot just walking into Iran and win a war.
Its just not that simple.
If Iran wants a bomb then they will get it sooner or later, its the question what prize are they willing to pay to achieve that goal, and what effort is the international community willing to bring in to stop it?
And in those odds it favoures Iran greatly...

 

[STURM]

Though that still does not take into account the possibility of a accidental war, one which is caused by a miscalculation of one side or another, that could lead to a nuclear exchange, the more countries that have nukes the higher the probability of something like this happening. It and other close calls have happened at least four times to my knowledge during the cold war, between the US and the USSR, and those countries have extensive safety measures in place, now imagine five+ countries in the middle east with nukes, the odds greatly increase.

That may be very true but I would argue that the real reason the U.S. and Israel don't want Iran to get a bomb is largely due to the fact that both countries want to ensure continued military hegemony in the region. The last thing they want is a 'newcomer' to upset the balance. With regards to an accidental discharge of nukes or nukes getting into the hands of terrorists [which the establishment press always reminds us of] - the chances are much higher in Pakistan than in Iran. The whole issue IMO is also a smokescreen, as a much weakened Iran will result in changes in Syria, Iraq and Lebanon, to the advantage of the U.S. and Israel. Your concerns about an 'accidental' war could also apply to Israel - we tend to forget that unlike Iran, Israel has a fully developed nukes capability , the only difference is that we're not allowed to place it under scrutiny.

Now lets imagine all this happens with several unstable states in the middle east.

Which other 'unstable states' in the Middle East can afford a bomb or acquire the technology and which of them want to? The only states in the Middle East, apart from Iran, that can afford a bomb are strategic allies of the U.S. like Saudi Arabia. And if Saudi Arabia started a nukes programme the U.S. would be in a much better position to gather intel about it and would have much more leverage over the Saudi Arabian government to take steps to put a stop to it. And Saudi does not need a bomb because the U.S. guarantees it's security.

 

[Beatmaster]

That may be very true but I would argue that the real reason the U.S. and Israel don't want Iran to get a bomb is largely due to the fact that both countries want to ensure continued military hegemony in the region. The last thing they want is a 'newcomer' to upset the balance. With regards to an accidental discharge of nukes or nukes getting into the hands of terrorists [which the establishment press always reminds us of] - the chances are much higher in Pakistan than in Iran. The whole issue IMO is also a smokescreen, as a much weakened Iran will result in changes in Syria, Iraq and Lebanon, to the advantage of the U.S. and Israel. And an 'accidental' war could also apply to Israel.........



Which other 'unstable states' in the Middle East can afford a bomb or acquire the technology and which of them want to? The only states in the Middle East, apart from Iran, that can afford a bomb are strategic allies of the U.S. like Saudi Arabia. And if Saudi Arabia started a nukes programme the U.S. would be in a much better position to gather intel about it and would have much more leverage over the Saudi Arabian government to take steps to put a stop to it. And Saudi does not need a bomb because the U.S. guarantees it's security.

US Guarantees security? May i remind you that with all the US efforts to improve security it has made the middle east a flaming hot spot?
I do not want to sound as a anti US speaker, but at this very point its the US who is meddling in foreign affairs, its the US who places doubts upon everyone and its the US who takes one military action after another.
Regardless what reasons are behind those actions but fact remains that the US is somewhat forcing its will upon the rest of the world.
Now i know this sound weard but i do not know how to put it otherwise but i was not trying to make the US look bad...
How would the US feel if they are surrounded by 40 bases? because thats the other side of the medal.
We all can say about Iran what we think however they are surrounded by 40 US bases spread trough out the region.
So one could say that they are being forced to take it to the next level.
The so called balance in the world is dictated for a large part due nuclear weapons.
Remember the Cuba crisis? At that point Russian power did equal the US and some might say even surpassed it.....the US where scared shitless to have Russian assets in their backyard tuning in to their rock and roll.....

But the US now has over a 100 bases in direct striking range of Russia....

See the moral issue?
It took the US almost a third world war to force Russia to redraw its assets.
So one could say that the world might have legit reasons to see the US a a treat....

What would happen if the US would have a 100 bases directly in striking range of their mainland? Ill bet they would feel real humble and small at that point.

Keep in mind we have one world...and we can only screw it up ones, and if we do so its not 1 person that is getting into trouble but we ALL will.
So imo the US is playing a very very dangerous game here and i do not care about the motives behind it...but it needs to be said.

Ask yourself the question would the US play the same role as they play the past 30 years if they would not have the second biggest arsenal in the world?
I have not seen the US intervene in a nuclear state.....
The whole military structure in the US is build upon the safety of having nukes.
Without them the US would be no where near the policing role they play now.
Infact if everyone has nukes then the same diplomatic pressure the US uses against "security risks to the US" would destroy their own economy and security.
Its pretty simple if Russia makes a point or China then the US might try something but eventually they just have to swallow it.
But if a NON nuclear nation makes a point then the US is stubborn and will and can stop it, if its their own interest.
So on one hand the US wants the nukes out of the world, but at the same time they are using the diplomatic benefits that come from being such a power.
Thats double standards.
Same goes for military actions the US would not dare to intervene in hypothetical a Russian serious problem...because they know that whatever they bring in they will be served with in return.

Its almost like i got the bomb shut up and do what i say because you don't have one.
And against a other nuclear state: Sure go ahead help yourself we do not want to get into a fight with you.....

Simple fact as long the major powers have nuclear weapons the other nations will eventually want one to.
Just to be able to play on the same level.
90% of all the bold actions and diplomatic issues the US has ever played was backed by their nuke arsenal as without it, most of these diplomatic efforts would fail.
And the more nations get nukes (regardless if they keep them safe or not) the less the US and some western nations can dominate the world politics.
Infact it could hypothetical make Liechtenstein its voice as one of the smallest nations on earth just as hard and clear as the US has its voice today.
Do not get me wrong but thats just the dark side of the medal.

And again let me say this clear and loud....I do not want to defend the "bad" and i do not want to defend the "good" i just want to voice that unspoken part...in a open way without offending someone.

 

[STURM]

Oh I agree, you don't have to remind me anything, just look at all my previous posts. I have always maintained the the problem with Iran is that we mostly view it from a Western or Israeli centric lens, without taking into account Iranian interests and the way they view things. There is talk about the security of Israel and the U.S.'s friends, what about other countries? But ultimately, countries will always act in their interests, regardless of the hypocrisy involved or whether it's contrary to what they preach. As for security guarantees, Saudi Arabia, like other Gulf states, is under the 'protection' of the U.S. Any threat to the survival of these countries will lead to a U.S. response - that is what I meant.

[Mod Edit]A gentle reminder: if replying to the immediately preceding post, there's no need to quote it in full, & often no need to quote it at all..

In general, one can usually snip large posts when replying to them. Think of the bandwidth!

Don't take this personally, Sturm. There are plenty of culprits, & I picked your post more or less at random[/Mod edit]

 

[My2Cents]

Which other 'unstable states' in the Middle East can afford a bomb or acquire the technology and which of them want to? The only states in the Middle East, apart from Iran, that can afford a bomb are strategic allies of the U.S. like Saudi Arabia. And if Saudi Arabia started a nukes programme the U.S. would be in a much better position to gather intel about it and would have much more leverage over the Saudi Arabian government to take steps to put a stop to it. And Saudi does not need a bomb because the U.S. guarantees it's security.

Actually the US would have very little leverage over the Saudi, Iraqi, Kuwaiti, Qatar, Oman, and UAE governments at that point, particularly as US guarantees without US troops on the ground in those countries are unlikely to be believed. So you would shortly have 7 nuclear armed states in the Middle East, not one. But I doubt that they will each set up their own nuclear programs, they would just buy nuclear warheads, and the missiles to deliver them (for which they have been partially funding the development of), from Pakistan instead.

 

[My2Cents]

How would the US feel if they are surrounded by 40 bases? because thats the other side of the medal.
We all can say about Iran what we think however they are surrounded by 40 US bases spread trough out the region.
So one could say that they are being forced to take it to the next level.
The so called balance in the world is dictated for a large part due nuclear weapons.
Remember the Cuba crisis? At that point Russian power did equal the US and some might say even surpassed it.....the US where scared shitless to have Russian assets in their backyard tuning in to their rock and roll.....

But the US now has over a 100 bases in direct striking range of Russia....

40 US bases around Iraq? What are you counting, every firebase in Afghanistan?

100 US bases around Russia, that’s close to, possibly more than, than the total official count of US bases worldwide?

 

[Beatmaster]

40 US bases around Iraq? What are you counting, every firebase in Afghanistan?

100 US bases around Russia, that’s close to, possibly more than, than the total official count of US bases worldwide?

What i mean with bases is US military assets in general.
That does not necessarily mean a full blown base itself.

I know the numbers are a bit high, however non the less there is not a single nation out there that has so many troops and hardware stationed on foreign soil.
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_military_bases"]List of United States military bases - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Regardless what the reason is behind all those deployments and short/long term bases & assets.
It might be seen by a foreign nation as a credible danger to their security.
Because as Sturm has pointed out we always look from a Western/US point of view and how we understand things in a way we feel comfortable with, but that does not mean that other nations are automatically comfortable with it.

Just saying the truth is ugly enough...
And we life in a world where you have hundreds of cultures and so many different people.
Ones his/her view on security and stability might not be the same view shared by the other.
But that does not mean that side A or side B is wrong just because visions and idea's do not match.

 

[Beatmaster]

Actually the US would have very little leverage over the Saudi, Iraqi, Kuwaiti, Qatar, Oman, and UAE governments at that point, particularly as US guarantees without US troops on the ground in those countries are unlikely to be believed. So you would shortly have 7 nuclear armed states in the Middle East, not one. But I doubt that they will each set up their own nuclear programs, they would just buy nuclear warheads, and the missiles to deliver them (for which they have been partially funding the development of), from Pakistan instead.

Btw was it not the Saudi who where accused of funding the Iraq program?
Also if my memory serves me well then both Pakistan and the US have helped the Saudi to build up a civilian nuclear program.
With Iran trying to get nuclear tech its reasonable to assume that the Saudi will try to get it as well specially with Israel also being a nuclear power.

However i personally believe that nukes should be banned however i fail to believe that a nation developing nuclear assets would automatically be bad.
Obviously corruption, stability and internal problems will play a really serious role in the security of WMD assets.
I am just saying there are loads and loads of nations out there who could handle the responsibility to have and secure WMD's.
And if such a nation is subject to internal problems like we see in Pakistan and India then i still believe that such nation would do whatever it can to assign their elite forces to protect their assets.
Sure i can see a rouge or bought officer smuggle vital tech and hardware this has happened and will happen again both in the US history as well as the rest of the world.
But again a nation that seriously wants nuclear tech, is probably going to be very serious as well in regards of securing its assets.
In the past there have been bigger security issues in regards to nukes, or tech / components and resources then we see today in Pakistan, India and in the future perhaps Iran.....

Remember those Russian soldiers who smuggled weapons grade plutonium to the black market?
Or what about those Chinese mafia guys? not to mention the problems in the past that US did have...

Back then the world was NOT being as harsh to the involved nations either.
So imo it would be nice if the US would play a lower tone on their fiddle..

It just feels wrong to automatically assume that a nation like Saudi, Pakistan, India or any nation in that regard would do a bad job in securing their stuff.
Its like this: They ain't going to give up their weapons its that simple...they have to much at stake like it or not its just a fact.

And being deeply hostile and suspicious to each other is not helping either.
The US needs to just talk to nations in good faith until proven otherwise and stop to stir in about 50 smaller countries with their own agendas on each side.
It just bad politics personally i call it panic politics.
IMO Suspicious behavior and the ever increasing need to know is a bigger danger to global security itself.
You cannot demand transparency and open agenda's while pulling up a smoke screen yourself.
Have a bit of faith and trust because if you cannot grant the other that little respect then you cannot demand to receive it either.
And this bit of critic is not just a US issue but this is a global issue.
People should just see eye to eye and talk openly without trying to get the best out of it.
Specially with nuclear weapons in mind....you just do not have that luxury to demand stuff as it affects so many people and so many things...its not a ball game or a game of chess.

 

[My2Cents]

Remember those Russian soldiers who smuggled weapons grade plutonium to the black market?
Or what about those Chinese mafia guys? not to mention the problems in the past that US did have...

Would you happen to have any confirmed sources on one of those. Every time I trace one down it turns out to either be milligram amounts or someone running a con game on the buyer. nfloorl:

 

[STURM]

swerve,

Apologies. You're right there was no need to quote it in full.

Would you happen to have any confirmed sources on one of those. Every time I trace one down it turns out to either be milligram amounts or someone running a con game on the buyer. nfloorl:

If I'm not mistaken, ''One Point Safe' by Andrew and Leslie Cockburn mentions attempts to smuggle out such stuff. The book also mentions the Americans flying out uranium from Kazakstan, narrowly beating the Iranians, who were already in country, to it.

 

[My2Cents]

If I'm not mistaken, ''One Point Safe' by Andrew and Leslie Cockburn mentions attempts to smuggle out such stuff. The book also mentions the Americans flying out uranium from Kazakstan, narrowly beating the Iranians, who were already in country, to it.

So lots of 'might have beens', but no actual cases of usable amounts of fissionable being actually offered for sale yet. What I expected.

 

[Beatmaster]

So lots of 'might have beens', but no actual cases of usable amounts of fissionable being actually offered for sale yet. What I expected.

Actually its not "might have beens"
Last year there was a discovery program where they stated that world wide there is over 200 kilos of weapons grade plutonium missing since the 70's.
The found alot of kilo's back but they still miss over 200kg.
Keep in mind that the actual stockpile of weapons grade uranium and plutonium is well documented.
However after the break up of the sov union it was open season for smugglers as the largest arsenal on the world did become accessible to the world.
The USSR did make sure that "live" assets remain save however their older stuff and uranium, plutonium stockpiles and hideouts where basically a drive by shop..(Bit harsh but mostly true.)
But the danger factor not really comes from the stolen resources, but the biggest danger comes from the "stolen knowledge and bought brains"
After the collapse alot if very skilled people where bought by big money.

As has been pointed out in the past, stealing resources is a BIG danger however its relative harmless as you still need the people who can turn it into a weapon.
But while the USSR was collapsing the world biggest think tank did become available to the highest bitter.
And the Khan network did have a big part in it as mister Khan did have connections from east to west.
So now you do not have only smuggling but also people who know what to do with it.
Also various other science related magazines and other organizations have reported their findings after years of investigation.
Another source is wiki leaks which has proven beyond the doubt factor that from South African program, up to the Pakistan program to the Russian, Chinese and US arsenal so to speak world wide, there have been nuclear trafficking from stolen and bought assets.
One key figure was a Ukrainian colonel who shipped multiple kilo's from Russian territory trough Georgian territory to the middle east.
The guy got caught eventually but they never managed to locate the missing kilo's.
Also the Khan network has been accused of spreading and selling ready to go packages to the highest bitter.

Anyway i do not recall how the discovery program is called, but both CIA, KGB and other Intel organizations have been interviewed in this program.

Here a link that relates to the program itself:
HowStuffWorks "How easy is it to steal a nuclear bomb?"

Also both the Chinese, Russian, Pakistani, Indian and other nations who have Nuclear tech have reported hundreds of attempts to actual steal vital assets.

Another source:
Information on Nuclear Smuggling Incidents | atomicarchive.com

I am sure that if you digg deeper on the net that you will find more...
Anyway long story short there is way more to it then just "might have beens"
As been reported by international studies and other reports.
Infact the CIA, British Intel and Israeli Mosad have made great effort in tracking smuggling and operations.
What did strike me the most is that it was so incredible easy to get away with it.

One guy worked on a Murmansk shipyard and they where unloading subs of their content before sending them to the scrap yard, and ordinary people like you an me where able to smuggle 50/100 grams of plutonium and nuclear related stuff out for years on end....

Trafficking in radioactive and nuclear materials

Information reported to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) shows "a persistent problem with the illicit trafficking in nuclear and other radioactive materials, thefts, losses and other unauthorized activities".

From 1993 to 2006, the IAEA confirmed 1080 illicit trafficking incidents reported by participating countries. Of the 1080 confirmed incidents, 275 incidents involved unauthorized possession and related criminal activity, 332 incidents involved theft or loss of nuclear or other radioactive materials, 398 incidents involved other unauthorized activities, and in 75 incidents the reported information was not sufficient to determine the category of incident. Several hundred additional incidents have been reported in various open sources, but are not yet confirmed.
http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/features/radsources/pdf/fact_figures2006.pdf

Anyway regardless if the activity was successful or not fact remains that only the key figures know how deep this goes and what is actually proven and what not.
But its save to say that there is way more then meets the eye.
Keep in mind this are known numbers....and what about the not yet published? or discovered activities?
If only 10% of the mentioned incidents would have been successful (As till this day alot of incidents are known and proven but never solved)
Then this means that the amount available on the black market related networks is HUGE.
And its obviously that worldwide governments and Intel organizations are not very eager to publish true hard numbers and facts.
Keep in mind secret (regardless if compromised or not) remains secret, and i am sure that a lot of cases have been solved without making it to the history books....

 

[NICO]

Information Dissemination: Preparing for War

It seems that US is sending some more mine hunters,helicopters,etc to the region. Also plenty of rumors that more units are being called up to go the Middle east. Don't know if true or not.