Iran War - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-06-2006, 11:12 AM   #1
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,472
Local Time: 04:05 PM
Iran War

is it coming?



[q]U.S. Officials Are Mulling Iran Strikes, Experts Say
Plans Stepped Up as Tehran Tests Weapons
By MARC PERELMAN
April 7, 2006

Key players in the Bush administration think a military confrontation with Iran is an unavoidable, leading to stepped up military planning for such a prospect, according to several experts and recently departed senior government officials.

Some of these observers stressed that military strikes against Iran are not imminent and speculated that the escalated war chatter could be a deliberate ploy to ratchet up diplomatic pressure on Tehran to abandon its nuclear ambitions. Still, they made clear, the tone in Washington has changed drastically.

"In recent months I have grown increasingly concerned that the administration has been giving thought to a heavy dose of air strikes against Iran's nuclear sector without giving enough weight to the possible ramifications of such action," said Wayne White, a former deputy director at the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research. White, who worked in the bureau's Office of Analysis for the Near East and South Asia, left government in early 2005 and is now an adjunct scholar at the Middle East Institute.

Several experts and former officials interviewed by the Forward pointed to Vice President Dick Cheney as one of the key figures who has concluded that the ongoing diplomatic efforts to bring Iran before the United Nations Security Council and eventually slap the Islamic regime with sanctions will come to naught, forcing Washington to resort to force to prevent Tehran from developing nuclear weapons.

http://www.forward.com/articles/7616

[/q]



is this a good idea?

is this even possible?
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 04-06-2006, 11:21 AM   #2
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Justin24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Mateo
Posts: 6,716
Local Time: 02:05 PM
If the Bush Admin. Does this he better take all the troops out of Iraq and have them ready for Iran. Other wise we might see that draft that everyone wants to avoid, unless he has some plan that would allow illegal immigrants get citizenship if they send their sons or daughters to war.
__________________

__________________
Justin24 is offline  
Old 04-06-2006, 01:07 PM   #3
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:05 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Justin24
If the Bush Admin. Does this he better take all the troops out of Iraq and have them ready for Iran. Other wise we might see that draft that everyone wants to avoid, unless he has some plan that would allow illegal immigrants get citizenship if they send their sons or daughters to war.
We need to remember that the United States has 2.7 million men and women on active duty and in the reserves through all the branches of the armed forces. The current force level in Iraq is 138,000, less than 10% of the active duty total and less than 5% of the over all total.

But it is true that many of the 2.7 million people in the active and reserve components are in branches that would not deploy inside Iraq in large numbers such as the Air Force and Navy, or are in non-deployable units in the Army and Marine Corp.

What is really relevant is the number of ground combat Brigades that the Army, National Guard, and Marine Corp have in total available for deployment.

The Active Army has a total of 34 combat Brigades. The National Guard has 38 combat Brigades. The Marine Corp has the equivalent of 16 combat Brigades. Total of 88 combat Brigades.

Current deployment around the world is as follows:

Iraq 17 Brigades

Afghanistan 4 Brigades

Okinawa 4 Brigades

South Korea 1 Brigade

Bosnia and Kosovo 1 Brigade

Total deployment around the world is 27 combat brigades leaving 61 combat brigades in the United States or normal peacetime stations in Europe.

The only problem is that any long term deployment to Iran could require a similar number of combat Brigades currently deployed in Iraq if not more, plus just as many to replace them after 1 year of deployment there. The deployed 27 Brigades must be replaced by fresh brigades in a year. This means at a minimum, 54 Brigades are tied up with current deployments, either resting waiting for redeployment or deployed. So, there are just enough combat Brigades left for a longterm 17 Brigade deployment to Iran, with a further 17 Brigades to rotate in after they have been deployed for a year. 54 +34 is 88.

More troops could be deployed to any of these area's if the one year rotation was done away with and troops were deployed for longer indefinite periods of time. If the situation warrented it, all 88 combat Brigades could be deployed for an indefinite period of time. But after a year of full deployment to a combat zone, a Brigades strength can start to slowly erode for a variety of different factors. Still, durring World War II, most Combat Units deployed overseas stayed overseas until the end of the war.



As for the possibility of airstrikes against Iran's nuclear facilities, this is easily possible. Very little of the United States Airpower is currently involved with missions in Iraq. Do to the nature of combat in Iraq, airstrikes are rarely used compared to the actual war to remove Saddam from power. The United States has bases all around the middle east and South Asia where aircraft can be stationed and used in strikes on Iran. In addition, the United States has plenty of Cruise Missiles, none of which are being used in Iraq, and could be used against Iran.

Strikes with just Cruise Missiles would be easier because there would be no need to take down Iran's air defense network. But any large scale airstrikes with aircraft would require that Iran's Air Defense network be destroyed which could take a few days. A few more days would likely be required to hit all of Iran's known nuclear facilities or possible facilities since they are spread out over the entire country.

Much damage could be done to Iran in such airstrikes, but it is unknown how much of Iran's nuclear capabilities could be destroyed in such airstrikes since it is unknown how large and extensive their program really is or precisely where everything is located. In addition, Iran no doubt has prepared for this and has built many facilities that are simply decoy's for the real thing.

The problem with Airstrikes it that their effect could be very temporary because any damage that is done, could eventually be repaired, unless Airstrikes continued indefinitely.

The only 100% way to remove the threat would be through regime change brought about by a military invasion of Iran. At the same time, one should remember that Iran has not behaved the way that Saddam's Iraq has in the past. They have never used WMD, they have not launched any unprovoked invasions of other countries, and their capabilities to do so are very limited compared to Saddam's capabilities just prior to his removal.

Any thought of invading Iran would have to consider the level of the threat vs. the cost of removing the threat in that way. Because regime change through invasion is likely unneccessary given the current threat as well as the cost, this is an unlikely option at the current time. Airstrikes are a less costly option, but are only a temporary solution for a few years. There is opposition in Iran to the current government, and military action could damage their strength. At the same time, such opposition is not likely to be in a strong position for years to come.

Ultimately, I think the Administration in regard to the question of military action is going to hand this off to the next administration.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-06-2006, 01:09 PM   #4
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2democrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: England by way of 'Murica.
Posts: 22,140
Local Time: 09:05 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Ultimately, I think the Administration in regard to the question of military action is going to hand this off to the next administration.
I think so too.
__________________
U2democrat is offline  
Old 04-06-2006, 01:21 PM   #5
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 09:05 PM
I also think they'll wait until the next Administration.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 04-06-2006, 05:36 PM   #6
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 07:05 AM
I think that it is too late to do anything to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons, this administration lacks the will to win decicively
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 04-07-2006, 12:52 PM   #7
Refugee
 
AliEnvy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 2,320
Local Time: 09:05 PM
Because they know they CAN'T win decisively. All they can do is attempt to keep an upper hand in the treaty agreement, whatever that ends up looking like.
__________________
AliEnvy is offline  
Old 04-07-2006, 01:10 PM   #8
New Yorker
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,846
Local Time: 09:05 PM
So another war is coming huh
__________________
J_NP is offline  
Old 04-07-2006, 03:41 PM   #9
Refugee
 
wizard2c's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,580
Local Time: 09:05 PM
reply

Quote:
Originally posted by J_NP
So another war is coming huh
and what would this one be called and the reason for it.......{Wizard walks off humming "It's A Big World After All"}

__________________
wizard2c is offline  
Old 04-07-2006, 03:44 PM   #10
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:05 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AliEnvy
Because they know they CAN'T win decisively. All they can do is attempt to keep an upper hand in the treaty agreement, whatever that ends up looking like.
They could indeed win decisively, the question is, is it necessary to do so in that way given the cost. Despite what many people allege, the bulk of US military power is currently not deployed overseas.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-09-2006, 02:57 AM   #11
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2Girl1978's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: At the altar of the dark star
Posts: 19,374
Local Time: 05:05 PM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12225188/

I don't even want to think about this. It's too scary.

__________________
U2Girl1978 is offline  
Old 04-09-2006, 05:06 AM   #12
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Justin24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Mateo
Posts: 6,716
Local Time: 02:05 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/04/09/her...eut/index.html

Like what U2Girl Posted, the Bush Admin. Is considering using Nuclear Bunker Busters!! I hope to god he does not use them.

Quote:
The report also said the administration is seriously considering using "bunker buster" tactical nuclear weapons against Iran to ensure the destruction of Iran's main centrifuge plant at Natanz.
__________________
Justin24 is offline  
Old 04-09-2006, 07:31 AM   #13
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,649
Local Time: 03:05 PM
What a great way to insure a Republican vote come November...
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 04-09-2006, 07:39 AM   #14
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 07:05 AM
Yes because Iraq is already such an obvious vote-winner

The point remains that Iran has had a nuclear program running before 2003 and the attempts at diplomacy have not only failed, but have been called a waste of time by the Mullahs.

What course of action is reasonable? Can an Islamic theocracy be allowed to posess nuclear weapons - what are the short to intermediate term concequences of this going to be?

Probably worth pointing out that nation building is what sucks in resources, decapitating leadership and striking facilites from distance is not the same.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 04-09-2006, 07:46 AM   #15
Refugee
 
MadelynIris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Craggy Island
Posts: 1,504
Local Time: 04:05 PM
Quote:
What course of action is reasonable? Can an Islamic theocracy be allowed to posess nuclear weapons - what are the short to intermediate term concequences of this going to be?
A very scary thought. We'll probably let Israel do the dirty work again.
__________________

__________________
MadelynIris is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:05 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com