IRAN'S Nuclear Capability

[NeonVomit]

l"?

Yes, the pics were horrible. Noone would disagree, but this is an obvious attempt by this guy to play on people's heartstrings&it works. But, the game is easily recognized.

I don't think it was an attempt to play on people's heartstrings. The text is not important, really. In fact, it is utterly irrelevant. As I said, it was totally biased, what is important are the images. What is important is the sanitized version of war that is portrayed by the media could never get across the true horror of what really goes on in a war.

Having witnessed a war first hand, I never would wish it on anyone. That's right, anyone at all. No one deserves that. I really, really do not like talking about it, but that is the reason I am so anti-war (ANY war) and it makes me angry to see people who have never even remotely been affected by war, wanting a war to happen.

It may be necessary in some cases, but charging into war as if it were a first option will never be justified in my eyes. That is all I have to say.

[stratohawk]

How come when USAers wave the flag&kiss the ground it is called Nationalism, but whenever someone(especially a famous person) from another country--Finland, for example, does that it is considered "Cool"?

What are you talking about? In America it's completely normal to have the National Flag at every federal building, in every school, etc. And I don't say it's wrong! In Germany you are still called a Nazi or at least nationalistic when you show somewhat with black-red-yellow colours (luckily the Soccer World Cup changed a little bit about that attitude).
But, I don't continue, Carcass already spoke for me. I'm so lazy today...

[NeonVomit]

A lot of people argue that nationalism of any sort is bad. I don't think it's wrong. I'm not particularly patriotic myself, given my confused heratige, mixed background and unsettled childhood which meant I never had a country to call 'home'.

So, saying Americans are nationalistic in a bad way is pretty pointless.

miditek, I actually agree with a lot of what you say, but I just disagree that war is a solution for everything. In 9/10 cases, it just makes existing problems worse. That, and the irrational hatred of Europe. You should come over and visit sometime, it's a lovely place

[NeonVomit]

Uh oh... I'm getting worried now.

This situation seems to be hurtling closer and closer to the abyss. N Koreans live in abject poverty and squalor, they're too busy searching for their next meal to think about rising up against their government. N Korea has a massive army, poised and ready to roll over the border.

Even China is getting fed up with Kim's antics. When you have a total madman with no restraint at the helm of a self-proclaimed nuclear-capable country, this is how it will look like, not Iran. Russia is making some more attempts at diplomacy, but I don't know how long they're going to keep it up.

On another subject, miditek, just out of curiosity, how many Iranian people have you met?

[stratobabius]

^^
No need to build selters then...We'll just go to another planet and return when/if things cool down...

[browneyedgirl]

I think miditek has answered that damn question a million times in his posts. He works with a slew of people fom all those countries!

@stratobabius, thats about the size of it!

[stratobabius]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/1 ... index.html

Funny, I suppose that there will be an edit in this page soon saying that 100 shots were fired...

[browneyedgirl]

Probably people pass through the DMZ often, but just don't get caught. Hopefully this is just a bunch of "saber rattling"&nothing comes of it.
A nuclear missile in the wrong hands is just too terrible to comtemplate.
People who seem to be so pacifist in regard to these countries(Iran, Korea, etc.) should have to go there&live to see just how it is like to live under a caustic, powerhungry leader.

[NeonVomit]

What I'm saying is that Iran and N Korea are two different situations. N Korea is far, far more dangerous than Iran to world peace.

[NeonVomit]

Anyway, I think potentially the greatest threat to world security is America's good friend, Saudi Arabia. I lived there for 9 years, due to my dad's work, and I have to say that country will head down the drain soon, along with all the latest weaponry and the world's largest oil reserves. The regime is theocratic, brutal, inhumane and archaic, but America and the West choose to overlook all of these things and treat SA as a good friend and ally. Hypocrisy in the highest degree. That's why it's frustrating to hear anyone talk of justifying the Iraq war down to 'liberating people from a brutal regime'.

Accusing Iran of being a brutal caustic regime is pointless when you ignore Saudi Arabia and other US allies which are doing the exact same things. (In fact, Iran is, perversely enough, actually far more democratic than SA). Just they don't have any nuclear ambitions (yet) and happen to be America's partner. Double standards.

I am not ignoring or forgiving anyone for anything. I feel sorry for the people of Iran to have gone from one brutal police state leadership (remember what a nice guy the Shah was, anyone? Oh I forgot, he was alright because he supported America) to another brutal police state. For a people as culturally rich and intelligent do not deserve two bad regimes one after another.

[browneyedgirl]

Oh, I agree about Saudi, and in time they may become USA's Judas.

[Shurik]

For a people as culturally rich and intelligent do not deserve two bad regimes one after another.

People usually have the government they deserve ... This is right for every nation in the world.

[Firewuf]

WWIII? maybe..but not with nuclear weapons, no one is enough stupid to do that, ANY nation who launch a nuclear weapon to another country it's practically dead, everyone will be against him and every president knows, no matter how much stupid is. Look at North Korea now, you have been seen someone supporting him to test his nuclear weapon?.

Nukes are only an intimidation form. War is just another disguised big business. Don't be apocalyptic.

Just my opinion =) and sorry for my bad english, is not my first language.

[Carcass]

For a people as culturally rich and intelligent do not deserve two bad regimes one after another.

People usually have the government they deserve ... This is right for every nation in the world.

How can you say that? Did all the Spaniards deserve Generalísimo Franco? Did Chile deserve Augusto Pinochet? Did the countries in the easter block deserve to be Soviet Socialist Republics? That is a way too harsh generalization to swallow.

[NeonVomit]

For a people as culturally rich and intelligent do not deserve two bad regimes one after another.

People usually have the government they deserve ... This is right for every nation in the world.

Are the North Koreans that bad then? They're not different from the South Koreans, don't they deserve a fair and free democracy instead of the most oppressive regime on the face of the earth? And the whole of Africa? Burma? I've read that statement before, and I believe it is fundamentally flawed.

[Shurik]

If people think they do not deserve the government they have, they do something against it, even if it is dangerous. People who afraid to go against their government even if it is brutal dictatorship like North Korea, deserve to live under this government.
That doesn't say anything about the people themselves, only about their choices ...

[NeonVomit]

If people think they do not deserve the government they have, they do something against it, even if it is dangerous. People who afraid to go against their government even if it is brutal dictatorship like North Korea, deserve to live under this government.
That doesn't say anything about the people themselves, only about their choices ...

The people of North Korea don't have a choice. They cannot rebel, they are in no position to, they're too concerned worrying about where their next meal will come from. The same is true of several places in the world. Rising up against a government can only happen if the population is healthy. Keep them impoverished, and they won't be able to.

Which is why economic sanctions against Iraq were utterly pointless. Saddam and his co. were affected do you think? They carried on living in palaces. It was the ordinary people who took the heat, and the regime used the propaganda to keep them in line. Economic sanctions will affect N Korea? Kim Il Jong will carry on living like royalty.

It's very easy to say things like 'people get the government they deserve' from the perspective of someone who has lived and grown up in a free democratic country like Israel, or America or Britain.

[miditek]

Uh oh... I'm getting worried now.

This situation seems to be hurtling closer and closer to the abyss. N Koreans live in abject poverty and squalor, they're too busy searching for their next meal to think about rising up against their government. N Korea has a massive army, poised and ready to roll over the border.

NK may have a massive army ready to roll across the border, of course, but without air supremacy, it cannot win a fight against SK or the US.

Do you remember the 'Highway of Death' from Gulf War I? Thousands upon thousands of Iraqi army and Republican Guard vehicles were caught out in the open, and tens of thousands of Iraqi troops were slaughtered.

This is not to say that air power alone wins wars, obviously, however, wars cannot be won without it.
NK's air force would have little chance at all against US air power.

Without naval supremacy, it is very likely that NK would find itself blockaded. Not sure if you have seen the latest AP reports today, but both China as well as Japan have issued statements to Pyongyang that nuclear tests are "unacceptable". Beijing is beginning to realize that NK is becoming more of a liability than an asset as an ally.

Moreover, while NK is certainly capable of launching devastating attacks against SK, it does not have the
long term economic resources to prosecute a large scale war for very long. If NK were to attack SK, it is very likely that NK assets worldwide would be frozen.

On another subject, miditek, just out of curiosity, how many Iranian people have you met?

Firstly, most expatriates of the Iranian diaspora prefer to be referred to as "Persians". One reason is due to the stigma in the west that is often associated with the government of Iran, and also because many take a great deal of pride in the history and culture of the former Persian Empire.

How many Persians do I know? More than you might think. One of my pediatricians that I went to see when I was a child was Persian. My first cousin Susan is married to a Persian, whom I get along with very well with, and they are currently raising two daughters just outside of Washington.

Both of the girls are already bilingual, speaking in Farsi to their father, and in English to their mother (who also learned the language herself). Her husband's family, who are very nice people, extended their gratitude to my family for accepting the marriage, which we did as a matter of fact. While no marriage is problem-free (headaches with child raising, etc.), Mohammed has been a good husband to my cousin, and a very good father to the kids.

I also have some business partners that are software developers in the Philadephia area, a family run business, that are of Persian extraction as well, but are probably not observant Muslims. (They have been known to have a glass of wine or two during dinner meetings, which is something my Syrian friends would never do. They are 100% teetotalers.)

[miditek]

WWIII? maybe..but not with nuclear weapons, no one is enough stupid to do that, ANY nation who launch a nuclear weapon to another country it's practically dead, everyone will be against him and every president knows, no matter how much stupid is. Look at North Korea now, you have been seen someone supporting him to test his nuclear weapon?.

Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), worked quite well during the Cold War. However, as I've previously stated, it is unlikely that either NK or Iran would be so obvious as to launch an ICBM at America. The US would instantly retalitate, and postively destroy any country that dared to do something like that, as you said.

However, the jihadist mindset could care less about retaliation. Al-Qaida is not a state, and as such, it is very likely that it is still plotting to smuggle in and then detonate a nuclear device on US, Israeli, and/or Western European soil. Apparently, they think that intelligence services won't be able to track the source of the uranium, or are so insane that they really don't care.

The whole missile testing scenario in NK, in my opinion, is a mere smokescreen for a more sinister operation.

[miditek]

miditek, I actually agree with a lot of what you say, but I just disagree that war is a solution for everything. In 9/10 cases, it just makes existing problems worse. That, and the irrational hatred of Europe. You should come over and visit sometime, it's a lovely place

War of course should be a last resort. But trying to get the UN Security Council to impose real sanctions and real blockades on Iran just isn't going to happen. The Chinese and the Russians will see to that, since they don't believe that Iran has done anything wrong.

As far as hatred of Europe, let's just say that I despise liberal and left-wing policies, regardless of their origin. More on that later.

I think that it is safe to say that there are people of all races/ethnic backgrounds/religions that I like or admire, and there are also people of all races/ethnic backgrounds/religions that I have utterly no use for. To suggest otherwise shows a lack of understanding of who I am as a person.

Let me give you an example of what annoys me to no end about many Europeans. Again, remember this is an example, because I know many Europeans, and no two are exactly alike. I have a friend that is in and out my city frequently on business. He carries a Belgian passport, but is of Dutch extraction, but is actually based out of Milan, where he lives when not on the road as a textile engineer.

We drink and eat together frequently at a popular local sports bar here in my city. He talked a lot about speaking five languages (no problem there), drives a Porsche (again, no problem there, either- they are great cars), and would frequently tell me many interesting stories about his escapades in Europe. All in all, we get along pretty well.

However, one evening, the Belgian got very drunk, and went on this violent anti-American tirade. Personally, I'll blow things like that off, but I was beginning to get a bit annoyed. However, my younger brother, who is a mutant (6'4" and about 230lbs!) was about to drag this guy outside and beat the shit out of him.

I'm not a small person myself (6'1" and 200lbs), but I told my brother that the Belgian was really drunk, and that kicking his ass would not change his opinion one bit. I nearly had to get physical with my brother to get him to back off.

After I got my brother calmed down, there were some big Canadian guys (Toronto metro police officers that had rode their bikes down here on vacation) in there that night that overheard our argument, and pretty much told the Belgian to piss off regarding his anti-American comments.

One does have to wonder why a little pipsqueak like this guy would try and begin blasting America in, of all places, a bar full of positively huge rednecks and bikers? I'm not trying to canonize myself here, but this guy was pretty lucky that he didn't get hurt. The place we were in can get a bit rough at times. We are still friends, but I do believe that his true opinions of America came out that evening, although he's certainly not the only European that has annoyed me (in person) before.

As far as visiting Europe, I can't really do it at the present time, due to current committments to my clients, although going to London and checking out Winter's Verge does sound like a lot of fun that I should give more consideration to.

[NeonVomit]

Uh oh... I'm getting worried now.

This situation seems to be hurtling closer and closer to the abyss. N Koreans live in abject poverty and squalor, they're too busy searching for their next meal to think about rising up against their government. N Korea has a massive army, poised and ready to roll over the border.

NK may have a massive army ready to roll across the border, of course, but without air supremacy, it cannot win a fight against SK or the US.

Do you remember the 'Highway of Death' from Gulf War I? Thousands upon thousands of Iraqi army and Republican Guard vehicles were caught out in the open, and tens of thousands of Iraqi troops were slaughtered.

This is not to say that air power alone wins wars, obviously, however, wars cannot be won without it.
NK's air force would have little chance at all against US air power.

Without naval supremacy, it is very likely that NK would find itself blockaded. Not sure if you have seen the latest AP reports today, but both China as well as Japan have issued statements to Pyongyang that nuclear tests are "unacceptable". Beijing is beginning to realize that NK is becoming more of a liability than an asset as an ally.

Moreover, while NK is certainly capable of launching devastating attacks against SK, it does not have the
long term economic resources to prosecute a large scale war for very long. If NK were to attack SK, it is very likely that NK assets worldwide would be frozen.

You miss the point, I don't think there's any doubt as to who would win a war on the Korean peninsula, eventually. I just imagine the casualties would be horrendously high on both sides, so much so as to make a potential war simply not worth it. A similar situation exists in Cyprus. And do you really think America could deal with another major conflict? That's the main reason a war against Iran is beyond insane now, even the most optimistic military planners would tell you that the US simply does not have the resources or manpower to deal with a task of that magnitude. Unless, of course, the draft were reinstated, and nobody wants that now, do they...

Who knows what the solution to this situation is? I wouldn't want to be making the choices.

Anyway, the stakes have been raised. Russia says it is 100% certain a test has been carried out, and US scientists have detected a seismic event at a suspected test site. So they're not just bluffing, after all. The problem is, the regime is lead by a total nutcase, with no one who has control over him, unlike Iran, where the council has ultimate control over the president, and hell... they had someone like Khatami leading the country... there is hope. I just hope the next president of Iran will be someone less like Hugo Chavez, who just likes to piss people off.

Why do you hate all liberal and left wing policies? There's some good ideas in there along with a lot of rubbish. I dont hate all conservative and right-wing policies, even though I disagree with many of them. I think restricting oneself to one political alignment and refusing to see any good points in others is a bit closed-minded.

Oh, by the way, Winter's Verge are based in Cyprus, not London Come down there... great food, great weather! Although London is a great place to visit... similar to New York, but with a unique atmosphere.

[NeonVomit]

miditek, I actually agree with a lot of what you say, but I just disagree that war is a solution for everything. In 9/10 cases, it just makes existing problems worse. That, and the irrational hatred of Europe. You should come over and visit sometime, it's a lovely place

War of course should be a last resort. But trying to get the UN Security Council to impose real sanctions and real blockades on Iran just isn't going to happen. The Chinese and the Russians will see to that, since they don't believe that Iran has done anything wrong.

Because we've all seen how effective sanctions are, havn't we? How many times have they actually had the desired effect? Libya is perhaps the only one I can think of. Mostly they only give the regime a powerful propaganda tool, and make the people suffer while the leadership carries on living the high life.

I'm not saying I know what the best solution to this problem is, but I do know that war isn't an answer. Iran wouldn't allow any terrorist elements to take their nuclear devices and smuggle them into a Western country (nuclear devices tend to give off rather large amounts of radiation anyway, no matter how hard one tries to shield it, and this is something that is checked for at points of entry) and of course, the uranium could simply be traced back to its origin. I imagine the retaliation would be... severe. Imagine Iran trying to convince a nation that had just been hit by a nuclear weapon (think post 9/11 America, shocked, furious, wanting to get revenge) which used uranium from their reactor, that they had nothing to do with it... someting tells me it wouldn't be successful.

Iran may be led by someone of questionable sanity (I still thnk it's an act just to piss everyone off), but they still have very little to gain from a nuclear strike on any country, covert or open. And I think their supreme council is a lot more politically shrewd than many people give them credit for. Unless they have a massive arsenal like Russia or America or something, all they could do is cause a high number of casualties in another country (assuming they targetted a city) but leave that country's entire military intact, and ready to strike back at maximum power. For instance, an attack on Britain would be virtually suicidal.

I don't thnk N Korea is a smokescreen. Smokescreen for what? Iran? What do you suspect this more sinister plot is?

[NeonVomit]

As for America bashing, well... these beat chanting 'Death to America'. All these posters are from the last 3 years.


American imperialists, see the national power of Korea!'


'Harsh judgment for the American imperialists and their henchmen!'
(Shirt says 'International Atomic Energy Agency' Hat is Non Proliferation Treaty)


'Meet castigation with merciless punishment!'


'American imperialists, do not rave recklessly!'


'With the united power of the whole nation
Let us smash the nuclear war provocations of America!'


'Merciless punishment for the American Imperialists!'


I don't know what this one says, but it's pretty self-explanatory.

Of course, you can take these as a joke.

[miditek]

I don't know what this one says, but it's pretty self-explanatory. Of course, you can take these as a joke

Classic Stalinist propoganda. It's almost like a dog chasing a 2,500 lb. car; what would it do with it if it actually "caught" it?

War with America would certainly result with the end of Kim's regime; which is obviously his worst fear- a loss of power.

[NeonVomit]

It's creepy that they're stuck 40 years in the past. That's what I'm worried about, what is the actual view of the population? How hard would they fight in a war? How many would die?

[browneyedgirl]

It's creepy that they're stuck 40 years in the past. That's what I'm worried about, what is the actual view of the population? How hard would they fight in a war? How many would die?

I saw on TV a program which stated that from birth the chilren(males&females)are "brainwashed" to be willing to die for their country. And, the males are required to go through extensive military training&females, too, if they choose, and many do!
So, I'd say the Spirit is willing to make the ultimate sacrifice. Whether this "devotion" would play out in reality, if/when the time comes is hard to say.

[miditek]

It's creepy that they're stuck 40 years in the past. That's what I'm worried about, what is the actual view of the population? How hard would they fight in a war? How many would die?

War with NK would certainly not be a pretty picture, and am quite sure that the death toll for both combatants and civilians would be catostrophic, even if nuclear weapons did not come into play.

Saddam had one of the most powerful armies in the world as well, at one time, but again, if an army gets caught out in the open without sufficient air cover, it would soon turn into a rout for NK forces. Many veterans of the German Wehrmacht veterans have described the terror of facing the fury of allied air power.

In short, Kim's numerous tanks would be easy prey for
A-10 Warthogs, F-15 Strike Eagles, and Apache helicopter gunships. His vaunted artillery corps would also be quite vulnerable to counter-barrages, as well as cruise missile attacks. The F-4 "Wild Weasels" would also take out his SAM sites with HARM anti-radar missiles, which would pave the way for massive retaliatory strikes by B-52's, B-1's, and B-2's.

It is not possible to accurately calculate what the casualties would be. However, it is safe to say that Kim cannot win a conventional (or nuclear) war with the US. Masses of troops on the border might intimidate the civilians, but it would be, as the Pentagon calls it, "a target-rich environment".

I do doubt that Kim will give an order to attack, since I think that he knows full well it would be the end for him.

[NeonVomit]

It's creepy that they're stuck 40 years in the past. That's what I'm worried about, what is the actual view of the population? How hard would they fight in a war? How many would die?

I saw on TV a program which stated that from birth the chilren(males&females)are "brainwashed" to be willing to die for their country. And, the males are required to go through extensive military training&females, too, if they choose, and many do!
So, I'd say the Spirit is willing to make the ultimate sacrifice. Whether this "devotion" would play out in reality, if/when the time comes is hard to say.

Of course, that is what they'd have you believe. But it's not hard to imagine the population being totally brainwashed. That's another difference with Iran. The BBC recently went out on the streets of Tehran and spoke to many people. The opinions ranged from 'Of course we have a right to do anything we like!' to 'I don't see why our government is doing this, what do we need nuclear energy for? We have so much oil'. Not the signs of a brainwashed population. Iranians are also amogst the top internet users of the region, and the government tries hard to block access to certain websites but can't cover all bases. (Oh, and Ahmedinenajaajdajadjad maintains an official blog with translations into English, which is actually very entertaining to read) I think if the Iranian people feel that the government is just going too far, they'll rebel. They did it against the Shah, after all. With encouragement and support from the west, I don't think it's inconcievable.

North Koreans are in no position to rise up against their rulers. Iranians are, which means the regime in Tehran does have to be weary of its people. They have a precedent for rebellion, which is why I think Iran wouldn't do anything too stupid. The people have a lot more to lose than the people of N Korea. Also, the mere fact that no one person holds all the power in the country (the Revolutionary Council is the ultimate power) means that rash decisions are less likely to be made.

I think Kim would do it. He is crazy enough, I think there's no doubt. Saddam was not crazy. He might have been despotic, brutal and cruel, but certainly not crazy. He made a few critical tactical errors which cost him Gulf War I, he was actually very close to winning it at one point. Air power alone will never win a war (look at the whole Kosovo thing).

The crux of the issue is, we're dealing with a madman who seems to be out of touch with reality. Far more so than Iran. And that madman has proved that he has nuclear weapons.

[Carcass]

Kim "Dear Leader" Jong-il might be way, way out there, but I wouldn't make the mistake of believing that he's irrational.

[miditek]

It's creepy that they're stuck 40 years in the past. That's what I'm worried about, what is the actual view of the population? How hard would they fight in a war? How many would die?

I think Kim would do it. He is crazy enough, I think there's no doubt. Saddam was not crazy. He might have been despotic, brutal and cruel, but certainly not crazy. He made a few critical tactical errors which cost him Gulf War I, he was actually very close to winning it at one point. Air power alone will never win a war (look at the whole Kosovo thing).

Jesus, Joseph, and Mary! What history book did that come out of? The al-Jazeera Revisionist Encyclopedia? U.S. forces lost less than 200 KIA (Killed in Action), while the Iraqis lost over 100,000 in a ground war that lasted all of 100 hours, during Gulf War I?

What tactical blunders were made by which units and where were these units supposed to have been located at? The notion that the Iraqis almost won defies documented historical facts, and not to mention military science itself. I'm quite sure that Clausewitz and Rommel would have considered Schwarzkopf to be a brilliant and highly competent field commander.

Remember when you said the camera doesn't lie? Well, the video camera doesn't lie either, especially when regular Iraqi forces are on film surrendering to an American news cameraman!

It would be less than objective to suggest that NATO airstrikes (which also included Luftwaffe combat sorties for the first time in almost 60 years) had little influence on the withdrawl of Serb/Yugoslav security forces from the Kosovo province. This allowed the ground forces in KFOR to be much more effective in their jobs to secure the area.

Moreover, Milosevic and his gang were indicted for war crimes, as well as crimes against humanity, and finally, he was removed from power. NATO military action certainly played a role in this.

The crux of the issue is, we're dealing with a madman who seems to be out of touch with reality. Far more so than Iran. And that madman has proved that he has nuclear weapons.

And Kim should not forget that while he does have a handful of small nuclear weapons at last, the United States has 30,000 thermonuclear weapons for deterrence in its own arsenal.