Israel signs MoU to purchase Dolphin-class submarines from Germany

originally posted by: mightmight
Shame really. Bush should have invaded Iran instead of Iraq and get rid of the Ayatollahs. Would have been a god aweful mess but at least Iran woudlnt be controlled by a bunch of hating the west and the jews religious fanatics.

Of course all this bs wouldnt have happend if the US didnt decide to mettle with Iran in the first place and ignore its own responsibilities once the fanatics took over.

yes I agree this mess is really of our making when we disposed a democratically elected leader in Mossadeq and installed the Shah in his place....aka CIA's operation Ajax..

I disagree on the invasion. It would have been and will be a disaster to go into Iran. In Iraq the majority of the population welcomed us (at least initially to get rid of Saddam) and that would not be the case in Iran where the Resistance would be fanatical. Also we barely kept control of a small section of Baghdad. There is no way we could "pacify" a city of Tehran with 3 times the population. Let alone a whole hostile country

originally posted by: FredT
a reply to: mightmight

it will take more than a few GBU-28's Years ago AWST showed satellite pictures of the Natanz and it shows basically 10 foot alternating layers of packed sand and reinforced concrete x 10. The GBU-28 would not have enough ooomph to get it even in succession.

The 30000 lb MOP may be able to hold the target at risk. but its not assured

Fordow is actually the harder target. A single GBU-28 can penetrate 30 meters of of earth or more than 7 meters of reinforced concrete, so ist doable with for or 5 bombs. Probably less, the sand layers wont provide much protection. And this is just with the old BLU-113 warhead, the newer BLU-122 has an even greater penetration depth.
And again, we are talking sensitive equipment here. The BLU-122 warhead carries more than 350kg AFX-757. The centrifuges might withstand the impact of one or two penetrators, but the shockwaves of a dozen subsequent detonations will destroy them.

originally posted by: FredT

I disagree on the invasion. It would have been and will be a disaster to go into Iran. In Iraq the majority of the population welcomed us (at least initially to get rid of Saddam) and that would not be the case in Iran where the Resistance would be fanatical. Also we barely kept control of a small section of Baghdad. There is no way we could "pacify" a city of Tehran with 3 times the population. Let alone a whole hostile country

Oh i agree, the thought of pacifing Iran after an Invasion is ridiculous. And after Iraq an Invasion is obviously out of the question for the next couple of decades. Also, as i wrote, it would have been a mess and the US probably would have had to withdraw rather quickly.
But it would have kicked the Ayathollahs out and there would have been a decent chance for someone less religiously crazy to take the helm. The Iranian People have time and again voted for moderate political figures.
They are not fanatics, just their current leaders are. Iran (Persia really) was a vastly different state and society not so long ago. All they really need is a chance. Tragedy really. They would be the natural Allies agains Sunni Islamism. Instead we are forced to site with Saudi Arabia and the like which will bite us in the a** too at some point.

originally posted by: FredT

originally posted by: nwtrucker
Sorry. I disagree. That thirty years you cite is valid. Stop 'failing' as you say. If we don't, Israel will. Plus it wouldn't take a full invasion and occupation. Merely take out the leadership in Iran before the nukes are developed. Leaders are rarely suicide driven, yes?

If you were to say take out the leadership of Iran and by that I mean the Guardian Council of the Constitution I doubt it would change their nuclear ambitions except to put MORE emphasis on the need to acquire them. It would furthermore basically reset the clock in terms of modernization. The old guard that came of age during the revolution is slowing dying off. The younger generations are chomping at the bit to take the reins and the vast majority want less religious restrictions and more freedoms. If you go in and attack the people will unite to fight a common enemy etc.

Ask the ghost of Saddam who thought he could drive a wedge between the religious leaders and the people and invaded Iran. How'd that work out for him?

Their nuclear production facilities are too dug on to destroy with conventional munitions. Also they are pretty disbursed. They have the ability to deliver the weapons regionally and perhaps all the way to Isreal. They are on the cusp of being able to make a device and may already be there. A bombing campaign will not work.

You have two choices: Invade and occupy or try to make the treaty work.......

Hmmm, seems you favor the treaty. Even though, by your own posts, Iran's intention is build nukes and may, in fact, already have them. Your posts refers to 'rogue states'. Yes? Yet you support a treaty you are fully aware that has no intention of being kept by Iran.

So your solution is to appease them. I can only conclude that your intention is to avoid war at all costs. Even though that very mentality has led to the proliferation that both international treaties and the U.S. have supposedly worked to prevent.

I would rebut that conventional weapons may not completely destroy deep installations, but they sure would make those installation inaccessible either to get into or out of. That I can say with complete confidence. ( I'm equally sure we know exactly where those installations are and have known since they were built.)

Conventional weapons would render them....ineffective.

Next, an honest and complete blockade by all nations would work, as well. (As it would with NK if the Chinese didn't prefer using NK as a distraction from their own agendas rather than an issue to be dealt with.)

Continued appeasement assures nuclear war via proliferation. Leadership, likely with 'a head on a pike' to display to others thinking similarly will stop it. The willingness to go to war over the issue is paramount.

Otherwise, sooner or later, we are done.

originally posted by: FredT

originally posted by: mightmight
Shame really. Bush should have invaded Iran instead of Iraq and get rid of the Ayatollahs. Would have been a god aweful mess but at least Iran woudlnt be controlled by a bunch of hating the west and the jews religious fanatics.

Of course all this bs wouldnt have happend if the US didnt decide to mettle with Iran in the first place and ignore its own responsibilities once the fanatics took over.

yes I agree this mess is really of our making when we disposed a democratically elected leader in Mossadeq and installed the Shah in his place....aka CIA's operation Ajax..

I disagree on the invasion. It would have been and will be a disaster to go into Iran. In Iraq the majority of the population welcomed us (at least initially to get rid of Saddam) and that would not be the case in Iran where the Resistance would be fanatical. Also we barely kept control of a small section of Baghdad. There is no way we could "pacify" a city of Tehran with 3 times the population. Let alone a whole hostile country

Old sins/errors are no excuse for failure to take appropriate action currently. Besides tell me the Soviet led, 'democratically elected' gov't of Iran wouldn't have gone the same route as the 'democratically elected' gov't of NK?

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: FredT

originally posted by: mightmight
Shame really. Bush should have invaded Iran instead of Iraq and get rid of the Ayatollahs. Would have been a god aweful mess but at least Iran woudlnt be controlled by a bunch of hating the west and the jews religious fanatics.

Of course all this bs wouldnt have happend if the US didnt decide to mettle with Iran in the first place and ignore its own responsibilities once the fanatics took over.

yes I agree this mess is really of our making when we disposed a democratically elected leader in Mossadeq and installed the Shah in his place....aka CIA's operation Ajax..

I disagree on the invasion. It would have been and will be a disaster to go into Iran. In Iraq the majority of the population welcomed us (at least initially to get rid of Saddam) and that would not be the case in Iran where the Resistance would be fanatical. Also we barely kept control of a small section of Baghdad. There is no way we could "pacify" a city of Tehran with 3 times the population. Let alone a whole hostile country

edit on 26-10-2017 by nwtrucker because: (no reason given)

originally posted by: nwtrucker


Hmmm, seems you favor the treaty. Even though, by your own posts, Iran's intention is build nukes and may, in fact, already have them. Your posts refers to 'rogue states'. Yes? Yet you support a treaty you are fully aware that has no intention of being kept by Iran.

Has Iran manufactured, deployed or tested a nuclear device? Please explain how the previous 40+ years of failed policy prevented Pakistan, NK, India et al, from developing nukes. As I said, there are two choices here try to work with the treaty, or invade.

So your solution is to appease them. I can only conclude that your intention is to avoid war at all costs. Even though that very mentality has led to the proliferation that both international treaties and the U.S. have supposedly worked to prevent.

Hardly, as noted above, the play tough, sanctions approach never worked in any of the above countries. So I'm not sure how exactly this is appeasement. Appeasement would be to simply sit back and let them develop nukes.

I would rebut that conventional weapons may not completely destroy deep installations, but they sure would make those installation inaccessible either to get into or out of. That I can say with complete confidence. ( I'm equally sure we know exactly where those installations are and have known since they were built.)

Conventional weapons would render them....ineffective.

The installations are well known. Your basic assumptions are correct, an air attack would delay things a bit, but that about it. The Iranians had a front seat to US airpower during both Iraq invasions. Even in Iraq, they were able to get things up and moving. What exactly makes you completely confident? If you don't destroy it, it will be working again. I mean many of them are fanatics but that does not mean they are stupid by any stretch. Nor will one raid work.

Next, an honest and complete blockade by all nations would work, as well. (As it would with NK if the Chinese didn't prefer using NK as a distraction from their own agendas rather than an issue to be dealt with.)

Continued appeasement assures nuclear war via proliferation. Leadership, likely with 'a head on a pike' to display to others thinking similarly will stop it. The willingness to go to war over the issue is paramount.

Otherwise, sooner or later, we are done.

yes but that will never work. If every country EXCEPT Iran had similar views its all good. But that is simply not the case and Sanctions simply do not work unless that dream scenario can be made real. Heck after the first attack Russia will move the S-400 into Iran making a second attack costly.

Yeah the head on a pike worked well in Iraq. We could not handle Iraq thats 1/3 of the size. Heck Baghdad was the wild west except the green zone.

I love the Arm Chair patriots that are willing to cling to the very attitude and world view that got us to this point. Bombs away has not worked. Heads on a pike does not work. Unless you are willing to simply kill 90% of the Iranian population this will not work

originally posted by: nwtrucker
Old sins/errors are no excuse for failure to take appropriate action currently. Besides tell me the Soviet led, 'democratically elected' gov't of Iran wouldn't have gone the same route as the 'democratically elected' gov't of NK?

Again insanity = "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results"

a reply to: FredT


Really, arm chair QB's? Getting nasty, eh?

OK. So let 'em build them, Nuke up. Then , of course, everyone else in the region follows suit. You KNOW this. You ignore it.


If we can't stop it here, now, we are toast. YES? NO? Answered the damn question!

originally posted by: nwtrucker
Really, arm chair QB's? Getting nasty, eh?

OK. So let 'em build them, Nuke up. Then , of course, everyone else in the region follows suit. You KNOW this. You ignore it.

The shoe fits no? Everybody is ready to send someone else to war it seems. Or god help us Nuke them. Really? that's really your plan. Then why haven't we nuked NK at after the first test? Or Pakistan who lets face it basically shielded Al-Qaeda and Bin laden for over a decade. Why just Iran. One Ohio can take out Syria, Iran, and heck lets just throw in the Kurds for good measure.

If we can't stop it here, now, we are toast. YES? NO? Answered the damn question!

India developed nukes, no war, Pakistan developed nukes no war, NK developed nukes no war. So to answer the damm question No we are hardly toast. NO NO NO

Do you have any other plan than bombs away, nuking them, or an invasion?

a reply to: FredT


Lest your memory is short. Pakistan and India nearly went at it during W's Administration. I have zero Idea how Rice, Powell or the rest squashed that one. The only thing that makes sense, at least to me, is the U.S. told both of them if either starts it they will deal with the U.S..

You said there was 'no way' we'd get a consensus on boycotting Iran. I don't disagree. IF we boycott those nations that don't honor that boycott?? That changes the game. Not impossible.

So your argument is no nuclear war so far, then why worry? That sooner or later with unending proliferation, the wrong people won't get their hands on them? Perhaps deliberately given to Hamas, Hezbollah or someone else? That there aren't likely millions of potential suicide-types that would use them?

IMO, nuclear proliferation is the single, most important issue on this planet. Obviously, I couldn't care less if it ruffles your feathers or not.

Yes, I would take out the leadership of both nations if all else fails. Yes, I would hit those sites as many times as necessary to ensure they do not reopen. No, I don't care if it ruffles Iranian feathers. There's nothing they can do to stop it.


Finally, yes, Now or never. No, it doesn't require an invasion.....and you know it. The actual sites. Infrastructure and it's done. No invasion. Just enough missiles to mess them up... with secondary strikes as needed.

Then the proliferation will stop.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: FredT
You said there was 'no way' we'd get a consensus on boycotting Iran. I don't disagree. IF we boycott those nations that don't honor that boycott?? That changes the game. Not impossible.

But it would be impossible. Boycotting everyone who doesnt want to boycott Iran at this point essentially means boycotting the entire world. Thats economical suicide and the US doesnt have the political will to even try to fight a trade war with China and Europe over Iranian nuclear ambitions.

Lets face it, the nuclear treaty with Iran shut the door for sanctions let alone total boycott for good. European companies (especially the bigger German tech companies) have been pushing for unlimited access to Iranian markets for ages and were praising the normalization after the deal, there would be a serious push against any renewed sanction effort. Under a different Administration (one which is not despised in most of Europe) might be able to force them to commit to some toothless sanctions but with Trump there is exactly zero chance of getting Europe on board.
The same is true for Russia.
There are already Sanctions on Russia. Didnt do much but to hurt the European economy just as much as it hurt Russia. Putin would never commit to such a move unless he gets some very serious geostrategic chips in return which Trump cant agree because he would be crucified back home.
He could move China. If he's willing to burn down the world economy over it and push world into the deepest economic crisis since the 1930s. He's a businessman, wont happen.

So your argument is no nuclear war so far, then why worry? That sooner or later with unending proliferation, the wrong people won't get their hands on them? Perhaps deliberately given to Hamas, Hezbollah or someone else? That there aren't likely millions of potential suicide-types that would use them?

This is a valid argument. We barely made it thorugh the cold war without ending civlization as we know it. The thought of detterence working with rogue states and religious fanatics on the table is naive at best.
I dont think anyone would seriously deny this.
The question however is what to do about it. Or rather what would actually be viable course of action in the current polticial climate.
And IMO there arent any viable solutions at this time besides kicking the can down the road and hoping for a miracle unfortunately,
It was different in the past, but the ship has sailed.

Yes, I would take out the leadership of both nations if all else fails. Yes, I would hit those sites as many times as necessary to ensure they do not reopen. No, I don't care if it ruffles Iranian feathers. There's nothing they can do to stop it.

Not militarly, no.
And maybe you would, but this doesnt mean the US / Trump could actually do it.
Think about it for a second, i'm sure the DoD have wargamed this scenario many times.
'Taking out the leadership' is not as easy as it sounds. What does leadership even mean in the case of Iran?

Taking out Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei wouldnt change anything. Ayatollah rule is deeply enchrined in Iran. You would need to take out the second, third and fourth echelon of the religious and political leadership and go after the revolutionary guards too to have any effect at all.

Even if you achieve complete strategic and tactical surprise this isnt doable without an full blown air campaign. You'd get probably dragged into a general war with Iran no matter how successfull your decapitation strikes are. Your attacks will actually unite the Iranian People behind the state and they will fight you first before (maybe) turning against each other.

Iran is not North Korea, they would just collapse are go down with one last stand or something.
Good luck with trying to contain Iran unleashing hell unto the entire region. They will throw every missile they can launch at the Gulf States and Israel, conduct horrific terror attacks in the west, order Hezbollah to throw everything they have at Israel and turn the Persian Gulf into a warzone. Sure, the US would probably prevail in the end, but make no mistake, your decapitation strikes will turn into a general war and you will be forced to bomb Iran back a hundred years.
You might think this is worth it and if i could look into the future i would agree with you, but poltically for Trump - or any US President atm - this is just a non starter.

The sad truth is, American interventionism died in Iraq. The chips are burned. The American people are tired of fighting wars on arab soil for no benefit. Poll after poll shows, a majority is even against going back before the nuclear deal let alone attacking Iran over the nuclear program. Trump in part won on his promise on non interventionism when Clinton was pushing for more and more war abroad.
No politican ever will try something this drastic just because it may safe more lifes down the line. We may not like it and it may very well lead to mushroom clouds rising over western cities but this is how the polticial process works.
Or to quote Otto von Bismarck, politics is the art of the possible. Going after Iran today because they might get nukes in the future is not in the cards. Just look at North Korea. We've played the nuke deal game with them too. Iran wont be any different, unfortunately.

a reply to: mightmight


Actually I agree with most of this. Iranian leadership would be replaced by whomever had the most power almost immediately.

In Iran's case, The actual
sites, theoretically, would be preferable as no matter who was in power, development/usage would be blocked.

I don't see any legitimate reason for the deal, in the first place, other than Iran's promise to both Boeing and Airbus to purchase large numbers of replacement aircraft for their aging commercial fleet. Both ran to their respective gov'ts and viola....the rest is history.

No wonder they do not fear the west. More like contempt, not that I blame them for that....

You've named the two nations who would most oppose sanctions against Iran. China's interest is oil. That, I believe, was appeased via the South China Sea 'offering' by the U.S. to China. Yes, offering. Other than lip-service 'fly-overs' to appease the local allies, nothing was going to be done to block China as their need for a stable oil supply and, therefore a stable economy was in TPTB's interest. (At least until China militarized them....)

A swap, South China Sea resources in exchange for China's withdrawing support for Iran. A good deal for China. Still possible...yes? Germany? Those high tech companies supplying Iran would be blocked from doing business in the U.S. and those nations allied with the U.S.. Not Germany, overall. Doable.

I STILL believe where there's a will, there's a way. There just no will, or at least not sufficient will....so far. However, one major misstep by Iran and your scenario is likely D.O.A..

Credibility is the last card left to be played. Belief that the U.S. might still act. Trump has increased that credibility. More credibility is needed so as to avoid acting on the 'rhetoric'....

I would still risk war now rather than face unfettered, world-wide nuclear weapons possession by any who can afford them.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
You said there was 'no way' we'd get a consensus on boycotting Iran. I don't disagree. IF we boycott those nations that don't honor that boycott?? That changes the game. Not impossible.

China and Russia are the biggest players. Are you suggesting that we tank our economy by boycotting China? Either your with us or we boycott?

Finally, yes, Now or never. No, it doesn't require an invasion.....and you know it. The actual sites. Infrastructure and it's done. No invasion. Just enough missiles to mess them up... with secondary strikes as needed.
Then the proliferation will stop.

Really did all of the bombing in the first Gulf War Stop Saddam? We had to go back. If we had taken him out the first time we still would have had the quagmire 10=15 years earlier than we have.

You and I will have to disagree. This is not some simple strike on osirak. We are talking multiple sights that are dug in beyond belief that can and will be back up and running. If Israel thought they could bomb away Iran capacity ala Syria and Iraq they would have refrained? And spare me that Obama held them back. When has Netanyahu been afraid to not go his way. There are limits to airpower unless you are willing to re-investigate the nuclear bunker busters, it cannot be done without a ground invasion. Slowed and delayed Yes? Destroyed not a chance.

a reply to: FredT

Please read my last post.

China will give up Iran in exchange for unfettered access to South China Sea oil.

What has Russia to do with 'economy'? Nothing. They don't have an economy. Italy's is bigger.

Buried is as good as destroyed. Start digging them up? Bury 'em again.

Yes, we will have to agree to disagree
....except your comment on Obama and Bibi, That I agree with....

a reply to: nwtrucker

Attacking Irans nuclear facilities is certainly possible but it really doesn’t solve anything in the long run.
If the strike is successful (not really a serious question if the US does it) you delayed their nuclear ambitions for depending on what you choose to believe five to fifteen years.

On the other hand, you have just confirmed Irans worst superstitions about you and even if you manage to avoid a general war after your surgical strike Iran will subsequently redouble their efforts to get a nuclear bomb as soon as possible.
This time without internal opposition against the nuclear program. And they’ll be smart about it and disperse their efforts even more than they are already doing. A couple of years down the road you’ll end up with a lot of head scratching Intelligence types trying to figure out if Israel srenewed hysteria over Irans new concealed nuclear weapons program is justified or not and what to do about it. Good luck with that.

Destroying hardware is easy. But rebuilding is too. Accumulating knowledge is hard. Getting rid of it is almost impossible. There’s a reason why the Mossad under Dagan and Pardo went after Iranian nuclear scientists. Taking out the right guys at the right time might be as effective or more effective than throwing a dozen Bunker Busters at Natanz. Albeit far less spectacular.

If you want to go for a military solution you have to deny them the ability to rebuild the program. This means destroying Iran as a developed country, destroying their entire infrastructure, throwing them back into an almost preindustrial age. Essentially ww2 levels of destruction. Military this is possible. But its also inconceivable in this day and age.

About your South China Sea idea. This is just not how international politics work. The US cant offer the South China Sea to China, they don’t own it. China will do what its wants in the South China Sea and the US is not and never will be in a position to do anything about it. Nobody will risk a confrontation over some artificial islands and oil fields and both sides know this.
And how would this even work? Any secret or public US guarantee not to do anything about the South China Sea would not be worth the paper its written on. It wont survive the next administration if that. Just look at what happened with the guarantees the Ukraine got when they agreed to give up their nuclear weapons…

As for blocking German companies – really? Do you really think any of the clowns in the current US administration (or any of the clowns in the last one or the one before for that matter) has the political power to block the major German players from “doing business in the US and those nations allied with the US”? I think you have to go back to the days of Eisenhower to find an US administration which could force the rest of the western world to stop business with German tech companies over something as ridiculous as an Iranian nuclear program.
These days? They cant even write travel ban order which can survive in court. The halflife of an economic boycott order from the White House would probably be measured in minutes.

Anyway, its not that I disagree with you on principle. I wished something would be done a decade ago too. But sadly its just kicking the can down the road time and again. Each time it gets worse and the risk ever higher. Things wont change though. We’ll learn to live with the Iranian bomb. Just as with learn to live with the North Korean one. And the Saudi bomb once Iran gets nuclear. No matter. We’ll learn to live with the occasional Mushroom cloud too if it comes down to it. its a sick world

a reply to: mightmight


You could very well be right.

Yet the same Iranians might say we don't need the nukes. We are doing better without them than risking war with the U.S..

Likewise the Chinese, or the Germans or the rest of the world, for that matter. If find it hard to believe the rest of the world actually support nuclear proliferation....or would go to war in support of it. In fact evidence suggests the vast majority of nations want nothing to do with nuclear weapons.

I would gladly accept your 10 to 15 year premise as a form of 'kicking it down the road' rather than a mushroom cloud. It would send a rather strong message to the Saudis and others as well.

China's motive for supporting Iran is oil and oil only. Do your really think China will risk war or financial disaster over Iran? As much as the U.S. would suffer, so would China. A South China Sea Accord permits China a face saving 'out'. I'm betting they would take it in a heartbeat.

I'd also disagree about the Germans. There is no Corporation that would willingly take on the USA in a direct confrontation. Their share values would crash. LOL.

Bottom line, doing nothing IS an guarantee of continued nuclear proliferation. Push comes to shove, the rest of the world would back the U.S..


I won't endorse doing nothing. That's what got us where we are.