Iran kick off looking iminant?
- Thread starter ralf
- Start date
fenderburn84
Well-Known Member
I think the reason we have not attacked yet is, we have not needed to. They may be pomping around but they are yet to be a threat. If they put one icbm on Venezuela's soil it will rain upon them. In all defense they know that though, so if they make that move they know what's coming.
beardo
Well-Known Member
That's what i'm a little afraid of...
We might not, and we might not even know
Kennedy was ready to go head on win, lose or loose loose- and then what happened?
would that happen today? or would we pay...???
fenderburn84
Well-Known Member
The uncertainty is felt here as well. Of it does kick off though we will take Venezuela wich is a shit storm we don't need, and we will have to do something in Iran. If the people there hate their rulers maybe take em out and give the power to them. The worst case I can think of is more nation building. That is what is draining us.
Brick Top
New Member
You really need to bone up on the history of WWII if you are going to talk about it. The 3rd Canadian Infantry Division reinforced by the 2nd Canadian Armored Brigade attacked a section of beach, code named Juno Beach, that had very thin defenses and was only manned by elements of the 726th and 736th regiments. It was nothing at all like what U.S. troops encountered on Omaha Beach. When attacking a thin line of defenses, an area lacking defense in depth, and what defenses are there are thinnly manned and you greatly outnumber the defenders, it does not take some incredible feat of arms to overcome it.
You said; "stalin tryed to get you guys to launch D - day which you guys kept changing." There was a very good reason why the D-Day invasion did not occur earlier. It was a massive undertaking the likes of which had never been attempted before. Not only was there a need for more men and arms but also both combat ships, troop transports, supply ships and all sorts of specialized equipment and material, like the artificial port, called Mullberry. Each were 6 miles long and could move 7,000 tons of men and supplies over them each day. These structures were to be sheltered from the sea by lines of massive sunken caissons (called Phoenixes). It was estimated that construction of the caissons alone required 330,000 cubic yards (252,000 cubic metres) of concrete, 31,000 tons of steel, and 1.5 million yards (1.4 million metres) of steel shuttering. Then there were also lines of scuttled ships (called Gooseberries), and a line of floating breakwaters (called Bombardons). Those sorts of things are not invented, designed and built overnight, especially with the tremendous need for materials for armaments and other various types of military hardware and construction, no matter how many times Stalin asked for an Allied European invasion. An earlier invasion attempted that would have been a failed invasion would not have helped Russia, it would have hurt Russia. It would have taken a great deal of time to rebuild and replace the men, ships and material that was lost and that would have meant the Channel Coast would have been safer longer and more German units could have been shifted to the Eastern Front.
Of course it was in part the Allied airborne landings prior to the beach invasions that greatly helped the beach landings to be a success, including the Canadian landing on Juno Beach.
Gee, what Canadian Airborne Divisions were involved in the air drop? Oh, that's right, it was NONE!
The D-Day Airborne Landing Divisions
U.S. 82nd (All-American)
U.S. 101st (Screaming Eagles)
British 6th
British 1st
And when you said; "only things you guys did at the time as you were allies with ussr was send suppies to northern ussr," you were wrong there too. U.S. troops had gone ashore on North Africa and after an initial rough start the green troops pinched the vaunted Africa Corps between them and the British and on May 9, 1943, the commander of the German "Afrika Corps" surrendered his force of 40,000 troops.
Next U.S. and British Forces took Sicily. Then on September 9th, 1943 U.S. and British troops invaded Italy going ashore at Salerno. In January 1944 U.S. troops went ashore at Anzio.
All those actions not only kept more German troops from being able to be sent to the Eastern Front to fight the Russians but drew forces away from the German's Eastern Front easing the pressure on the Russians.
The U.S. 8th Army Air Force alone had flown 393 bombing missions prior to June 6th, 1944, D-Day. They greatly reduced the German ability to move men and materials and also cut war production, which also was a great help to the Russians. Some missions were flown at the request of the Russians who picked targets important to them.
There was also the U.S. 12th Air Force flying missions against European targets from bases in North Africa.
As for the German U-boats you made it sound like they ruled the seas, the Allies sank almost 800 U-Boats and over 30,000 of the 39,000 German sailors who put to sea, the highest casualty rate of any armed service in the history of modern war. The tide of the Battle of the Atlantic turned irrevocably against the Nazis in May 1943. That was the first month that more U-boats were sunk than Allied merchant vessels. From May 1943 until the end of the war two years later, German submarines were unable to duplicate their successes of the first three years of the war. From that point on in the war there was a steady flow of men and material across the Atlantic.
My father was a rifleman in General Patton's Third Army. If he were alive today I feel positive that he would disagree with you about how little the U.S. did in WWII. I believe the same could be said of my uncle, a side gunner on an 8th Air Force B-17. And I also believe the recently deceased father of my longest time friend, 50 years in about April, who served in the 101 Airborne Division would be pretty quick to set you straight about U.S. participation and importance in the European Theater of WWII.
And while all that, and much more, was going on the U.S. Marines and U.S. Army troops on the other side of the planet, with extremely little help from any other nations military forces, defeated the Imperial Japanese Military Forces.
Compare casualty figures and then see if you can take a guess at which of the two nations bore more of the brunt of the fighting in WWII, Canada or the U.S.
Canadian Casualties (1939 - 1945):
Soldiers (Allied) - 44,893 Killed
U.S. Casualties (1941 - 1945):
Soldiers (Allied) - 408,200 Killed
Civilians - 1,000 Killed
You talk as if Canada played some important decisive part in the war. If not for the U.S. Canadians might now be speaking Japanese or German.
fenderburn84
Well-Known Member
This guy is just trying to use smoke so no one sees he knows nothing about, well nothing. He is a fool. And very nice breakdown bricktop you have a refreshing grasp on the military history of the period.
Brick Top
New Member
That doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with the Canadian Forces on June 6th, 1944 or during the rest of the war, now does it?
I responded to what you said ... not to something you then later thought up to come back at me with.
No, I do not believe the U.S. is worried.
What kind of; "massacre" do you believe the U.S. would suffer?
China lacks a blue water Navy, it has extremely little naval capabilities outside it's territorial waters. It is building and building as fast as it can, but it's Navy is still in it's infancy compared to the U.S. Navy, so what's China going to do? Go nuke on the U.S. and just like the U.S. be utterly devastated? Do you honestly believe that China would go down for the count over Iran?
Russia has a far greater Navy than China, but it doesn't compare to that of the U.S. But what's it going to do over sanctions? Now if the U.S. blockaded Iran then the Russians could try to force a showdown, but would it be worth it to them for Iran? And if the Russians did not attempt to break the blockade, what could they do? Go nuke. And just like the Chinese, do you honestly believe that Russia is willing to cease to exist over Iran?
Oh, and in case you do not know, there is something called NATO:
Article 5
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defense recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Canada is a member of NATO and would, by treaty agreement, have to come to the aid of the U.S. if attacked by China and or Russia. So would another 26 nations, some of them nuclear nations, like France and the United Kingdom.
Do you honestly believe that China and or Russia would start WWIII and go to war with the U.S. and all the NATO members over U.S. sanctions imposed on Iran? Only a complete and utter fool could ever imagine so.
OK, so let's say the Straits of Hormuz are closed off by Iran.
Do you know who the number of supplier of oil to the U.S. was in 2010? (Sorry but I didn't see any 2011 figures to use.)
Canada. Will the Straits being blocked stop Canadian oil, no, and Canada will not cut off the flow of oil to the U.S. if sanctions are placed on Iran by the U.S. Back in November, 2011 the United States, Britain and Canada each announced measures aimed at shutting off Iran’s access to foreign banks and credit.
Do you think after doing the following that Canada will become so upset with the U.S. that it would cut the flow of oil?
Canada is not going to impose sanctions against the U.S. in response to U.S. sanctions against Iran. There would be no valid reason or justification for it. Only a child or a moron would believe it would ever happen.
Saudi Arabia was next. Would be a problem.
Mexico was third. Mexico doesn't rely on the Straits.
Venezuela was fourth. That's pretty far from the Straits.
Nigeria was fifth. Again, the Straits not needed.
Colombia was sixth. Do you think Colombian oil passes through the Straits?
Iraq was seventh. Would be a problem.
Ecuador was eighth. No problem there.
Angola was ninth. No problem there.
Russia was tenth. Problem if they side with Iran and say no more. But Russia needs money so there would be a temptation on their part, unless they start a war with the U.S., to just let the U.S. suffer the loss of oil through the Straits so it's income flow would remain high.
Brazil was eleventh. Blocked Straits or not, that would not be effected.
Kuwait was twelfth. Problem there.
Algeria was thirteenth. Not a problem.
Chad was fourteenth. No problem there.
Oman was fifteenth. Oman is outside the Straits.
OK, so some oil flow is cut. But then other nations hungry for money would be willing to do what they could to increase production and make up for the shortfall.
What in the wide, wide world of sports does the Korean War, the War in Vietnam or the Iraqi War have to do with the absurd things you said about Canada on D-Day and the U.S. during WWII?
Clearly what I said left you with absolutely no chance to refute the facts so now you are attempting to totally alter the direction of what you said just to attempt to make the U.S. appear weak and impotent.
Something else to mull on. The Korean War was not am American war. It was a U.N. war. Besides the ROK forces and the U.S. forces and the British forces there were troops from Australia, Belgium, Canada, Colombia, Ethiopia, France, Greece, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the Philippines, Thailand and Turkey. The Union of South Africa provided air units which fought along side the air forces of other member nations.
Now The Korean War was neither won nor lost, it came to a halt with a ceasefire, not a surrender or an armistice, there was only a ceasefire which is all that still exists today.
But if you really want to try to claim The Korean War was indeed lost then it was lost by the ROK, the British, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Colombia, Ethiopia, France, Greece, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the Philippines, Thailand and Turkey. The Union of South Africa and the U.S.
Does that make you feel any better about the outcome of the Korean War?
OK, The Korean War. It could have been won if not having been run largely by politicians. It is almost 100% that you do not know it but even requests for small scale movement of men other than what was called for in a plan of battle or during a defensive battle, and even needed artillery support, had to be radioed to Japan where the request was mulled over and often times it would then be forwarded to Washington DC and the Pentagon and fairly often it would make it to the White House for a decision to be made. It was not uncommon for a reply to come 12-hours or more later, long after a battle had been won or lost. It is impossible to win a war when that is how it is run.
There were various political considerations that were seen as being more important than the military liability they would cause. Out of fear of provoking the Red Chinese into entering the war, when the request was made to bomb the bridges over the Yalu River, to stop the flow of arms to North Korea, the response was the bridges could be bombed, but only the North Korean side of them. Lacking smart bombs in that era the bridges were not destroyed and over those very same bridges poured 700,000 Red Chinese Troops.
This is a map of how far South North Korean forces got in the beginning of the war.
Previous to that the U.N. Forces had pushed North almost to the Chinese border.
This is a map of how far North the U.N. Forces got before the Chinese intervention.
If not for the intervention of the Red Chinese the war, even as poorly as it was run, would have been won by the U.N. Forces.
But even with the intervention of the Red Chinese the war could have been won if the politicians would have gotten out of the decision making process and had the stomach to win.
An example of the skill and tenacity of the U.S. Marines in Korea would be the battle at the Chosin Reservoir. The First Marine Divisions along with a handful of stragglers from shattered Army units found themselves surrounded by 22 Red Chinese Divisions, that's over 363,000 Red Chinese Troops. The First Marines had roughly 12,500 men, plus the small number of Army stragglers who found their way into the Marine perimeter.
The Army wrote off the First Marine Division, it was sure it would be wiped out.
When the battle ended the First Marine Division marched in an orderly manner South to get under the big guns of the Fleet, Behind them they left 7 Red Chinese Divisions utterly destroyed, that's over 115,500 Red Chinese, and they put a pretty good hurting on several more Red Chinese Divisions.
The First Marine Division was outnumbered by 29 to 1. The First Marine Division inflicted the highest casualty ratio on any enemy in history.
The Red Chinese along with North Korean forces were not unbeatable and the Red Chinese and the North Korean forces did not win The Korean War. Oh, and I can add the former Soviet Union to that because the North Korean Mig fighter jets were piloted by the best pilots the former Soviet Union had. That is the major reason why when in a situation where they knew they were in trouble they would fly into Manchurian airspace, and U.S./U.N. aircraft were not allowed to follow. It gave the Russians in North Koreans Migs a safe haven. You can't win when you allow the other guys to leave the field of battle but don't allow your own guys to follow. They could not allow themselves to be shot down over U.N. held territory where it would then be discovered that the former Soviet Union was fighting the air war for North Korea.
When it comes to Vietnam almost the very same thing could be said as about The Korean War. General Võ Nguyên Giáp wrote a book and in it he said that after the January 1968 Tet Offensive he did not believe the war could be won and was considering pushing for a peace proposal that would divide North and South Vietnam into two nations.
While in the anti-war U.S. new media Tet was made to sound like a major victory for the North it was actually anything but. The NVA/VC lost more than 45,000 men and had nearly 1,000 captured. That was out of a total force of slightly more than 80,000. The NVA was decimated and the loses were initially perceived by General Võ Nguyên Giáp as being insurmountable. He decided to give it two more weeks. In that time the news from the U.S., the increased numbers of massive peace demonstrations that pressured LBJ to scale back the air war gave General Võ Nguyên Giáp all the hope he needed.
Had the U.S. politicians had the same kind of balls that the 5,000 Marines who were surrounded by, and stood off, 40,000 NVA at Khe Sanh had and ordered an instant massive nationwide counterattack and ramped up the air war to it's maximum potential (not including nukes of course) the war could have been won in 1968, when there were fewer than 10,000 Americans dead.
Instead the gutless wonders in Washington ran scared and the result was the U.S. simply gave up on the war and pulled out.
And precisely what does that have to do with your Canadian military on D-Day and what little you so incorrectly claimed the U.S. did in WWII and my response to it?
My only interest and my only comments were about how utterly incorrect you were. I can see why after I proved that you could not have been more incorrect if you gave it your very best effort that you would of course instantly abandon your position and reply with things that are attempts to make it appear as if our little exchange was about a totally different subject than it was.
That is really pathetic on your part.
I am stunned! You honestly are every bit as ignorant about U.S. exports as you are about WWII.
Again I do not have any 2011 numbers yet to use, but for 2010 U.S. exports rose 21%, that was $1.28 trillion. It was the sharpest rise in American exports since 1988, and it enabled the United States to pass Germany and again become the world’s second-largest exporter, behind China.
The problem the U.S. has when it comes to import - export is that it imports more than it exports, there is an imbalance that needs to be addressed.
As for me and what you would find in my home. You don't know squat. You only make broad ignorant assumptions.
I am a former Lincoln - Mercury dealer. In case you do not know, those are Ford Motor Company products, American products. I was saying buy American back when you were likely still messing your diapers, or at least still riding your bicycle around with your circle-jerk buddies.
While it is almost impossible to buy many things that do not have at least some foreign parts in them I do shop for American made products as much as possible.
Yet once again, you are wrong. We export a massive amount of goods, but we do import far more. So it is not like; "we just don't make that many any more."
You seem to write as if I am in favor of the massive deficit spending the U.S. does. I have been behind a balanced budget amendment for decades. I have also been behind the line item veto so wasteful spending could be cut out of legislation. But I can see where that is technically rewriting the law and since it is the job of congress to write laws and not the president I can see where that is not kosher ... even though it would be good.
But if you have taken many economic courses you would have learned that running a small deficit is not bad and can even be good. The problem of course is how to turn a massive deficit into a small one.
I would say I am more or less familiar with the slow process of devaluation. I have watched it occur for most of my now nearly 57 years of life.
Why don't you try telling me something I don't already know?
There's no reason to be a drama queen over a bad situation. My land is not and will not be stolen by the government to secure loans, that is unless you actually consider what is called public land to actually be owned by the public .. which is an absurdity of ever there was one.
Sometimes what things are called or defined as being are not actually as they are claimed. Prior to getting into the car business I held a Realtor's license. I don't know about the definition of a piece of property in other states but in mine it of course mentions the boundaries and then says it goes down to the center of the earth and up to the heavens. Now who is ever going to believe that to be true? And if so, then why could some corporation own mineral rights under my property if it is indeed my property and I did not sell them the rights myself? And how come the government can charge for broadcasters to beam radio and TV signals through my airspace without me getting a cut? Shouldn't I be able to charge airlines a 'toll' for passing through my airspace? According to the legal definition of property in this state it is mine. But it is a meaningless definition just as public land is.
fenderburn84
Well-Known Member
You know what? I like the way you think bricktop
fenderburn84
Well-Known Member
When the time comes to destroy the Iranian government there will be no doubt of united states supremecy. I think our generals have learned a thing or two about this new style of war and Iran is in a shit storm they can't even comprehend.
smok3y1
Active Member
Heres how I see things going down.
Some form of false flag operation/situation where Iran will be blamed. US has no choice but to start war Israel joins, Britain, Libya's new government, few others as-well vs Egypt, Iran, Russia, China and possibly Pakistan on the other side. This will probably be around but most likely before 2012 elections. US economy will collapse taking paper money along with it. Gold and Silver will become the new form of currency. Israel will be the main dominating country to eventually winning by using nuclear weapons capturing Egypt's land. Some parts I know will happen e.g Egypt's land, eventually fall of US dollar, Iran will lose. Things will not be the same and the change Obama was referring to won't be a pleasant one for us.....
Some form of false flag operation/situation where Iran will be blamed. US has no choice but to start war Israel joins, Britain, Libya's new government, few others as-well vs Egypt, Iran, Russia, China and possibly Pakistan on the other side. This will probably be around but most likely before 2012 elections. US economy will collapse taking paper money along with it. Gold and Silver will become the new form of currency. Israel will be the main dominating country to eventually winning by using nuclear weapons capturing Egypt's land. Some parts I know will happen e.g Egypt's land, eventually fall of US dollar, Iran will lose. Things will not be the same and the change Obama was referring to won't be a pleasant one for us.....
smok3y1
Active Member
For what crime have they committed?
fenderburn84
Well-Known Member
Threatening economic warfare, not to mention those icbm's that no one wants to talk about in Venezuela. If you look that is an act of war, you may not like it but it is.
RyanTheRhino
Well-Known Member
Apparently you know nothing about nuclear deterrents. Russia didn't make a move during its highest status as a nation . They did nothing during Korea & Vietnam or when american stinger missiles shot down their helicopters in Afghanistan. the real reason Russia agreed to remove the missiles from Cuba was because of our newly created Stealth bomber armed with nukes. They could fly over Russia and were only detectable miles after they reached their target. The USA removing missiles from turkey in exchange for the Cuban misslse didn't weaken our status it only removed the only true threat to us. In reality the soviets had a great space program but they never really perfected a ICBM. They had a few ICBMS but the USA had enough to target every city in Russia. They mostly had Short range missiles that could reach Europe and Africa. From a base on Cuba their missiles could just barley reach California. We now have interception missiles that will destroy ICBMS.
1960s
Soviet ICBM range 4300 miles
USA ICBM range 6350 miles
Point being do you really think that Russia a now weaker nation would press the button if they even perfected their missiles yet. If any thing would happen Between China/Russia & the USA it would just be "Cold War II"
smok3y1
Active Member
Economic warfare? Are you forgetting that sanctions was placed on Iran first let alone econmic threats. Also have you seen the number of US bases all around neighboring countries to Iran? and for how many years has the US been threatening Iran? When was the last time Iran started a war? What about the number of wars directly/indirectly the US has had since WW2? I think anyone with common sense knows who the aggressor is.
Brick Top
New Member
Why would anyone believe that anything you have said on this subject is even half close to accurate? You were wrong about what you said about Canada and the U.S. in WWII. You asked if I thought the U.S. won the Korean War, as if the Korean War was an American war rather than a U.N. war that involved ROK forces, British forces and troops from Australia, Belgium, Canada, Colombia, Ethiopia, France, Greece, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the Philippines, Thailand and Turkey and the U.S. and the Union of South Africa provided air units which fought along side the air forces of other member nations. You asked about Vietnam, something that I am sure you learned the liberal revisionist written history of in history class in school but in reality don't know squat about. And you've gone on about Libya as if it was a U.S. and U.S. alone military action when it was a NATO operation.
From ABC News:
[h=1]NATO Unleashes Blistering Airstrikes in Libya[/h]
From Voice of America News:
[h=2]NATO Airstrikes on Libya Intensify[/h]
From The Guardian:
[h=1]Nato to wind down Libya air strikes as rebels take fight to Tripoli[/h]
From BBC News:
[h=1]Libya says Nato air strike kills dozens south of Zlitan[/h]
From The Huffington Post:
[h=1]Tripoli Bombed By NATO Airstrikes As Libya Capital Receives Heaviest Bombing Yet[/h]
What need of agenda do you have to attempt to portray the NATO Air Mission in Libya as being strictly a U.S. mission, as you attempted to portray the Korean War?
Or it is simply an impressive example of your ignorance?
I start most mornings watching CSPAN's Washington Journal and then I read most, if not all, articles on www.RealPolitics.com and I have not seen, heard or read what you have claimed. Do you care to cite your claim? Or were you talking about the Iranian Navy manuvers already taken and others already planned?
The one weapon Iran possesses that could be a real threat to the 5th Fleet is the Russian made Sunburn missiles. They were designed to overcome the Pentagons ship-based anti-missile tech including its most notable Close In Weapons System the Phalanx and likely the Aegis system as well. But then the U.S. has been aware of them for some time and upgrading systems to better be able to defend against them.
The U.S. would likely lose some ships, but it would still complete it's task. The U.S. Navy doesn't show an enemy it's fantail and run jest because it gets it's nose bloodied.
If you need to be schooled in how tough and determined the U.S. Navy is read about The Battle off Samar where threeFletcher-class destroyers - Hoel,Heermann and Johnston and four destroyer escorts faced off against an Imperial Japanese Navy Tast Force made up of four battleships (Yamato, the largest most powerful battleship ever built), and the Haruna, Kongo and Nagato, six heavy cruisers, two light cruisers, and eleven destroyers.
The Hoel and Johnston, and the destroyer escort Samuel B. Roberts were sunk and the other three small U.S. ships also undewent a Hellish pounding but remained afloat. But the seven small ships with their light guns, torpedoes and no armor plating put up such a fierce fight that Admiral Kurita believed he was facing a superior naval tast force and ordered his damaged, but still far superior, task force to retreat and his ships turned and steamed away a quickly as they could.
Again, that was seven of the smallest lightest armed least protected combat ships in the U.S. Navy defeated an Imperial Japanese Task Force comprised of four battleships (Yamato, the largest most powerful battleship ever built), and the Haruna, Kongo and Nagato, six heavy cruisers, two light cruisers, and eleven destroyers.
That is the U.S. Navy. Do you honestly believe it will back down to Iran, or if in a battle run from Iran? No, it won't. It will pay whatever price it has to, regardless of how high, but it will complete it's task.
Of course it will be, at any second. Heck, I might not be able to finish this message before the nation is left powerless. But even if my luck holds out and you are able to see my reply you won't be able to understand it and even if you could you are to pigheaded to accept the truth when it is presented to you.
I helped fill gallon jugs with fresh water and stack canned goods in our basement during the Cuban Missile Crisis when the U.S. and the former Soviet Union stared each other down over Soviet nuclear missiles on Cuba and a U.S. naval blockade of Cuba and the world was closer to nuclear war than at any other time in it's history.
Do you actually believe I am in any way concerned now because of Iran?
Regardless of Iran's claims of the past the Straits of Hormuz are international waters. If Iran blocked them that is a breach of the most elementary rules of international law. It is an act of war and if America re-opens the strait and the Iranian navy attacks U.S. ships, thats essentially a declaration of war on the U.S.
Since it would be breaking international law, that would bring far more nations into things than only the U.S. and it would cause the U.N. to apply severe pressure on Iran. If Iran blocked the Straits of Hormuz the U.S. would open them. If the Iranian Navy attacked the U.S. fleet, the Iranian Navy would cease to exist and it would give the U.S. total justification to bomb Iran, and even invade Iran if the U.S. felt it was needed.
Regardless of your delusions, no nation is going down for the count for Iran. No nuclear nation is going to want to start WWIII over the fate of Iran and end up obliterated because of it.
China has engaged in saber rattling since before it had a sabre and only had a small pocket knife. It is in it's nature to make boisterous belligerent public statements.
At times Russia talks tough too but that is posturing for it's partners in the world. Behind the scenes the U.S. and Russia actually work rather close together. If you need an example research how Russia relied greatly on the U.S. to help it secure it's old nuclear arsenal when the former Soviet Union collapsed and it had ICBM sites in former Soviet States and storage locations for nuclear bombs, artillery shells and even landmines in former Soviet States. At the time Russia was so broke it could not meet it's military payroll on time and only the most important units and people even received full rations for meals. When Russia feared the spreading of nuclear weaponry and asked the U.S. to come in and help the U.S. spent billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to help Russia secure it's nuclear arsenal.
Sadly, that sort of cooperation between the nations receives little to no press coverage. But that's because the mainstream media thrives on the most theatrical news, the dire predictions of doom and gloom. The mainstream media is like it is portrayed in the Don Henley song, "Dirty Laundry." We got the bubble-headed-bleach-blonde who comes on at five, she can tell you 'bout the plane crash with a gleam in her eye. It's interesting when people die. Give us dirty laundry. And farther on in the song. You don't really need to find out what's going on. You don't really want to know how far it's gone. Just leave well enough alone. Eat your dirty laundry.
Sensationalism sells when the boring facts won't, buddy. It's time you learned that.
This is some of the latest news about Iran's threat.
[h=1]Iran Able to Block Strait of Hormuz, General Dempsey Says on CBS[/h] Q
By Kathleen Hunter and Viola Gienger - Jan 9, 2012 12:00 AM ET
Enlarge image
Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman General Martin Dempsey. Photographer: Rich Clement/Bloomberg
Iran has the ability to block the Strait of Hormuz for a period of time, and the U.S. would take action to reopen it, Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman General Martin Dempsey said.
Theyve invested in capabilities that could, in fact, for a period of time block the Strait of Hormuz, Dempsey said in an interview aired yesterday on the CBS Face the Nation program. Weve invested in capabilities to ensure that if that happens, we can defeat that.
Should Iran try to close Hormuz, the U.S. would take action and reopen the waterway, said Dempsey, President Barack Obamas top military adviser.
Blocking the Strait of Hormuz, a strategic shipping lane linking the Gulf of Oman with the Persian Gulf, would constitute a red line for the U.S., as would Iranian efforts to build a nuclear weapon, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said on the same program.
The U.S. tightened economic sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program on Dec. 31, and the European Union is weighing a ban later this month on purchases of Iranian crude.
[h=2]Iranian Threat[/h] Iran threatened last month to shut the Strait of Hormuz, a transit point for a fifth of oil traded worldwide, if sanctions are imposed on its crude exports. Iran held 10 days of naval maneuvers east of the strait ending Jan. 3. The country plans even bigger military maneuvers in the area next month, the state-run Fars news agency reported on Jan. 5.
U.S. sanctions imposed last year seek to cut off dealings with Irans banking system, making it difficult for consumers to buy the countrys oil.
Iran has also started to enrich uranium at its Fordo production facility, according to the official Kayhan newspaper.
The existence of the Fordo plant, built into the side of a mountain near the Muslim holy city of Qom, south of Tehran, was disclosed in September 2009, heightening concern among the U.S. and its allies who say Irans activities may be a cover for the development of atomic weapons. The Persian Gulf country says it needs nuclear technology to secure energy for its growing population.
[h=2]Pressure on Iran[/h] Continued pressure, rather than threats of air strikes, is the best way to forestall Iran from developing nuclear weapons, Panetta said.
While the U.S. shouldnt take any option off the table, Panetta said the responsible thing to do right now is to keep putting diplomatic and economic pressure on them to force them to do the right thing, and to make sure that they do not make the decision to proceed with the development of a nuclear weapon.
Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum said Jan. 1 on NBCs Meet the Press that he would use air strikes against Iran unless the country dismantled its nuclear program or allowed inspectors to verify that the work isnt aimed at making a weapon.
Dempsey suggested that curbing Irans nuclear work by bombing its facilities would be difficult.
Id rather not discuss the degree of difficulty and in any way encourage them to read anything into that, Dempsey said. My responsibility is to encourage the right degree of planning, to understand the risks associated with any kind of military option.
[h=2]Israeli Strike[/h] Should Israel decide to undertake a unilateral military strike against Iran, the U.S. priority would be protecting American troops in the region, Panetta said.
Dempsey and Panetta sought on CBS to provide assurances that the new U.S. military strategy, announced last week, wont limit the U.S. ability to stop aggressors.
What were looking to do here is not constrain ourselves to a two-war construct, but rather build a force that has the kind of agility needed to adapt to any scenario, Dempsey said. Previous U.S. war planning called for preparing to fight two conventional wars simultaneously.
The plan was driven by the need to cut almost $490 billion from projected Pentagon spending through 2021, including about $261 billion through 2017. Panetta said last week the details wont be released until the Pentagon presents its 2013 budget request to Congress by early February.
Brick Top
New Member
Originally Posted by fenderburn84
When the time comes to destroy the Iranian government there will be no doubt of united states supremecy. I think our generals have learned a thing or two about this new style of war and Iran is in a shit storm they can't even comprehend.
There was no mention of any; "crime" having been; "committed," so why ask what you asked?
But if Iran would block the Straits of Hormuz it then would be breaking international law.
Also, if there is hard evidence that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons then it is in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty of which it is a signatory.
Brick Top
New Member
"Had" being the key word in your above statement. In 2011 the Russians had five failed space missions.
Again, "had" being the key word in your statement.
The Russian RT-23 / SS-24 SCALPEL is comparable in size and concept to the US Peacekeeper, it is cold-launched and carries 10 warheads.
The RT-2UTTH Topol-M is an advanced version of the silo-based and mobile Topol intercontinental ballistic missile. The SS-25 Topol is generally similar to the American Minuteman-2 and has a range of 6,900 miles.
The RT-2PM - SS-25 SICKLE Approximately the size of the U.S. Minuteman ICBM, the SS-25 carries a single-warhead atop a three stage system and has a range of 6,500 miles.
In the past the former Soviet Union made up for numbers of ICBMs and also for a lack of accuracy by designing much more powerful warheads than U.S. missiles carried. You may have read about Big Ivan, The Tsar Bomba (King of Bombs) It was the largest nuclear weapon ever constructed or detonated. This three stage weapon was a 100 megaton bomb design.
When "Big Ivan" was tested only roughly half the amount of fissionable material was used making it roughly a 50 megaton bomb. The test was conducted by air dropping the bomb from a specially modified Tu-95N "Bear A" strategic bomber. It was released at 10,500 meters, and made a parachute retarded descent to 4000 meters in 188 seconds before detonation. By that time the release bomber was already in the safe zone about 45 km away. The drop area was over land at the Mityushikha Bay test site, on the west coast of Novaya Zemlya Island, above test field D-2, near Cape Sukhoy Nos. The Tu-95 was accompanied by a Tu-16 "Badger" airborne laboratory to observe and record the test.
The test location was about 55 km north of the Severny settlement and 250 km north of the headquarters at Belushya, from where it was observed by the State Commission. The bomb design team and the test supervisors, headed by Major General Nikolai Pavlov, Chairman of the State Commission, monitored the test at the airfield near Olenya station on the Kola Peninsula 1000 km away.
Observers were also at many other locations. Among these were Soviet Minister of Medium Machine Building Efim Slavsky and Marshal of the Soviet Union Kirill Moskalenko, deputies to the 22nd Congress of the CPSU then in session, who had arrived by plane on the day of the test to observe the explosion. They observed the test aboard an Il-14 "crate" at a distance of several hundred kilometers from ground zero. Sakharov himself stayed by the phone, presumably at Arzamas-16, waiting for a call from Maj. Gen. Pavlov.
The effects were spectacular. Despite the very substantial burst height of 4,000 m (13,000 ft) the vast fireball reached down to the Earth, and swelled upward to nearly the height of the release plane. The blast pressure below the burst point was 300 PSI, six times the peak pressure experienced at Hiroshima. The flash of light was so bright that it was visible at a distance of 1,000 kilometers, despite cloudy skies. One participant in the test saw a bright flash through dark goggles and felt the effects of a thermal pulse even at a distance of 270 km.
A shock wave in air was observed at Dickson settlement at 700 km; windowpanes were partially broken to distances of 900 km. All buildings in Severny (both wooden and brick), at a distance of 55 km, were completely destroyed. In districts hundreds of kilometers from ground zero, wooden houses were destroyed, and stone ones lost their roofs, windows and doors; and radio communications were interrupted for almost one hour.
The atmospheric disturbance generated by the explosion orbited the earth three times.
A gigantic mushroom cloud rose as high as 64 kilometers (210,000 ft). Despite being exploded in the atmosphere, it generated substantial seismic signals. According to a bulletin of the U.S. Geological Survey it had seismic magnitude mb = 5.0 to 5.25. The blast wave was detected circling the world.
The Tu-95 was painted with a special white reflective paint to protect it from the thermal radiation of the fireball. The airborne laboratory plane was also covered with the same paint. In clear air, the 50 Mt test was capable in principle of inflicting third degree burns at a distance of up to 100 km.
The area of effectively complete destruction extended to 25 km, and ordinary houses would be subjected to severe damage out to 35 km. The destruction and damage of buildings occurred sporadically at much greater ranges than this due to the effects of atmospheric focusing, an unpredictable but unavoidable phenomenon with very large atmospheric explosions that is capable of generating localized regions of destructive blast pressure at great distances (even exceeding 1000 km).
Those were the results of a 'half-strength' "Big Ivan." That is why the former Soviet Union did not actually need as many ICBMs or warheads or as high of a degree of accuracy as U.S. ICBMs. In that era the former Soviet Union did not lag behind the U.S. when it came to mega tonnage.
There is no way any nuclear nation will want to get into a hot war with the U.S. over Iran if there is even the slightest chance it could turn nuclear. MutualAssured Destruction, a.k.a. MAD is what will prevent Russia and or China from becoming actively involved if the U.S. and Iran end up in a war.
If a hot war with a nuclear nation went nuke it would not remain a battlefield type nuclear exchange for long. It would escalate into an exchange between nations. Once the U.S. was attacked, even conventionally for that fact, it would automatically draw into the conflict all of NATO. That means even more nuclear nations becoming involved.
Neither Russia or China would be insane enough to start WWIII over Iran, and be utterly destroyed in the process. Even if either or both believed they could take on the U.S. and come out of it with what could be considered acceptable losses, which they could not, that would not be the case. They would find themselves at war with all of NATO and likely a number of other nations that once it became a world war would side with the NATO nations.
Anyone who cannot understand that or refuses to accept it has absolutely no conception of the complete and utter destruction that would take place in an all out nuclear exchange. There would be no winners. Everyone would lose. No one could go and occupy the land of another nation because they wouldn't have the capability to cross their own nation let alone go part of halfway around the planet to occupy another utterly destroyed nation.
If the U.S. were to attack Iran taking out every command and control center, every radar site, every military base, every governmental building, every power supply, every water supply, hit every Iranian nuclear facility with the newest generation of deep penetrating bunker buster bombs, and also hit other bunkers for the top military, for command and control, for the government, attacked ground forces from the air, destroyed key bridges and transportation hubs and landed troops ashore the most that Russia and China would do is talk big, make threats and try to funnel arms, munitions and supplies to Iran.
And for all those who believe that the U.S. wants a showdown with Iran, just stop and think a moment. The U.S. had large numbers of forces in Iraq, which borders Iran. A beach landing/invasion is the most difficult most risky (conventional) military maneuver there is. If the U.S. had intentions of attacking Iran it would have found a way to placate Iraq into letting U.S. forces remain longer, or just said, screw you, we're staying a bit longer, massed along the Iraq/Iranian border, which would have drawn Iranian forces to the border, attacked there and once the majority of Iranian forces were committed to battle only then stage a beach landing/invasion leaving the Iranian forces with U.S. forces both in front of them and behind them. The U.S. could also have increased forces in Afghanistan and massed them on the Iran/Afghanistan border and pushed into Iran from there at the same time as from Iraq and either not stage a beach landing/invasion or do that third when there would be very little resistance to face because Iranian forces would desperately be needed in the East and in the West. That would also initially keep the U.S. 5th Fleet at a much safer distance from Iran and their Sunburn anti-ship missiles during the period of time they would be the most dangerous and only after most of the coast had been stripped of it's manpower and through airstrikes Sunburn sites were taken out, only then come in closer and if need be clear the Straits.
If the U.S. wanted a war with Iran, it would already have it. The U.S. wants to pressure Iran as much as possible without it turning into a war, but the U.S. will not back down to Iranian threats, and if anything flaunt it's military power in the region daring the Iranians to do something incredibly stupid so it would be Iran that would be forced to back down or else suffer the same fate as Saddam's Iraq, a forced regime change.
[h=1]What's Happening in the Persian Gulf Explained[/h]
[h=3]Why Iran is talking tough, the US is maneuvering warships, and gasoline is getting more expensive by the hour.[/h]By Adam Weinstein and Hamed Aleaziz
| Tue Jan. 3, 2012 3:58 PM PST
117
NATO/Flickr
The basics: Iran and the United States appear to be heading for a showdown in the Persian Gulf. Amid already-high tensions over Iran's advancing nuclear program, the US has imposed harsh new economic sanctions on the regime in Tehran. The sanctions have throttled Iran's economy, and the country has responded by threatening to shut down the Gulf to all shipping traffic. Iranian officials have also threatened military action against the United States and its allies in the region if they don't back off. Two US aircraft carriers are en route to the region.
How has the situation escalated? Over New Year's weekend, the Iranians announced that they'd made their first-ever nuclear fuel rods, potentially a major step forward in building a nuclear bomb.* Then they test-fired three anti-ship missiles in the Strait of Hormuz, a 34-mile-wide choke point in the Persian Gulf through which approximately 20 percent of the world's crude oil is transported. An Iranian admiral told state TV that the shots were a warning to America: "The control of the Strait of Hormuz is completely under our authority [too]," he said, warning that Iran would attack "any enemy" that endangered Iranian interests. In response, the US has sent two aircraft carriers steaming toward the Gulf to replace the USS John C. Stennis, which just ended its own Mideast deployment. "Iran advises, recommends and warns them [the US] not to move its carrier back to the previous area in the Gulf because Iran is not used to repeating its warnings and warns just once," a general told state media.
Will Iran actually shut down the Strait? It doesn't seem likely. While Iran could certainly cause problems, closing down the Strait would in fact be difficult for it to do. According to Reuters, "Iran would not be able to sustain a line of ships to block the Strait because it mainly has smaller boats that do not have the ability to stay in open waters in a coordinated formation for days." Meanwhile, both Iran's Revolutionary Guard and Navy have since backtracked on the threat. Mahmoud Mousavi, a Deputy Commander in the Iranian Navy, told state media Sunday that Iran "does not intend to impede maritime shipping in the area." Threats to close the Strait are also nothing new; Iranian officials for years have claimed that they would shut down the Strait (it's never happened). As Ahmad Bakhshayesh Ardestani, a candidate for Iran's parliament, told the Washington Post: "Our threat will not be realized. We are just responding to the US, nothing more."
How does this affect me? Expect the price of gas to stay high. Crude oil futures jumped significantly Tuesday on international jitters over the brinkmanship, and some analysts are predicting that even a short Gulf blockade could send the cost of a barrel of crude over $150, a 40 percent spike from current levels. "The ever-growing frequency of intense sabre-rattling and muscle flexing between Iran and the US should keep the markets jittery and vulnerable to sudden price jumps," market analyst JBC Energy reported Tuesday. Volatility in prices could get even worse in light of zero spare capacity among big oil producers such as Saudi Arabia
.
Do the tensions involve those mysterious explosions in Iran lately? Possibly. In recent months, there have been three mysterious explosions at factories and warehouses across the country. Seventeen Iranian soldiers were reportedly killed by a blast at an ammunition depot outside Tehran in mid-November; that facility was run by the nation's Revolutionary Guards, who have been implicated in uranium enrichment for nuclear weapons production. Later that month, a series of explosions leveled a key nuclear site in Isfahan, and anonymous Israeli sources disputed the Iranian explanation that it was an accident. And in December, seven people, including several foreigners, were killed when discarded ammunition reportedly exploded at a scrap-metal plant in Yazd. The blastsin addition to the untimely deaths of three leading Iranian nuclear scientists in the past two years, and a devastating cyberattack on Iran's nuclear facilitieshave led some analysts to believe that the United States and its allies are already deep into a covert war against the rogue state.
Don't we already have sanctions on Iran? Yesand under Obama, they're harsher than they've been in decades. Over New Year's weekend he signed a defense-spending bill with an amendment that effectively freezes international deals with Iran's Central Bank. If successful, it would halt much of Iran's oil sales and further destabilize its currency. It would also hurt European trade and likely cause global oil prices to soar. The threat posed by the amendment may help explain why Iran ratcheted up its rhetoric over the weekend. The White House had strongly opposed the legislation despite bipartisan support for it in Congress, but Obama went on to sign the bill anyway. Why? Apart from the fact that defense spending isn't really optional, the politics of the situation didn't seem to favor the White House. As Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), one of the amendment's sponsors, put it, "[A]s you enter a presidential contest, there's no upside to being soft on Iran."
Haven't we been through this before? Sort of. During the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s, both countries targeted the other's oil-tanker traffic in the Persian Gulf with missiles and mines. Starting in 1987, the US stepped into these "tanker wars" to protect oil shipments bound for the United States (or sold by US-based companies). During Operation Earnest Will and Operation Prime Chance, American naval ships protected convoys and kept the Iranians and Iraqis at bay. The global community had good reason to be on edge: During these operations, an American cruiser, the USS Vincennes, mistook an Iranian airliner for an incoming missile and shot it down, killing all 290 passengers. The engagement's only US fatalities resulted from an unprovoked air-to-surface missile attack on the USS Stark, which killed 37 sailors. But the shooter wasn't Iranian; he was Iraqi.
What's different this time around? The United States has a much bigger strategic presence in the Middle East, and a lot of new military capabilities that weren't around in 1987. The Navy's 5th Fleet operates out of Bahrain, just 150 miles from Iran. The Navy has better-developed countermeasures for threats from mines and missiles. And our special operations capabilities are much more robust; remember that little 2011 operation in a Pakistani town called Abbottabad? Backed up by special boat units and mobile inshore underwater warfare units, the SEALs are even more effective at sea than they are in the middle of South Asia. In addition, the US hopes Middle East allies (and Iran rivals), like Saudi Arabia, will help deter Iran. To that end, the United States recently awarded a $15 billion arms contract to Saudi Arabia.
How might the White House respond to Iranian provocation? Given all these factorsas well as President Obama's previous eagerness to flex military muscle in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Libya, and elsewherethere's little question that the White House could mount an effective naval operation to protect Gulf shipping while keeping tensions at a simmer. Or the president might use that capability, and Iranian histrionics, to take a case for further harsh sanctions against Iran to the United Nations which would likely require enforcement by US-led naval and air forces. Or Obama could simply open new talks with Iran through diplomatic back channels. That's likely to happen in any casebut if that's all that happens in the wake of Iran's latest threats, expect tough-talking GOP presidential candidates to fire away mercilessly at the White House.
Another Mideast war for oil? Really? With tensions on the rise, whether Washington will move toward another protracted military engagement over petroleum in the Middle East is a fair question. It could be that Obama is a progressive president who's been mugged by realpolitik. Or it could be that the GOP field, in painting Obama as soft on Iran, is succeeding in pushing the White House to the right on this foreign policy problem. Israel is certainly working hard to exert pressure, particularly via its GOP allies in Congress. The Iranian regime is aware of these pressures, and is happy to stoke them when the United States is at its most vulnerable: heading into the heart of a presidential election cycle. Iran, too, is in an election yearand a confrontation with the US could benefit hardline incumbents at a time when many Iranians are otherwise disaffected with the regime's handling of the economy. America's Iran-bashing conservatives, then, play to the Tehran regime's desire to distract its own people from the country's domestic problems. But whether the brinkmanship over Gulf oil will lead to real military conflict remains unknown for now.
http://motherjones.com/politics/2012/01/whats-happening-persian-gulf-explained
Brick Top
New Member
I would say there have been tensions between the U.S. and Iran ever since Iranians took over the U.S. embassy and held Americans hostage for 444 days.
If it hasn't been that long, than it's been for as long as Iran has sponsored international terrorism.
When you are a belligerent you cannot expect to be treated with tender kindness.
"Had" being the key word in your above statement. In 2011 the Russians had five failed space missions.
Again, "had" being the key word in your statement.
The Russian RT-23 / SS-24 SCALPEL is comparable in size and concept to the US Peacekeeper, it is cold-launched and carries 10 warheads.
The RT-2UTTH Topol-M is an advanced version of the silo-based and mobile Topol intercontinental ballistic missile. The SS-25 Topol is generally similar to the American Minuteman-2 and has a range of 6,900 miles.
The RT-2PM - SS-25 SICKLE Approximately the size of the U.S. Minuteman ICBM, the SS-25 carries a single-warhead atop a three stage system and has a range of 6,500 miles.
In the past the former Soviet Union made up for numbers of ICBMs and also for a lack of accuracy by designing much more powerful warheads than U.S. missiles carried. You may have read about Big Ivan, The Tsar Bomba (King of Bombs) It was the largest nuclear weapon ever constructed or detonated. This three stage weapon was a 100 megaton bomb design.
When "Big Ivan" was tested only roughly half the amount of fissionable material was used making it roughly a 50 megaton bomb. The test was conducted by air dropping the bomb from a specially modified Tu-95N "Bear A" strategic bomber. It was released at 10,500 meters, and made a parachute retarded descent to 4000 meters in 188 seconds before detonation. By that time the release bomber was already in the safe zone about 45 km away. The drop area was over land at the Mityushikha Bay test site, on the west coast of Novaya Zemlya Island, above test field D-2, near Cape Sukhoy Nos. The Tu-95 was accompanied by a Tu-16 "Badger" airborne laboratory to observe and record the test.
The test location was about 55 km north of the Severny settlement and 250 km north of the headquarters at Belushya, from where it was observed by the State Commission. The bomb design team and the test supervisors, headed by Major General Nikolai Pavlov, Chairman of the State Commission, monitored the test at the airfield near Olenya station on the Kola Peninsula 1000 km away.
Observers were also at many other locations. Among these were Soviet Minister of Medium Machine Building Efim Slavsky and Marshal of the Soviet Union Kirill Moskalenko, deputies to the 22nd Congress of the CPSU then in session, who had arrived by plane on the day of the test to observe the explosion. They observed the test aboard an Il-14 "crate" at a distance of several hundred kilometers from ground zero. Sakharov himself stayed by the phone, presumably at Arzamas-16, waiting for a call from Maj. Gen. Pavlov.
The effects were spectacular. Despite the very substantial burst height of 4,000 m (13,000 ft) the vast fireball reached down to the Earth, and swelled upward to nearly the height of the release plane. The blast pressure below the burst point was 300 PSI, six times the peak pressure experienced at Hiroshima. The flash of light was so bright that it was visible at a distance of 1,000 kilometers, despite cloudy skies. One participant in the test saw a bright flash through dark goggles and felt the effects of a thermal pulse even at a distance of 270 km.
A shock wave in air was observed at Dickson settlement at 700 km; windowpanes were partially broken to distances of 900 km. All buildings in Severny (both wooden and brick), at a distance of 55 km, were completely destroyed. In districts hundreds of kilometers from ground zero, wooden houses were destroyed, and stone ones lost their roofs, windows and doors; and radio communications were interrupted for almost one hour.
The atmospheric disturbance generated by the explosion orbited the earth three times.
A gigantic mushroom cloud rose as high as 64 kilometers (210,000 ft). Despite being exploded in the atmosphere, it generated substantial seismic signals. According to a bulletin of the U.S. Geological Survey it had seismic magnitude mb = 5.0 to 5.25. The blast wave was detected circling the world.
The Tu-95 was painted with a special white reflective paint to protect it from the thermal radiation of the fireball. The airborne laboratory plane was also covered with the same paint. In clear air, the 50 Mt test was capable in principle of inflicting third degree burns at a distance of up to 100 km.
The area of effectively complete destruction extended to 25 km, and ordinary houses would be subjected to severe damage out to 35 km. The destruction and damage of buildings occurred sporadically at much greater ranges than this due to the effects of atmospheric focusing, an unpredictable but unavoidable phenomenon with very large atmospheric explosions that is capable of generating localized regions of destructive blast pressure at great distances (even exceeding 1000 km).
Those were the results of a 'half-strength' "Big Ivan." That is why the former Soviet Union did not actually need as many ICBMs or warheads or as high of a degree of accuracy as U.S. ICBMs. In that era the former Soviet Union did not lag behind the U.S. when it came to mega tonnage.
There is no way any nuclear nation will want to get into a hot war with the U.S. over Iran if there is even the slightest chance it could turn nuclear. MutualAssured Destruction, a.k.a. MAD is what will prevent Russia and or China from becoming actively involved if the U.S. and Iran end up in a war.
If a hot war with a nuclear nation went nuke it would not remain a battlefield type nuclear exchange for long. It would escalate into an exchange between nations. Once the U.S. was attacked, even conventionally for that fact, it would automatically draw into the conflict all of NATO. That means even more nuclear nations becoming involved.
Neither Russia or China would be insane enough to start WWIII over Iran, and be utterly destroyed in the process. Even if either or both believed they could take on the U.S. and come out of it with what could be considered acceptable losses, which they could not, that would not be the case. They would find themselves at war with all of NATO and likely a number of other nations that once it became a world war would side with the NATO nations.
Anyone who cannot understand that or refuses to accept it has absolutely no conception of the complete and utter destruction that would take place in an all out nuclear exchange. There would be no winners. Everyone would lose. No one could go and occupy the land of another nation because they wouldn't have the capability to cross their own nation let alone go part of halfway around the planet to occupy another utterly destroyed nation.
If the U.S. were to attack Iran taking out every command and control center, every radar site, every military base, every governmental building, every power supply, every water supply, hit every Iranian nuclear facility with the newest generation of deep penetrating bunker buster bombs, and also hit other bunkers for the top military, for command and control, for the government, attacked ground forces from the air, destroyed key bridges and transportation hubs and landed troops ashore the most that Russia and China would do is talk big, make threats and try to funnel arms, munitions and supplies to Iran.
And for all those who believe that the U.S. wants a showdown with Iran, just stop and think a moment. The U.S. had large numbers of forces in Iraq, which borders Iran. A beach landing/invasion is the most difficult most risky (conventional) military maneuver there is. If the U.S. had intentions of attacking Iran it would have found a way to placate Iraq into letting U.S. forces remain longer, or just said, screw you, we're staying a bit longer, massed along the Iraq/Iranian border, which would have drawn Iranian forces to the border, attacked there and once the majority of Iranian forces were committed to battle only then stage a beach landing/invasion leaving the Iranian forces with U.S. forces both in front of them and behind them. The U.S. could also have increased forces in Afghanistan and massed them on the Iran/Afghanistan border and pushed into Iran from there at the same time as from Iraq and either not stage a beach landing/invasion or do that third when there would be very little resistance to face because Iranian forces would desperately be needed in the East and in the West. That would also initially keep the U.S. 5th Fleet at a much safer distance from Iran and their Sunburn anti-ship missiles during the period of time they would be the most dangerous and only after most of the coast had been stripped of it's manpower and through airstrikes Sunburn sites were taken out, only then come in closer and if need be clear the Straits.
If the U.S. wanted a war with Iran, it would already have it. The U.S. wants to pressure Iran as much as possible without it turning into a war, but the U.S. will not back down to Iranian threats, and if anything flaunt it's military power in the region daring the Iranians to do something incredibly stupid so it would be Iran that would be forced to back down or else suffer the same fate as Saddam's Iraq, a forced regime change.
[h=1]What's Happening in the Persian Gulf Explained[/h]
[h=3]Why Iran is talking tough, the US is maneuvering warships, and gasoline is getting more expensive by the hour.[/h]By Adam Weinstein and Hamed Aleaziz
| Tue Jan. 3, 2012 3:58 PM PST
117
NATO/Flickr
The basics: Iran and the United States appear to be heading for a showdown in the Persian Gulf. Amid already-high tensions over Iran's advancing nuclear program, the US has imposed harsh new economic sanctions on the regime in Tehran. The sanctions have throttled Iran's economy, and the country has responded by threatening to shut down the Gulf to all shipping traffic. Iranian officials have also threatened military action against the United States and its allies in the region if they don't back off. Two US aircraft carriers are en route to the region.
How has the situation escalated? Over New Year's weekend, the Iranians announced that they'd made their first-ever nuclear fuel rods, potentially a major step forward in building a nuclear bomb.* Then they test-fired three anti-ship missiles in the Strait of Hormuz, a 34-mile-wide choke point in the Persian Gulf through which approximately 20 percent of the world's crude oil is transported. An Iranian admiral told state TV that the shots were a warning to America: "The control of the Strait of Hormuz is completely under our authority [too]," he said, warning that Iran would attack "any enemy" that endangered Iranian interests. In response, the US has sent two aircraft carriers steaming toward the Gulf to replace the USS John C. Stennis, which just ended its own Mideast deployment. "Iran advises, recommends and warns them [the US] not to move its carrier back to the previous area in the Gulf because Iran is not used to repeating its warnings and warns just once," a general told state media.
Will Iran actually shut down the Strait? It doesn't seem likely. While Iran could certainly cause problems, closing down the Strait would in fact be difficult for it to do. According to Reuters, "Iran would not be able to sustain a line of ships to block the Strait because it mainly has smaller boats that do not have the ability to stay in open waters in a coordinated formation for days." Meanwhile, both Iran's Revolutionary Guard and Navy have since backtracked on the threat. Mahmoud Mousavi, a Deputy Commander in the Iranian Navy, told state media Sunday that Iran "does not intend to impede maritime shipping in the area." Threats to close the Strait are also nothing new; Iranian officials for years have claimed that they would shut down the Strait (it's never happened). As Ahmad Bakhshayesh Ardestani, a candidate for Iran's parliament, told the Washington Post: "Our threat will not be realized. We are just responding to the US, nothing more."
How does this affect me? Expect the price of gas to stay high. Crude oil futures jumped significantly Tuesday on international jitters over the brinkmanship, and some analysts are predicting that even a short Gulf blockade could send the cost of a barrel of crude over $150, a 40 percent spike from current levels. "The ever-growing frequency of intense sabre-rattling and muscle flexing between Iran and the US should keep the markets jittery and vulnerable to sudden price jumps," market analyst JBC Energy reported Tuesday. Volatility in prices could get even worse in light of zero spare capacity among big oil producers such as Saudi Arabia
.
Do the tensions involve those mysterious explosions in Iran lately? Possibly. In recent months, there have been three mysterious explosions at factories and warehouses across the country. Seventeen Iranian soldiers were reportedly killed by a blast at an ammunition depot outside Tehran in mid-November; that facility was run by the nation's Revolutionary Guards, who have been implicated in uranium enrichment for nuclear weapons production. Later that month, a series of explosions leveled a key nuclear site in Isfahan, and anonymous Israeli sources disputed the Iranian explanation that it was an accident. And in December, seven people, including several foreigners, were killed when discarded ammunition reportedly exploded at a scrap-metal plant in Yazd. The blastsin addition to the untimely deaths of three leading Iranian nuclear scientists in the past two years, and a devastating cyberattack on Iran's nuclear facilitieshave led some analysts to believe that the United States and its allies are already deep into a covert war against the rogue state.
Don't we already have sanctions on Iran? Yesand under Obama, they're harsher than they've been in decades. Over New Year's weekend he signed a defense-spending bill with an amendment that effectively freezes international deals with Iran's Central Bank. If successful, it would halt much of Iran's oil sales and further destabilize its currency. It would also hurt European trade and likely cause global oil prices to soar. The threat posed by the amendment may help explain why Iran ratcheted up its rhetoric over the weekend. The White House had strongly opposed the legislation despite bipartisan support for it in Congress, but Obama went on to sign the bill anyway. Why? Apart from the fact that defense spending isn't really optional, the politics of the situation didn't seem to favor the White House. As Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), one of the amendment's sponsors, put it, "[A]s you enter a presidential contest, there's no upside to being soft on Iran."
Haven't we been through this before? Sort of. During the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s, both countries targeted the other's oil-tanker traffic in the Persian Gulf with missiles and mines. Starting in 1987, the US stepped into these "tanker wars" to protect oil shipments bound for the United States (or sold by US-based companies). During Operation Earnest Will and Operation Prime Chance, American naval ships protected convoys and kept the Iranians and Iraqis at bay. The global community had good reason to be on edge: During these operations, an American cruiser, the USS Vincennes, mistook an Iranian airliner for an incoming missile and shot it down, killing all 290 passengers. The engagement's only US fatalities resulted from an unprovoked air-to-surface missile attack on the USS Stark, which killed 37 sailors. But the shooter wasn't Iranian; he was Iraqi.
What's different this time around? The United States has a much bigger strategic presence in the Middle East, and a lot of new military capabilities that weren't around in 1987. The Navy's 5th Fleet operates out of Bahrain, just 150 miles from Iran. The Navy has better-developed countermeasures for threats from mines and missiles. And our special operations capabilities are much more robust; remember that little 2011 operation in a Pakistani town called Abbottabad? Backed up by special boat units and mobile inshore underwater warfare units, the SEALs are even more effective at sea than they are in the middle of South Asia. In addition, the US hopes Middle East allies (and Iran rivals), like Saudi Arabia, will help deter Iran. To that end, the United States recently awarded a $15 billion arms contract to Saudi Arabia.
How might the White House respond to Iranian provocation? Given all these factorsas well as President Obama's previous eagerness to flex military muscle in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Libya, and elsewherethere's little question that the White House could mount an effective naval operation to protect Gulf shipping while keeping tensions at a simmer. Or the president might use that capability, and Iranian histrionics, to take a case for further harsh sanctions against Iran to the United Nations which would likely require enforcement by US-led naval and air forces. Or Obama could simply open new talks with Iran through diplomatic back channels. That's likely to happen in any casebut if that's all that happens in the wake of Iran's latest threats, expect tough-talking GOP presidential candidates to fire away mercilessly at the White House.
Another Mideast war for oil? Really? With tensions on the rise, whether Washington will move toward another protracted military engagement over petroleum in the Middle East is a fair question. It could be that Obama is a progressive president who's been mugged by realpolitik. Or it could be that the GOP field, in painting Obama as soft on Iran, is succeeding in pushing the White House to the right on this foreign policy problem. Israel is certainly working hard to exert pressure, particularly via its GOP allies in Congress. The Iranian regime is aware of these pressures, and is happy to stoke them when the United States is at its most vulnerable: heading into the heart of a presidential election cycle. Iran, too, is in an election yearand a confrontation with the US could benefit hardline incumbents at a time when many Iranians are otherwise disaffected with the regime's handling of the economy. America's Iran-bashing conservatives, then, play to the Tehran regime's desire to distract its own people from the country's domestic problems. But whether the brinkmanship over Gulf oil will lead to real military conflict remains unknown for now.
http://motherjones.com/politics/2012/01/whats-happening-persian-gulf-explained
Due to the unmatched military power and economic strength the U.S. possessed for so many decades it was pretty much handed the role of world's policeman. When you are the only cop on the beat you are going to be involved in some rough activities.
