Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Posted: 12/1/2007 5:00:46 AM EDT
United Press International
Nov. 21, 2007

A Mideast nuclear war?
By MARTIN WALKER

http://www.upi.com/International_Security/Emerging_Threats/Analysis/2007/11/21/walkers_world_a_mideast_nuclear_war/9884/

Anthony Cordesman may be the most influential man in Washington that most people have never heard of. A former director of intelligence assessment for the secretary of defense and director of policy and planning in the Department of Energy, he is now the top strategic guru at the Center for Strategic & International Studies.

Most serious politicians and journalists have for some years based their analyses of the Iraq war and its aftermath on his universally respected research. Cordesman is a facts man who likes and reveres good data and cool, clinical analysis as the keystones of policymaking.

He has now turned his laser-like research and forensic intelligence skills to studying the real implication of the endless diplomatic minuet at the United Nations over Iran's nuclear ambitions. In the real world, this matters mainly because an Iranian nuclear capability would transform the power balance in the wider Middle East, and leave the region and the rest of us living under the constant prospect of a nuclear exchange between Iran and Israel.

This would mean, Cordesman suggests, some 16 million to 28 million Iranians dead within 21 days, and between 200,000 and 800,000 Israelis dead within the same time frame. The total of deaths beyond 21 days could rise very much higher, depending on civil defense and public health facilities, where Israel has a major advantage.

It is theoretically possible that the Israeli state, economy and organized society might just survive such an almost-mortal blow. Iran would not survive as an organized society. "Iranian recovery is not possible in the normal sense of the term," Cordesman notes.

The difference in the death tolls is largely because Israel is believed to have more nuclear weapons of very much higher yield (some of 1 megaton), and Israel is deploying the Arrow advanced anti-missile system in addition to its Patriot batteries. Fewer Iranian weapons would get through.

The difference in yield matters. The biggest bomb that Iran is expected to have is 100 kilotons, which can inflict third-degree burns on exposed flesh at 8 miles; Israel's 1-megaton bombs can inflict third-degree burns at 24 miles. Moreover, the radiation fallout from an airburst of such a 1-megaton bomb can kill unsheltered people at up to 80 miles within 18 hours as the radiation plume drifts. (Jordan, by the way, would suffer severe radiation damage from an Iranian strike on Tel Aviv.)

Cordesman assumes that Iran, with less than 30 nuclear warheads in the period after 2010, would aim for the main population centers of Tel Aviv and Haifa, while Israel would have more than 200 warheads and far better delivery systems, including cruise missiles launched from its 3 Dolphin-class submarines.

The assumption is that Israel would be going for Iran's nuclear development centers in Tehran, Natanz, Ardekan, Saghand, Gashin, Bushehr, Aral, Isfahan and Lashkar A'bad. Israel would also likely target the main population centers of Tehran, Tabriz, Qazvin, Isfahan, Shiraz, Yazd, Kerman, Qom, Ahwaz and Kermanshah. Cordesman points out that the city of Tehran, with a population of 15 million in its metropolitan area, is "a topographic basin with mountain reflector. Nearly ideal nuclear killing ground."

But it does not end there. Cordesman points out that Israel would need to keep a "reserve strike capability to ensure no other power can capitalize on Iranian strike." This means Israel would have to target "key Arab neighbors" -- in particular Syria and Egypt.

Cordesman notes that Israel would have various options, including a limited nuclear strike on the region mainly inhabited by the Alawite minority from which come the ruling Assad dynasty. A full-scale Israeli attack on Syria would kill up to 18 million people within 21 days; Syrian recovery would not be possible. A Syrian attack with all its reputed chemical and biological warfare assets could kill up to 800,000 Israelis, but Israeli society would recover.

An Israeli attack on Egypt would likely strike at the main population centers of Cairo, Alexandria, Damietta, Port Said, Suez, Luxor and Aswan. Cordesman does not give a death toll here, but it would certainly be in the tens of millions. It would also destroy the Suez Canal and almost certainly destroy the Aswan dam, sending monstrous floods down the Nile to sweep away the glowing rubble. It would mean the end of Egypt as a functioning society.

Cordesman also lists the oil wells, refineries and ports along the Gulf that could also be targets in the event of a mass nuclear response by an Israel convinced that it was being dealt a potentially mortal blow. Being contained within the region, such a nuclear exchange might not be Armageddon for the human race; it would certainly be Armageddon for the global economy.

So in clear, concise and chillingly forensic style, Cordesman spells out that the real stakes in the crisis that is building over Iran's nuclear ambitions would certainly include the end of Persian civilization, quite probably the end of Egyptian civilization, and the end of the Oil Age. This would also mean the end of globalization and the extraordinary accretions in world trade and growth and prosperity that are hauling hundreds of millions of Chinese and Indians and others out of poverty.

Cordesman concludes his chilling but dismayingly logical survey with the warning: "The only way to win is not to play."
Link Posted: 12/1/2007 5:06:28 AM EDT

What if Israel destroys the iranian nukes before they get off the ground?
Link Posted: 12/1/2007 5:15:23 AM EDT

Originally Posted By swede1986:
What if Israel destroys the iranian nukes before they get off the ground?


then russia attacks israel?
Link Posted: 12/1/2007 5:20:00 AM EDT

Originally Posted By hawxter996:

Originally Posted By swede1986:
What if Israel destroys the iranian nukes before they get off the ground?


then russia attacks israel?


HIGHLY doubtful. Russia doesn't have the combat capability to invade Israel, particularly since the US would oppose it.
Link Posted: 12/1/2007 5:21:29 AM EDT

Originally Posted By RikWriter:

Originally Posted By hawxter996:

Originally Posted By swede1986:
What if Israel destroys the iranian nukes before they get off the ground?


then russia attacks israel?


HIGHLY doubtful. Russia doesn't have the combat capability to invade Israel, particularly since the US would oppose it.


come on put on your tinfoil,were talking nukes here.
Link Posted: 12/1/2007 5:25:15 AM EDT

The difference in yield matters. The biggest bomb that Iran is expected to have is 100 kilotons, which can inflict third-degree burns on exposed flesh at 8 miles; Israel's 1-megaton bombs can inflict third-degree burns at 24 miles. Moreover, the radiation fallout from an airburst of such a 1-megaton bomb can kill unsheltered people at up to 80 miles within 18 hours as the radiation plume drifts. (Jordan, by the way, would suffer severe radiation damage from an Iranian strike on Tel Aviv.)


Uh. Are these numbers right? "Third-degree burns at 24 miles"...? I didn't think a 1MT bomb was quite that powerful.
Link Posted: 12/1/2007 5:30:04 AM EDT
What if Saudi Arabia really wants us to nuke Iran?



(they do )
Link Posted: 12/1/2007 5:48:14 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/1/2007 5:49:44 AM EDT by the_naked_prophet]
In Ezekiel 38 and 39, it is prophesied that Israel will be invaded by nations from the north (which have frequently been speculated to mean Iran and Russia, based on descriptions in other period literature). God will destroy those invading armies with earthquakes and meteorological phenomenon, as well as summon people from around the world to come to Israel to fight. The invaders will be destroyed, and Israel will burn the weapons of war to heat their homes for seven years.

I had always thought that a thwarted nuclear attack could leave enough enriched fissile material to run some nuclear reactors for several years. It looks like it's getting closer every day.

ETA: links for those who wish to read about it: Ezekiel 38 and 39
Link Posted: 12/1/2007 5:54:58 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/1/2007 5:55:30 AM EDT by pale_pony]
You'd think that the PEOPLE of Iran would have figured this out by now and deposed "Imawackjob" before he gets all of them killed...

remember, "6 days, bitch!" (and on the 7th day, they rested...)
Link Posted: 12/1/2007 6:24:09 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/1/2007 7:11:06 AM EDT by 580DBF]

Originally Posted By macman37:

The difference in yield matters. The biggest bomb that Iran is expected to have is 100 kilotons, which can inflict third-degree burns on exposed flesh at 8 miles; Israel's 1-megaton bombs can inflict third-degree burns at 24 miles. Moreover, the radiation fallout from an airburst of such a 1-megaton bomb can kill unsheltered people at up to 80 miles within 18 hours as the radiation plume drifts. (Jordan, by the way, would suffer severe radiation damage from an Iranian strike on Tel Aviv.)


Uh. Are these numbers right? "Third-degree burns at 24 miles"...? I didn't think a 1MT bomb was quite that powerful.


You are correct. 3rd deg. burn threshold for a 1MT burst at optimum height under ideal conditions is around 9 miles, at sea level. But that probably wasn't scary enough for the rag that put this out.*

* Source - Nuclear Bomb Effects Computer, Lovelace Biomed and Environmental Reasearch Inst., 1977.

Hot link to info about NBEC
Link Posted: 12/1/2007 6:49:45 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/1/2007 6:50:57 AM EDT by VorenusLegioXI]

Originally Posted By RikWriter:

Originally Posted By hawxter996:

Originally Posted By swede1986:
What if Israel destroys the iranian nukes before they get off the ground?


then russia attacks israel?


HIGHLY doubtful. Russia doesn't have the combat capability to invade Israel, particularly since the US would oppose it.



You are not one of those evangelical end times bullshit people are you?

My in laws moved to san antonio to go to the Hagee church because they believe that left behind nonsense.
Link Posted: 12/1/2007 7:01:57 AM EDT

Originally Posted By VorenusLegioXI:
My in laws moved to san antonio to go to the Hagee church because they believe that left behind nonsense.


Holy shit. I have never heard of someone moving to be closer to a particular church before.
Link Posted: 12/1/2007 7:16:32 AM EDT

A Mideast nuclear war?


Link Posted: 12/1/2007 7:19:38 AM EDT

Originally Posted By VorenusLegioXI:

Originally Posted By RikWriter:

Originally Posted By hawxter996:

Originally Posted By swede1986:
What if Israel destroys the iranian nukes before they get off the ground?


then russia attacks israel?


HIGHLY doubtful. Russia doesn't have the combat capability to invade Israel, particularly since the US would oppose it.



You are not one of those evangelical end times bullshit people are you?

My in laws moved to san antonio to go to the Hagee church because they believe that left behind nonsense.


There's far more to the "end times bullshit" than a series of poorly written books. Not all who believe that we're about to see some life-altering events are evangelical.

Some of us are Catholics who think the evangelicals are full of shit (in the way they see it going down).

It's happening right before your eyes... not in the manner that many suspect and not with the timing that many suspect, but it is happening.
Matt
Link Posted: 12/1/2007 7:51:59 AM EDT
I'm a Catholic. The left behind, russian attacking israel nonesense is

I believe a mid east showdown is certainly going to happen, but not in the way these crazy evangelicals think.
Link Posted: 12/1/2007 8:57:30 AM EDT

Originally Posted By VorenusLegioXI:
I'm a Catholic. The left behind, russian attacking israel nonesense is

I believe a mid east showdown is certainly going to happen, but not in the way these crazy evangelicals think.


so how is it going to go down?
Link Posted: 12/1/2007 9:04:49 AM EDT

Originally Posted By hawxter996:

Originally Posted By RikWriter:

Originally Posted By hawxter996:

Originally Posted By swede1986:
What if Israel destroys the iranian nukes before they get off the ground?


then russia attacks israel?


HIGHLY doubtful. Russia doesn't have the combat capability to invade Israel, particularly since the US would oppose it.


come on put on your tinfoil,were talking nukes here.


there still using BEAR BOMBERS to make pratice runs at the us? thats like using a MODEL A to do a drive by!
Link Posted: 12/1/2007 2:23:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 580DBF:

Originally Posted By macman37:

The difference in yield matters. The biggest bomb that Iran is expected to have is 100 kilotons, which can inflict third-degree burns on exposed flesh at 8 miles; Israel's 1-megaton bombs can inflict third-degree burns at 24 miles. Moreover, the radiation fallout from an airburst of such a 1-megaton bomb can kill unsheltered people at up to 80 miles within 18 hours as the radiation plume drifts. (Jordan, by the way, would suffer severe radiation damage from an Iranian strike on Tel Aviv.)


Uh. Are these numbers right? "Third-degree burns at 24 miles"...? I didn't think a 1MT bomb was quite that powerful.


You are correct. 3rd deg. burn threshold for a 1MT burst at optimum height under ideal conditions is around 9 miles, at sea level. But that probably wasn't scary enough for the rag that put this out.*

* Source - Nuclear Bomb Effects Computer, Lovelace Biomed and Environmental Reasearch Inst., 1977.

Hot link to info about NBEC


Thanks!

I knew it wasn't that powerful but had no idea how to find out.
Link Posted: 12/1/2007 2:32:09 PM EDT

n Israeli attack on Egypt would likely strike at the main population centers of Cairo, Alexandria, Damietta, Port Said, Suez, Luxor and Aswan. Cordesman does not give a death toll here, but it would certainly be in the tens of millions. It would also destroy the Suez Canal and almost certainly destroy the Aswan dam, sending monstrous floods down the Nile to sweep away the glowing rubble. It would mean the end of Egypt as a functioning society.


Why would Egypt attack Israel or vice versa?
The two have signed a treaty.
Egypt is not going to attack Israel, ESPECIALLY over Iran.
Link Posted: 12/1/2007 2:40:27 PM EDT

Originally Posted By thedoctors308:

n Israeli attack on Egypt would likely strike at the main population centers of Cairo, Alexandria, Damietta, Port Said, Suez, Luxor and Aswan. Cordesman does not give a death toll here, but it would certainly be in the tens of millions. It would also destroy the Suez Canal and almost certainly destroy the Aswan dam, sending monstrous floods down the Nile to sweep away the glowing rubble. It would mean the end of Egypt as a functioning society.


Why would Egypt attack Israel or vice versa?
The two have signed a treaty.
Egypt is not going to attack Israel, ESPECIALLY over Iran.


Agreed, that makes no sense. The arabs want Iran dealt with, and so probably won't shed any tears at a persian holocaust. Add to that, Israel will retain some nuclear combat power, and can always deal with any arab opportunists at their leisure.
Link Posted: 12/1/2007 3:40:59 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/1/2007 3:52:54 PM EDT by 580DBF]

Originally Posted By macman37:

Originally Posted By 580DBF:

Originally Posted By macman37:

The difference in yield matters. The biggest bomb that Iran is expected to have is 100 kilotons, which can inflict third-degree burns on exposed flesh at 8 miles; Israel's 1-megaton bombs can inflict third-degree burns at 24 miles. Moreover, the radiation fallout from an airburst of such a 1-megaton bomb can kill unsheltered people at up to 80 miles within 18 hours as the radiation plume drifts. (Jordan, by the way, would suffer severe radiation damage from an Iranian strike on Tel Aviv.)


Uh. Are these numbers right? "Third-degree burns at 24 miles"...? I didn't think a 1MT bomb was quite that powerful.


You are correct. 3rd deg. burn threshold for a 1MT burst at optimum height under ideal conditions is around 9 miles, at sea level. But that probably wasn't scary enough for the rag that put this out.*

* Source - Nuclear Bomb Effects Computer, Lovelace Biomed and Environmental Reasearch Inst., 1977.

Hot link to info about NBEC


Thanks!

I knew it wasn't that powerful but had no idea how to find out.


I guess I should add that, under very specific conditions, it might be remotely possible for the part in blue to be true (atmospheric lensing), but that would be a rare circumstance. (And they would have to rely solely on the 'can' part). I think they just screwed up, since the 100kt number is bogus as well, being closer to the 1MT distance. The 100kt 3rd degree burn range under the same conditions I specified before is roughly 3.2 miles. The numbers they are using in both cases are off by a factor of 2.5 to 2.6. The most favorable thing you could say is that they are implying that you get a hypothetical worst case every time. Not true at all. That, or they just made shit up.

One more thing. Glasstone is very explicit in his warning about extrapolation of test results to different weather conditions and different yields. One of the reasons is that, for instance, the atmospheric lensing I referred to took place at at least one test, reportedly, and caused lots of unanticipated damage. This was the 50+ MT shot the Soviets did, and the lensing reported had more to do with blast, IIRC. But that weapon yield was three times greater than the largest weapon the US ever tested (Castle Bravo @ 15MT), and my data only goes to 20MT anyway. I'd say public source data is probably pretty good up to the 1-5 MT range, gets weak from 5-15, and is single-point data beyond that.
Link Posted: 12/1/2007 10:00:51 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/1/2007 10:03:57 PM EDT by TKoProductions]

Originally Posted By thedoctors308:

n Israeli attack on Egypt would likely strike at the main population centers of Cairo, Alexandria, Damietta, Port Said, Suez, Luxor and Aswan. Cordesman does not give a death toll here, but it would certainly be in the tens of millions. It would also destroy the Suez Canal and almost certainly destroy the Aswan dam, sending monstrous floods down the Nile to sweep away the glowing rubble. It would mean the end of Egypt as a functioning society.


Why would Egypt attack Israel or vice versa?
The two have signed a treaty.
Egypt is not going to attack Israel, ESPECIALLY over Iran.


The article is talking about Egypt (among other ME countries) attacking a weakened Israel after it's already been hit by Iran. Call it a moment of opportunity I suppose.
Link Posted: 12/1/2007 10:02:02 PM EDT

Originally Posted By swede1986:
What if Israel destroys the iranian nukes before they get off the ground?


That's what I thought the author was advocating here.
Link Posted: 12/2/2007 5:48:29 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TKoProductions:

Originally Posted By thedoctors308:

n Israeli attack on Egypt would likely strike at the main population centers of Cairo, Alexandria, Damietta, Port Said, Suez, Luxor and Aswan. Cordesman does not give a death toll here, but it would certainly be in the tens of millions. It would also destroy the Suez Canal and almost certainly destroy the Aswan dam, sending monstrous floods down the Nile to sweep away the glowing rubble. It would mean the end of Egypt as a functioning society.


Why would Egypt attack Israel or vice versa?
The two have signed a treaty.
Egypt is not going to attack Israel, ESPECIALLY over Iran.


The article is talking about Egypt (among other ME countries) attacking a weakened Israel after it's already been hit by Iran. Call it a moment of opportunity I suppose.


More plausible, but I just don't see it happening.
This isn't the 1960s, and Mubarak is not Nasser or Sadat.
Link Posted: 12/2/2007 6:31:31 PM EDT
I guess it would make some sense for the Israelis to have counter-value warheads in the 1 MT range. The US went away from large warheads in favor of more, smaller warheads to blanket an area, but the US was also not very constrained on the number of delivery vehicles.

Blowing up Aswan Dam would be epic. Almost the whole 70 millions population of Egypt is on the river. Nuke 'em till they glow, then drown them in radioactive water.
Link Posted: 12/2/2007 6:33:02 PM EDT
Hopefully the Indians will take care of it for us.
Link Posted: 12/2/2007 6:34:22 PM EDT

Originally Posted By mcgredo:
I guess it would make some sense for the Israelis to have counter-value warheads in the 1 MT range. The US went away from large warheads in favor of more, smaller warheads to blanket an area, but the US was also not very constrained on the number of delivery vehicles.

Blowing up Aswan Dam would be epic. Almost the whole 70 millions population of Egypt is on the river. Nuke 'em till they glow, then drown them in radioactive water.


That is exactly what the Israeli's told the Egyptians what they would do, destroy the dam and contaminated the Nile delta.
Link Posted: 12/2/2007 8:25:58 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Paveway_:
Hopefully the Indians will take care of it for us.


If the Indians nuke anyone, it will be Pakistan.

Link Posted: 12/2/2007 10:18:40 PM EDT

Originally Posted By valheru21:

Originally Posted By VorenusLegioXI:

Originally Posted By RikWriter:

Originally Posted By hawxter996:

Originally Posted By swede1986:
What if Israel destroys the iranian nukes before they get off the ground?


then russia attacks israel?


HIGHLY doubtful. Russia doesn't have the combat capability to invade Israel, particularly since the US would oppose it.



You are not one of those evangelical end times bullshit people are you?

My in laws moved to san antonio to go to the Hagee church because they believe that left behind nonsense.


There's far more to the "end times bullshit" than a series of poorly written books. Not all who believe that we're about to see some life-altering events are evangelical.

Some of us are Catholics who think the evangelicals are full of shit (in the way they see it going down).

It's happening right before your eyes... not in the manner that many suspect and not with the timing that many suspect, but it is happening.
Matt


No, a shit ton of people are making a lot of money because millions of people are CHOMPING AT THE BIT to buy into this crap.

Throughout history thousands of people have interpreted current events to be "the end of days". So far, they've been 100% dead wrong. Don't think yourself so wise to sway such a stellar track record cause Jews and Palestinians (surprise surprise) still aren't getting along.
Link Posted: 12/3/2007 6:09:03 AM EDT

Originally Posted By rmstrjim:

Originally Posted By valheru21:

Originally Posted By VorenusLegioXI:

Originally Posted By RikWriter:

Originally Posted By hawxter996:

Originally Posted By swede1986:
What if Israel destroys the iranian nukes before they get off the ground?


then russia attacks israel?


HIGHLY doubtful. Russia doesn't have the combat capability to invade Israel, particularly since the US would oppose it.



You are not one of those evangelical end times bullshit people are you?

My in laws moved to san antonio to go to the Hagee church because they believe that left behind nonsense.


There's far more to the "end times bullshit" than a series of poorly written books. Not all who believe that we're about to see some life-altering events are evangelical.

Some of us are Catholics who think the evangelicals are full of shit (in the way they see it going down).

It's happening right before your eyes... not in the manner that many suspect and not with the timing that many suspect, but it is happening.
Matt


No, a shit ton of people are making a lot of money because millions of people are CHOMPING AT THE BIT to buy into this crap.

Throughout history thousands of people have interpreted current events to be "the end of days". So far, they've been 100% dead wrong. Don't think yourself so wise to sway such a stellar track record cause Jews and Palestinians (surprise surprise) still aren't getting along.


Hope you're right... the evidence, however, is to the contrary. (further discussions don't belong in this forum).
Matt
Link Posted: 12/3/2007 7:01:17 AM EDT

Originally Posted By valheru21:

Hope you're right... the evidence, however, is to the contrary.


No, actually, it isn't.
Link Posted: 12/3/2007 7:13:02 AM EDT

Originally Posted By FRIZ:
snippity...

So in clear, concise and chillingly forensic style, Cordesman spells out that the real stakes in the crisis that is building over Iran's nuclear ambitions would certainly include the end of Persian civilization, quite probably the end of Egyptian civilization, and the end of the Oil Age. This would also mean the end of globalization and the extraordinary accretions in world trade and growth and prosperity that are hauling hundreds of millions of Chinese and Indians and others out of poverty.


I may be just another callous bastard, but I really am failing to see the downside to this. Anyone care to help a hard-hearted nationalist?
Link Posted: 12/3/2007 7:19:07 AM EDT

Originally Posted By MNnaloxone:

Originally Posted By FRIZ:
snippity...

So in clear, concise and chillingly forensic style, Cordesman spells out that the real stakes in the crisis that is building over Iran's nuclear ambitions would certainly include the end of Persian civilization, quite probably the end of Egyptian civilization, and the end of the Oil Age. This would also mean the end of globalization and the extraordinary accretions in world trade and growth and prosperity that are hauling hundreds of millions of Chinese and Indians and others out of poverty.


I may be just another callous bastard, but I really am failing to see the downside to this. Anyone care to help a hard-hearted nationalist?


A catastrophe on that scale would bring the entire world to its knees, especially one so dependent on trade as the US.
Link Posted: 12/3/2007 7:36:16 AM EDT
A nuclear exchange in that region would inflict devestating damage to religious and historical sites. Would an Islamic state such as Iran be willing to destroy one of it's most reveared religious sites such as the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem?
Link Posted: 12/3/2007 7:44:08 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Blue_Monkey:
A nuclear exchange in that region would inflict devestating damage to religious and historical sites. Would an Islamic state such as Iran be willing to destroy one of it's most reveared religious sites such as the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem?


Neutron type bomb?
Link Posted: 12/3/2007 7:55:30 AM EDT

Originally Posted By valheru21:

Originally Posted By rmstrjim:

Originally Posted By valheru21:

Originally Posted By VorenusLegioXI:

Originally Posted By RikWriter:

Originally Posted By hawxter996:

Originally Posted By swede1986:
What if Israel destroys the iranian nukes before they get off the ground?


then russia attacks israel?


HIGHLY doubtful. Russia doesn't have the combat capability to invade Israel, particularly since the US would oppose it.



You are not one of those evangelical end times bullshit people are you?

My in laws moved to san antonio to go to the Hagee church because they believe that left behind nonsense.


There's far more to the "end times bullshit" than a series of poorly written books. Not all who believe that we're about to see some life-altering events are evangelical.

Some of us are Catholics who think the evangelicals are full of shit (in the way they see it going down).

It's happening right before your eyes... not in the manner that many suspect and not with the timing that many suspect, but it is happening.
Matt


No, a shit ton of people are making a lot of money because millions of people are CHOMPING AT THE BIT to buy into this crap.

Throughout history thousands of people have interpreted current events to be "the end of days". So far, they've been 100% dead wrong. Don't think yourself so wise to sway such a stellar track record cause Jews and Palestinians (surprise surprise) still aren't getting along.


Hope you're right... the evidence, however, is to the contrary. (further discussions don't belong in this forum).
Matt


Actually, Matt, I believe you're nuts. Provide your "evidence" here.

"...not in the manner that many suspect and not with the timing that many suspect, but it is happening." is simply some religous dogeral you're spewing. If you want this in the Religion Forum, you'll likely be called for BS anyway.

Link Posted: 12/3/2007 8:05:32 AM EDT

Originally Posted By packinheavy:

Originally Posted By Blue_Monkey:
A nuclear exchange in that region would inflict devestating damage to religious and historical sites. Would an Islamic state such as Iran be willing to destroy one of it's most reveared religious sites such as the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem?


Neutron type bomb?


Neutron would not really work:

This intense burst of high-energy neutrons is intended as the principal mechanism of killing, although a large amount of heat and blast is also produced. A common idea is that a neutron bomb "leaves the infrastructure intact"; however, current designs have yields in the kiloton range,[10] the detonation of which could cause heavy destruction through blast and heat effects. A yield of one kiloton is not much for a nuclear weapon but it is nearly two orders of magnitude (100x) bigger than the most powerful conventional bombs. The blast from a neutron bomb may be enough to level almost any civilian structures inside the lethal radiation range.[11]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_bomb
Link Posted: 12/3/2007 8:12:07 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Ronnoc:

Originally Posted By packinheavy:

Originally Posted By Blue_Monkey:
A nuclear exchange in that region would inflict devestating damage to religious and historical sites. Would an Islamic state such as Iran be willing to destroy one of it's most reveared religious sites such as the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem?


Neutron type bomb?


Neutron would not really work:

This intense burst of high-energy neutrons is intended as the principal mechanism of killing, although a large amount of heat and blast is also produced. A common idea is that a neutron bomb "leaves the infrastructure intact"; however, current designs have yields in the kiloton range,[10] the detonation of which could cause heavy destruction through blast and heat effects. A yield of one kiloton is not much for a nuclear weapon but it is nearly two orders of magnitude (100x) bigger than the most powerful conventional bombs. The blast from a neutron bomb may be enough to level almost any civilian structures inside the lethal radiation range.[11]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_bomb


Ok, I kind of doubted they would be able to build one anyway. I was just a thought.
Link Posted: 12/3/2007 8:18:51 AM EDT

Originally Posted By MNnaloxone:
I may be just another callous bastard, but I really am failing to see the downside to this. Anyone care to help a hard-hearted nationalist?


An attack on the oil field infrastructure would disrupt the global economy for years. A full scale armageddon in which the Israelis retaliate against Iran, Egypt, Syria, and the Gulf oil fields would cause a global economic depression. There's a non-trivial chance the US would get hit by something as an Islamic nuclear power going down tries to take the great satan with it.
Link Posted: 12/3/2007 8:21:00 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/3/2007 8:25:30 AM EDT by jeffers_mz]
Anthony Cordesman is one of the main go-to sources for foreign Tables of Organization and Equipment/Orders of Battle, because his information on the size, location, type, relative strength, readiness, type of equipment in use and effectiveness of that equipment are about as good as the average civilian is likely to have access to.

But it's impossible to read his reports without noticing his anti-war stance. It's a lot like Global Security, where John Pike has as much information regarding weapons system capabilities as anyone, and can't help but inject his politics into every report.

The idea that Israel would pre-empt Egypt or Syria using nuclear weapons, just because of a nuclear exchange with Iran is nothing more than scare tactics, designed to prime the American and Israeli public against attacking Iran, and whether by accident or intent, allowing Iran to obtain nuclear weapons.

Iran is headed for another round of UN sanctions. Either those sanctions will force Iran to abandon its nuclear weapons programs, or esle Iran will be disarmed, militarily, and the probability curve for that military conflict peaks, in my opinion, between February 1 and March 31, 2008, with a rapid and highly visible build-up period, to complete deployments already underway for a year now, shortly after the Christmas and New Year's Holidays, within the first two weeks of January 2008.

Even though primary disarmament will be through the use of air strikes, I expect a fair sized ground offensive will be necessary to suppress anti-ship missiles launched from the rugged terrain around Bandar Abbas, see Oplan 1019 for more information on the Arabian Gauntlet series of military exercises. This would be the reason behind the spring 2008 timing, to take advantage of conditions least detrimental to troops fighting in Mopp-4 protective suits. Iran has a robust and longstanding chemical weapons program.

There is a distinct possibility that this conflict will widen, a lot depends on how close to total suppression the Coalition can inflict upon Iran in the early minutes and hours of coombat operations. In 1991, Saddam Hussein was able to fire Scud missiles all through the conflict, and even during OIF, the Coalition was unable to prevent sporadic missile launches by Saddam's troops.

Other potential flashpoints include Israel and Syria on the Golan, in the air, and in potential missile duels, perhaps even involving Syrian chemical weapons, whose existance and missile warhead viability are not in question, Pakistan internally and/or potential conflict with India, aggressive actions initiated by North Korea, even a Chinese move towards Formosa.

Lower level assymetric operations in Lebanon, and eastern Turkey/Northern Iran may also become operationally significant. In Lebanon particularly, there is a risk of changes in the balance of power.

There are significant risks to disarming Iran militarily, but these are greatly outweighed by the threat of an Iranian nuclear umbrella from which they would undoubtedly export Gulf hegemony and continue exports of terrorism and support for radical insurgencies. IfIiran is allowed to achieve an operational nuclear weapons capability, within one to two decades, we will face a return to the superpower cold war of the late 20th century, except this time our adversary will control or heavily influence roughly half the earth's proven energy reserves.

War with Iran will not be pleasant for anyone on earth, but the alternatives are orders of magnitude worse. Better to deal with a difficult problem now than wait for it to become insurmountable, and much better for the averge American to see this coming in time to make preparations for it.

Link Posted: 12/3/2007 8:30:32 AM EDT
Jeffers I scanned this thread looking for your input and was about to IM you and request your input, then I came to the last post.

Regarding the ping about Fuel build-ups at FreeR.com is it reasonable to believe we will see a consistant increase in this areana prior to Feb. and is this a indication of events to follow?
Link Posted: 12/3/2007 8:35:22 AM EDT

Originally Posted By mcgredo:

Originally Posted By MNnaloxone:
I may be just another callous bastard, but I really am failing to see the downside to this. Anyone care to help a hard-hearted nationalist?


An attack on the oil field infrastructure would disrupt the global economy for years. A full scale armageddon in which the Israelis retaliate against Iran, Egypt, Syria, and the Gulf oil fields would cause a global economic depression. There's a non-trivial chance the US would get hit by something as an Islamic nuclear power going down tries to take the great satan with it.


The economic hit we would take from losing more than 50% of our oil supply almost overnight, plus the loss of markets overseas caused by economic disruption in Europe and Asia, might be more than the US could survive. Some RAND studies on this scenario postulated an almost-overnight depression leaving us with a 30%+ unemployment, and a government likely unable to meet its own financial obligations in the short term. While those problems could be addressed and fixed after a while, the disruption would likely lead to a loss of confidence in the dollar that would unravel the very cords the government would need to lead a recovery effort.
Link Posted: 12/3/2007 8:38:36 AM EDT

Originally Posted By jeffers_mz:
SNIP




Well shit.


That is a pretty piss poor picture that you just painted. My question is this; there has been a lot of saber rattling and I think this is it talk, but nothing has happened, when will it happen? Is there the political will for this to happen in an election year? I can't see GW punting this issue to the next POTUS in light of the possibility of a Hildabeast Presidency.

Will he wait until the election is decided and then act in light of the outcome? I can't imagine that the politicos would schedule this in light of a military (the MOPP 4 issue) advantage, I don't have that faith in them. I really wish that someone would just whack the nut job and let this section of the world simmer down a bit.

96Ag
Link Posted: 12/3/2007 11:02:36 AM EDT

Originally Posted By scuba_ed:
Actually, Matt, I believe you're nuts. Provide your "evidence" here.


Believe as you like - I'm not forcing you to believe or think one way or the other. Time will tell.


"...not in the manner that many suspect and not with the timing that many suspect, but it is happening." is simply some religous dogeral you're spewing. If you want this in the Religion Forum, you'll likely be called for BS anyway.



The Left Behind series (which describe the dominant view of the Shitstorm just prior to the Second Coming) are factually, scripturally and theologically (not to mention grammatically) deficient.

Suffice it to say, though, that the creation of the state of Israel "from the Nations (UN)" is the most significant prophecy that has been fullfilled in recent times. Until that point, there was no reason to suspect that the season of the Second Coming was imminant. The explosion of knowledge and the spread of the Gospel to all ends of the Earth (very recent) are other fullfillments. The death of Pope JPII and his replacement "The Glory of the Olive" are the end of the prophecy of St. Malachy. The great apostacy of the Chuch is staring us in the face... it just needs a catalyst.

Sure, I have a tin-foil lined suit of armour all set up for judgement day, but that's no reason to call me "nuts."
Matt
Link Posted: 12/4/2007 1:49:19 AM EDT

Originally Posted By MNnaloxone:

Originally Posted By FRIZ:
snippity...

So in clear, concise and chillingly forensic style, Cordesman spells out that the real stakes in the crisis that is building over Iran's nuclear ambitions would certainly include the end of Persian civilization, quite probably the end of Egyptian civilization, and the end of the Oil Age. This would also mean the end of globalization and the extraordinary accretions in world trade and growth and prosperity that are hauling hundreds of millions of Chinese and Indians and others out of poverty.


I may be just another callous bastard, but I really am failing to see the downside to this. Anyone care to help a hard-hearted nationalist?


We live on the same fucking planet as they do?
Link Posted: 12/4/2007 1:51:20 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/4/2007 1:53:44 AM EDT by rmstrjim]

Originally Posted By valheru21:

Hope you're right... the evidence, however, is to the contrary. (further discussions don't belong in this forum).
Matt


A) No it fucking isn't.
B) Put up or shut up.
C) So shocked you declared that any further discussion is unseemly for some reason, never seen that tactic used by any PARTICULAR group before.

ETA: (The creation of a state for the historically nomadic and ostracized Jews wasn't a matter of if, it was a matter of when, goofball)
Got anything of any real significance?
Link Posted: 12/4/2007 2:12:01 AM EDT
So if Russia attacked Turkey from behind, would Greece help?

(Damn, that joke NEVER gets old...)
Link Posted: 12/4/2007 2:15:57 AM EDT
Iran tries to launch any nukes against Israel and Israel will definitely strike first with a few nukes of its own; all Arab states form an allicance to attack Israel and the US will have to interceed on Israel's behalf; the UK, being a strong ally of the US will also interceed. China and RUssia will keep out, because it is not in their best interest (diplomatically or financially) to get involved and might sit on the sidelines.

I think iit'd be the biggest smackdown in Middle Eastern history.

Link Posted: 12/4/2007 2:29:08 AM EDT

Originally Posted By the_naked_prophet:

I had always thought that a thwarted nuclear attack could leave enough enriched fissile material to run some nuclear reactors for several years.


lol

That is not how nuclear reactors work.
Link Posted: 12/4/2007 2:53:37 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/4/2007 3:02:57 AM EDT by jeffers_mz]
Watermaker, 96Ag,

These projections are based on a running list of deployments and political maneuver to date. Yesterday's release of the 2007 NIE: Iran does NOT change anything that has already occurred.

Our current military posture regarding Iran is such that we could hold the line against an Iranian surprise offensive, we are incrementally improving our readiness to attack Iran's nuclear facilities, with supporting attacks against Iran's nascent IADS and air defense assets, and most or all of the political discussion with Gulf region governments has been concluded, with all onboard.

Tommy Franks instituted the "incremental build-up" in the run up to OIF, adding readiness on the QT, using scheduled redeployments to augment and increase offensive capabilities, by slightly extending asset return dates and by advancing asset forward deployments. He recognized that certain preparations are inpossible to conceal, deployment of an additional carrier group for example, and turned that to our advantage. When a major deployment takes place, the ensuing media and political flap raises expectations of imminent hostilities. When no such hostilities occur, the enemy is lulled into a false sense of security, and with the largest part of our assets already in place, we can finish preparations rapidly, inside the enemy's decision loop, and achieve operational surprise, without waiting through a long, overt buildup period.

This is precisely what has been taking place re Iran since January 10, 2007.

Yesterday's NIE release does not change any of what has already happened, but it might change what is yet to occur. The CIA is a very political place, largely liberal in some sectors of management, and there are numerous examples of significant intelligence failures. CIA completely missed both the Pak and Indian preparations for nuclear weapons tests, misinterpreted Iraq's July 1990 build-up on the Kuwaiti border, failed to realize Saddam was 12 to 18 months short of a bomb in 1991, and was unable to thwart 9/11 in advance. They could be wrong.

They could be both right and wrong. It is also quite possible that Iran did in fact completely halt a nuclear weapons program in 2003, and begin a different program using different assets and resources, solely to thwart foreign intelligence detection. They may have decided to suspend weapons assembly until they have sifficient core fuel to assemble a number of weapons. They may have already succeeded in achieving a viable design, based around help from Pakistan's Khan, and farmed out core fuel machining to Syria, at the facility the IAF destroyed on 9/6/2007 and perhaps others.

This NIE raises the political bar for attacks considerably. It turns a potential conservative political success into a failure for conservatives if attacks are initiated, against the NIE's recommendations, before the 2008 elections, UNLESS ground truth proves this Estimate wrong.

Until I know more, and see more, because much of the future will be determined by thinking which is in flux right now, I will maintain that the optimum time for military strikes is within the early 2008 window specified. By mid-January, we will know if preparations are on hold, or on the fast track.

That's the best I can do right now. Because its better to be prepared and not need the preparations than to need them and not have them, I am still planning around major combat operations in mid to late winter next year, delaying major projects, making sure energy and economic market fluctuations effects here will be minimal, etc. I do not believe Iran has capitulated. Although they have slowed or halted aggressive activities in Iraq, and perhaps delayed their nuclear weapons program, they have NOT opened their doors to the IAEA ala South Africa, and for the time being, it is too soon to estimate the effect of yesterday's NIE release.
Link Posted: 12/4/2007 3:32:28 AM EDT
holy shit there's some good info in this thread.
Top Top