Patterico's Pontifications

Obama needs to comment on this. More than McCain.

Vermont Neighbor (31ccb6) — 7/1/2008 @ 8:07 am

I hope so, and Yes. The problem isn’t the type of ordnance to use, for Israel dare not use nuclear weapons first as long as she is the only nuclear power in the ME. The problems for Israel are which one of the possible dozen plus Iranian nuclear facilities is the primary target and fuel. These targets are twice the distance as the 1981 Israeli raid on Iraq’s “Osirak” reactor. Any raid by air would need to in-flight refuel because of the distance or reduce the ordnance (bomb) load. The latter is not likely as the Israeli’s would have only one opportunity to sneak past Iranian Air Defense.

An Iran raid by Israel would not be as easy as was Iraq, but if Israel can pull it off, it’s in the best interests of all concerned. Even the Arabs.

C. Norris (1b9d4b) — 7/1/2008 @ 8:26 am

They can do it with conventional weapons, but NOT without paratroops. This is a BIG operation. It will involve not only paratroops at each facility to be razed (entering and destroying in detail, along with killing all personnel they can find), but capturing and holding airfields for exit points and reduction of all nearby military capability.

I’m pretty sure that this will require US assistance, if not US participation. For Israel it’s pretty much “student body right”, and without refueling support and staging areas “nearby” I think that the IDF may have too hard a time of it.

Expect this in late November, early December.

Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 7/1/2008 @ 9:09 am

if israel attacks iran, iran will block the strait of hormuz, through which flows 60% of the world’s oil. iran has “sunburn” anti-ship missiles which may be capable of sinking american warships. about six years ago, the u.s. military staged a simulation. the marine corps general playing the role of the iranian commander used asymmetric tactics which were so successful that they had to stop the sim, change the rules and restore (refloat) a number of our sunken vessels.

israel has long been the tail wagging the american dog. we shower more aid on it than we provide to any other country, yet it continues to act with blithe disdain for the interests of its patron. if 60% of the oil is removed from the supply side, the law of supply and demand suggests that the price of gasoline will go up by a reciprocal factor, in this case, 2.5. yes, this is a rough approximation and i know that oil economics are a little more complicated, but it is still a sound beginning for projecting what will happen. at the exxon station in bandon, oregon where i refueled yesterday, regular gasoline was 4.359/gallon. multiplying that by 2.5 yields 10.89/gallon gasoline.

are you ready for 10+ dollar/gallon gas? individually, some of us are better positioned to weather this than others, but collectively, it will crater our economy. to what extent are you zionist warhawks willing to sacrifice our national interests so that israel may continue to be the only nuclear power in its immediate area? for starters, do you promise not to bitch on the internet about the double-digit gasoline which predictably resulted from your policies?

i think it’s time for the dog to start wagging the tail.

assistant devil's advocate (fef4a1) — 7/1/2008 @ 9:09 am

ADA–

I think this would be a great campaign issue for Obama. “Bring Israel to heel!”

Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 7/1/2008 @ 9:12 am

#4 – a.d.a.

we shower more aid on [Israel] than we provide to any other country

— It is truly amazing how often this distortion is perpetrated and perpetuated. Yes, Israel receives more aid; most of it is military aid (the Bush administration requested no economic aid for fiscal year 2008) which, far from being showered upon them, actually is given in the form of loans … loans that the Israelis have consistently repaid in a timely manner.

yet it continues to act with blithe disdain for the interests of its patron.

— A complaint that we don’t put enough conditions on our aid disbursements? That sounds familiar:

RAYMOND BARONE: I didn’t give you a thousand dollars so that you could go to Vegas with it.
ROBERT: [sarcastically] Oh, I’m sorry. I didn’t read the fine print on the check. If you gave me a chair would you tell me how to sit in it?

if 60% of the oil is removed from the supply side, the law of supply and demand suggests that the price of gasoline will go up by a reciprocal factor

— Iran cannot afford to remove its oil from the world market, nor can it successfully block the Strait of Hormuz for any significant length of time; it would have to violate waters belonging to Oman in order to do so, which would be a UN violation that would (at the very least) bring sanctions down on them.

to what extent are you zionist warhawks willing to sacrifice our national interests so that israel may continue to be the only nuclear power in its immediate area?

— You think it would be better if more countries in that region possessed nuclear weapons?

Icy Truth (e52465) — 7/1/2008 @ 10:48 am

to what extent are you zionist warhawks willing to sacrifice our national interests so that israel may continue to be the only nuclear power in its immediate area?

You’re not familiar with India and Pakistan, I take it.

Pablo (99243e) — 7/1/2008 @ 10:55 am

The more countries having nukes, the higher the chance that someone uses one and the greater the danger of a uncontrolled escalation thereafter.

Why would ANYONE think that a bunch of folks who think suicide bombers surely go to Paradise should have a fission bomb is beyond me. This isn’t about right and wrong, it’s about sane and insane.

Kevin Murphy (805c5b) — 7/1/2008 @ 11:27 am

Kevin – If we would just talk to the folks in Iran, instead of employing our cowboy diplomacy, maybe we could make some inroads. If we got at the root causes of their problems with Israel and the US, maybe we could make some real progres.

JD (75f5c3) — 7/1/2008 @ 11:29 am

pablo, i am familiar with india and pakistan, that’s why i said immediate area. in the interest of fairness, so as not to weight my scenario too heavily negative, i omitted the possibility that the pakis might use the confusion to nuke both israel and india. india would of course nuke pakistan back. hopefully, russia and china won’t get involved, but this will still have a minus effect on oil production in the region.

icy truth baby (#6), i am ready for 10+/gallon gas, are you? the metals made a nice move this morning.

assistant devil's advocate (fef4a1) — 7/1/2008 @ 11:54 am

JD: Kevin – If we would just talk to the folks in Iran, instead of employing our cowboy diplomacy, maybe we could make some inroads. If we got at the root causes of their problems with Israel and the US, maybe we could make some real progres.

i see you got your foreign policy ideas out of Winne the Pooh also……

there’s no point in trying to talk to a donkey until you have it’s attention. that’s why you whack them with a Clue by Four first. Iran is no different.

redc1c4 (5c9f54) — 7/1/2008 @ 12:07 pm

there is a simple solution to the distance/payload equation that the IAF faces:

they don’t want to use nukes, for all the obvious reason.

they’re going to have a hard time getting enough conventional weapons over the various targets to properly service them, even if we give them tanker support, which isn’t likely.

putting in ground troops, as suggested above, would make the logistics an absolute nightmare.

there is a simple OTB solution: take the stored radioactive waste from Diamona, and maybe even break up a few bombs. rig the radioactive material in canisters with bursting charges and JDAM kits, and send them over the targets to air burst. the gross radioactive contamination will make all these facilities effectively useless for the foreseeable future. end of problem until they rebuild from scratch somewhere else.

redc1c4 (5c9f54) — 7/1/2008 @ 12:15 pm

….the gross radioactive contamination will make all these facilities effectively useless for the foreseeable future.

Radioactive contamination is the easiest of all to decontaminate compared to chemical and biological because radioactivity is easily detectable. The FBI is STILL looking for the source of the anthrax attacks of 9-11. Yours truly was trained in chemical, biological and radiological issues in the military and, absent a direct hit, I would much prefer having to deal with the issues of a nuclear type than “bugs or gas”. Iran will clean up a “dirty” operation within six-months.

Iran cannot afford to remove its oil from the world market, nor can it successfully block the Strait of Hormuz for any significant length of time..

I agree. If Iran did, it would be show down time and I don’t think that Bush will blink.

C. Norris (1b9d4b) — 7/1/2008 @ 12:42 pm

The world’s only superpower has played Iran’s baitch for thirty years now. I hardly doubt that the USSR would not have taken direct extreme action if their embassy staff had been taken hostage. Putin and the old KGB were quite fearsome in their time.

Why are we always worrying about what the arab street thinks or how the UN and Europussies react? Israel did the right thing with Iraq way back when. Imanutjob and the mad mullahs talk about how they will wipe out the dirty Joos. Poetic justice would have them on the way ti their own sought paradise of 72 virgins who look like Arafat.

The clueless moonbats who adore Urkel could save us all plenty of grief by accepting that we should develop our own bounty of oil resources, new refineries and nuke plants. Btw, Iran is building refineries so that THEY won’t be dependent on the outside world for refined oil products. Iraq fought Iran pretty much to a standstill in early eighties. Is there any doubt that their Navy and Air Force could not be easily decimated? Time to stop taking it up the butthole from those farsi speaking whackjobs. If Obama wins in the fall, Israel knows he will sell them down the river to accomodate Arab interests. Should history repeat itself with another Jewish Holocaust (one that never happended according to Iran)? Just say no to terrorist blackmail.
So, Olmert do you care about the lives of your citizens or more about what the sophisticates of Europe think, since French already said you’re a shitty little country?

madmax333 (388d99) — 7/1/2008 @ 1:04 pm

#10 – ass.d.a.

i am ready for 10+/gallon gas, are you?

— I don’t think that will happen anytime soon, but if it does … YES. Now you answer my question: Do you think that the region will be more stable if Iran, or any other nation, develops nuclear weapons? If so, why?

Icy Truth (e52465) — 7/1/2008 @ 1:42 pm

“… Israel dare not use nuclear weapons first as long as she is the only nuclear power in the ME.”

I don’t understand that at all. It seems to me the _best_ time to nuke an enemy is when the enemy cannot retaliate in kind. CN, can you explain what you meant?

And yes, when this shit hits the fan, $10/gal gasoline in the USA is likely, and that will trigger a global economic depression. Whether such an attack is necessary or not, I’m not looking forward to it.

g Hussein p (c05653) — 7/1/2008 @ 2:58 pm

red – My tongue was firmlt planted in cheek …

JD (5f0e11) — 7/1/2008 @ 3:02 pm

Israel recently demonstrated the feasibility of the kind of air defense penetration mission over Syria to destroy Syria’s nuclear reactor.

SPQR (26be8b) — 7/1/2008 @ 3:07 pm

yet it continues to act with blithe disdain for the interests of its patron

It’s in our interest for Iran to have nuclear weapons?

It’s not an abstract issue of whether countries should have nuclear weapons, the issue is whether Iran should, and if not, what should be done to keep that from happening. I believe they shouldn’t and while it’d be nice if that could be done short of military action, military action should be used if so-called diplomacy fails… which it apparently has.

And as far as $10 gas, I’d rather face that for a short time than the much worse and longer lasting consequences of Iran having nuclear weapons. You obviously don’t think Iran having nukes is that big of a problem, if a problem at all. I just hope Israel (since Bush is incapable of doing the work himself) doesn’t stand by and let Iran get its nukes just so we can see how utterly wrong and dangerous your view is.

steve sturm (a0236e) — 7/1/2008 @ 3:20 pm

C. Norris: i was a 54B/E (they kept changing the nomenclature) also. as for the rad vs chem/bio decon, i was looking for Chernobyl level contamination, not just a few hot spots….. when is that town scheduled to be ready for habitation?

JD: thought so, but it definitely sounded like Pooh policy, which is what we’ve been told to expect by his presumptive NSA.

redc1c4 (5c9f54) — 7/1/2008 @ 3:47 pm

The famous fleet action where the Navy got sunk by a bunch of ChrisCraft was run on the wrong ROE.
They let the little guys get too close.
If the ROE are changed, that won’t happen again. However, I don’t expect the ROE to change until we’ve lost some serious Navy.
IMO, the Iranians will run some suicide missions, profiling as if to ram a la USS Cole. Then, when blown out of the water, the unarmed boats will be innocent fishing boats. The US will pull the ROE in.

Richard Aubrey (4e82f2) — 7/1/2008 @ 3:57 pm

“CN: “Israel dare not use nuclear weapons first as long as she is the only nuclear power in the ME.”…</blockquote

g Hussein p: “I don’t understand that at all. It seems to me the _best_ time to nuke an enemy is when the enemy cannot retaliate in kind. CN, can you explain what you meant?”

It’s a nuclear paradox. Since the Arabs have pledged extinction to Israel, she has nothing to lose by aggressively keeping the Arab nations free of nuclear weapons, AND she keeps the international moral high ground to maintain her power. However, if she nukes an Arab state, preemptively, it will only be a matter of time before “outraged” world opinion provides the nuclear wherewithal to the “aggrieved” Arabs for retribution and Israels demise. Actually, Israel is in the cat-bird seat as long as she can police the ME from the air with conventional weapons. She’ll save herself from the Arabs and the Arab’s from themselves. It almost seems Biblical, in an Old Testament sort of way.

C. Norris (d1e674) — 7/1/2008 @ 5:23 pm

Seeding an Iranian nuclear weapon site with radioactives would not stop Iran. Iran is the nation that used battalions of untrained unarmed soldiers to clear mines by running across the fields.

SPQR (26be8b) — 7/1/2008 @ 5:33 pm

#23: then we need to up the radiation level.

half life beats birth rate after a certain point.

(and there’s nothing important down wind.)

redc1c4 (5c9f54) — 7/1/2008 @ 8:23 pm

One of these days it needs to be made clear, by example, that seeking nuclear weapons DECREASES a nation’s security. I had hoped that this would happen with North Korea, and maybe it will happen with Iran (but I doubt it). But the point really needs to be made. Soon.

Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 7/1/2008 @ 11:53 pm

7/1/2008

World War III: The Preview

25 Responses to “World War III: The Preview”

Favorite Sites

Links

Patterico Sells Out