Sacrifice the Fifth Fleet?
Scape @ Fri Nov 09, 2007 2:33 pm
$1:
The Bush administation has covered up and ignored dissenting Pentagon war games analysis that suggests an attack on Iran's nuclear or military facilities will lead directly to the annihilation of the Navy's Fifth Fleet now stationed in the Persian Gulf. Lt. General Paul Van Riper led a hypothetical Persian Gulf state in the 2002 Millennium Challenge wargames that resulted in the destruction of the Fifth Fleet. His experience and conclusions regarding the vulnerability of the Fifth Fleet to an assymetrical military conflict and the implications for a war against Iran have been ignored. Neoconservatives within the Bush administration are currently aggressively promoting a range of military actions against Iran that will culminate in it attacking the US Navy's Fifth Fleet with sophisticated cruise anti-ship missiles. They are ignoring Van Riper's experiences in the Millennium Challenge and how it applies to the current nuclear conflict with Iran.
Iran has sufficient quantities of cruise missiles to destroy much or all of the Fifth Fleet which is within range of Iran's mobile missile launchers strategically located along its mountainous terrain overlooking the Persian Gulf. The Bush administration is deliberately downplaying the vulnerability of the Fifth Fleet to Iran's advanced missile technology which has been purchased from Russia and China since the late 1990's. The most sophisticated of Iran's cruise missiles are the 'Sunburn' and 'Yakhonts'. These are missiles against which U.S. military experts conclude modern warships have no effective defense. By deliberately provoking an Iranian retaliation to U.S. military actions, the neoconservatives will knowingly sacrifice much or all of the Fifth Fleet. This will culminate in a new Pearl Harbor that will create the right political environment for total war against Iran, and expanded military actions in the Persian Gulf region.
The Fifth Fleet's Vulnerability to Iran's Anti-Ship Missile Arsenal
The U.S. Navy Fifth Fleet is headquartered in the Gulf State of Bahrain which is responsible for patrolling the Persian Gulf, Arabian Sea, Suez Canal and parts of the Indian Ocean. The Fifth Fleet currently comprises a carrier group and two helicopter carrier ships. Its size peaked at five aircraft carrier groups and six helicopter carriers in 2003 during the invasion of Iraq. Presently, it is led by the USS Enterprise (CVN-65), the first nuclear powered aircraft carrier commissioned in 1961. It is the oldest of the Navy's nuclear powered class carriers and scheduled to be decommissioned in 2015 when the first of the new Ford Class carriers enters service. The Enterprise has over 5000 Navy personnel, and on November 2, began participating in a Naval exercise in the Persian Gulf. .
The Fifth Fleet is part of Central Command which is responsible for military operations in the Middle East and Central Asia, including the military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan. Central Command is led by Admiral William Fallon, the first naval officer to head Central Command. His appointment reflected widespread opinion that Naval forces would be central in the evolution of missions and goals in the Persian Gulf region. Robert Gates, the U.S. Secretary of Defense explained: "As you look at the range of options available to the United States, the use of naval and air power, potentially, it made sense to me for all those reasons for Fallon to have the job." It would be Central Command and the Fifth Fleet that would be directly responsible for carrying out a new war against Iran. As a result, it would be the Fifth Fleet that would be most vulnerable of all U.S. military assets to Iran's arsenal of anti-ship cruise missiles.
The Fifth Fleet's base in Bahrain, is only 150 miles away from the Iranian coast, and would itself be in range of Iran's new generation of anti-ship cruise missiles. Also, any Naval ships in the confined terrain of the Persian Gulf would have difficulty in maneuvering and would be within range of Iran's rugged coastline which extends all along the Persian Gulf to the Arabian sea.
Iran began purchasing advanced military technology from Russia soon after the latter pulled out in 2000 from the Gore-Chernomyrdin Protocol, which limited Russia's sales of military equipment to Iran. Russia subsequently began selling Iran military technology that could be used in any military conflict with the U.S. This included air defense systems and anti-ship cruise missiles in which Russia specialized to offset the U.S. large naval superiority. One researcher of Russia's missile technology explains its focus on anti-ship technologies:
Many years ago, Soviet planners gave up trying to match the US Navy ship for ship, gun for gun, and dollar for dollar. The Soviets simply could not compete with the high levels of US spending required to build up and maintain a huge naval armada. They shrewdly adopted an alternative approach based on strategic defense. They searched for weaknesses, and sought relatively inexpensive ways to exploit those weaknesses. The Soviets succeeded: by developing several supersonic anti-ship missiles, one of which, the SS-N-22 Sunburn, has been called "the most lethal missile in the world today."
The SS-N-22 or 'Sunburn" has a speed of Mach 2.5 or 1500 miles an hour, uses stealth technology and has a range up to 130 miles. It contains a conventional warhead of 750 lbs that can destroy most ships. Of even greater concern is Russia's SSN-X-26 or 'Yakhonts' cruise missile which has a range of 185 miles which makes all US Navy ships in the Persian Gulf vulnerable to attack. More importantly the Yakhonts has been specifically developed for use against Carrier groups, and has been sold by Russia on the international arms trade.
Both the Yakhonts and the Sunburn missiles are designed to defeat the Aegis radar defense currently used on U.S. Navy ships by using stealth technology and low ground hugging flying maneuvers. In their final approaches these missiles take evasive maneuvers to defeat anti-ship missile defenses. The best defense the Navy has against Sunburn and Yakhonts cruise missiles has been the Sea-RAM (Rolling Actionframe Missile system) anti-ship missile defense system which is a modified form of the Phalanx 20 mm cannon gun . The Sea-RAM has been tested with a 95% success rate against the 'Vandal' supersonic missile capable of Mach 2.5 speeds but does not have the radar evading and final flight maneuvers of Russian anti-ship missiles. Naval ships are having their anti-ship missile defense fitted with the new Sea-RAM. However, the Sea-RAM has not yet been tested in actual battle conditions nor against the Sunburn or Yakhonts missiles which out-perform the Vandal. The Vandal is currently scheduled for replacement by the 'Coyote' which replicates many of the evasive maneuvers of the Russia anti-ship missiles necessary for developing an effective defense.
So great is the threat posed by the Sunburn, Yakhonts and other advanced anti-ship missiles being developed by Russia and sold to China, Iran and other countries, that the Pentagon's weapons testing office in 2007 moved to halt production on further aircraft carriers until an effective defense was develope. Iran has purchased sufficient quantities of both the Sunbeam and Yakhonts to destroy much or all of the Fifth Fleet anywhere in the Persian Gulf from its mountainous coastal terrain.
....
Conclusions
The above scenario is very plausible given the military capacities of Iran's anti-ship cruise missiles and the U.S. Navy's vulnerability to these while operating in the Persian Gulf. The Bush administration has hidden from the American public the full extent of the Fifth Fleet's vulnerability, and how it could be trapped and destroyed in a full scale conflict with Iran. This is best evidenced by the controversial decision to downplay the real results of the Millennium Challenge wargames and the dissenting views of Lt. General Van Riper over the lessons to be learned. This culminated in General Van Riper joining a group of retired generals in calling for the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld. In a PBS interview he referred to Rumsfeld as "unwilling to accept advice … relieving people or publicly humiliating people" and even making decisions that "are unlawful." The Bush administration is also downplaying the significance of the 2000 GAO report on US Navy vulnerability to cruise missile attacks.
Neo-conservatives within the Bush administration are fully aware of the vulnerability of the Fifth Fleet, yet have at times tried to place up to three carrier groups in the Persian Gulf which would only augment U.S. losses in any war with Iran. Yet the Bush administration has still attempted to move forward with plans for nuclear, conventional and/or covert attacks on Iran which would precipitate much of the terrible scenario described above.
A reasonable conclusion to draw is that neoconservatives within the Bush administration are willing to sacrifice much or all of the U.S. Fifth Fleet by militarily provoking Iran to launch its anti-ship cruise missile arsenal in order to justify 'total war' against Iran, and force regime change. An immediate solution is to expose the neo-conservative agenda to sacrifice the Fifth Fleet and to make accountable all those responsible for it.
Iran has sufficient quantities of cruise missiles to destroy much or all of the Fifth Fleet which is within range of Iran's mobile missile launchers strategically located along its mountainous terrain overlooking the Persian Gulf. The Bush administration is deliberately downplaying the vulnerability of the Fifth Fleet to Iran's advanced missile technology which has been purchased from Russia and China since the late 1990's. The most sophisticated of Iran's cruise missiles are the 'Sunburn' and 'Yakhonts'. These are missiles against which U.S. military experts conclude modern warships have no effective defense. By deliberately provoking an Iranian retaliation to U.S. military actions, the neoconservatives will knowingly sacrifice much or all of the Fifth Fleet. This will culminate in a new Pearl Harbor that will create the right political environment for total war against Iran, and expanded military actions in the Persian Gulf region.
The Fifth Fleet's Vulnerability to Iran's Anti-Ship Missile Arsenal
The U.S. Navy Fifth Fleet is headquartered in the Gulf State of Bahrain which is responsible for patrolling the Persian Gulf, Arabian Sea, Suez Canal and parts of the Indian Ocean. The Fifth Fleet currently comprises a carrier group and two helicopter carrier ships. Its size peaked at five aircraft carrier groups and six helicopter carriers in 2003 during the invasion of Iraq. Presently, it is led by the USS Enterprise (CVN-65), the first nuclear powered aircraft carrier commissioned in 1961. It is the oldest of the Navy's nuclear powered class carriers and scheduled to be decommissioned in 2015 when the first of the new Ford Class carriers enters service. The Enterprise has over 5000 Navy personnel, and on November 2, began participating in a Naval exercise in the Persian Gulf. .
The Fifth Fleet is part of Central Command which is responsible for military operations in the Middle East and Central Asia, including the military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan. Central Command is led by Admiral William Fallon, the first naval officer to head Central Command. His appointment reflected widespread opinion that Naval forces would be central in the evolution of missions and goals in the Persian Gulf region. Robert Gates, the U.S. Secretary of Defense explained: "As you look at the range of options available to the United States, the use of naval and air power, potentially, it made sense to me for all those reasons for Fallon to have the job." It would be Central Command and the Fifth Fleet that would be directly responsible for carrying out a new war against Iran. As a result, it would be the Fifth Fleet that would be most vulnerable of all U.S. military assets to Iran's arsenal of anti-ship cruise missiles.
The Fifth Fleet's base in Bahrain, is only 150 miles away from the Iranian coast, and would itself be in range of Iran's new generation of anti-ship cruise missiles. Also, any Naval ships in the confined terrain of the Persian Gulf would have difficulty in maneuvering and would be within range of Iran's rugged coastline which extends all along the Persian Gulf to the Arabian sea.
Iran began purchasing advanced military technology from Russia soon after the latter pulled out in 2000 from the Gore-Chernomyrdin Protocol, which limited Russia's sales of military equipment to Iran. Russia subsequently began selling Iran military technology that could be used in any military conflict with the U.S. This included air defense systems and anti-ship cruise missiles in which Russia specialized to offset the U.S. large naval superiority. One researcher of Russia's missile technology explains its focus on anti-ship technologies:
Many years ago, Soviet planners gave up trying to match the US Navy ship for ship, gun for gun, and dollar for dollar. The Soviets simply could not compete with the high levels of US spending required to build up and maintain a huge naval armada. They shrewdly adopted an alternative approach based on strategic defense. They searched for weaknesses, and sought relatively inexpensive ways to exploit those weaknesses. The Soviets succeeded: by developing several supersonic anti-ship missiles, one of which, the SS-N-22 Sunburn, has been called "the most lethal missile in the world today."
The SS-N-22 or 'Sunburn" has a speed of Mach 2.5 or 1500 miles an hour, uses stealth technology and has a range up to 130 miles. It contains a conventional warhead of 750 lbs that can destroy most ships. Of even greater concern is Russia's SSN-X-26 or 'Yakhonts' cruise missile which has a range of 185 miles which makes all US Navy ships in the Persian Gulf vulnerable to attack. More importantly the Yakhonts has been specifically developed for use against Carrier groups, and has been sold by Russia on the international arms trade.
Both the Yakhonts and the Sunburn missiles are designed to defeat the Aegis radar defense currently used on U.S. Navy ships by using stealth technology and low ground hugging flying maneuvers. In their final approaches these missiles take evasive maneuvers to defeat anti-ship missile defenses. The best defense the Navy has against Sunburn and Yakhonts cruise missiles has been the Sea-RAM (Rolling Actionframe Missile system) anti-ship missile defense system which is a modified form of the Phalanx 20 mm cannon gun . The Sea-RAM has been tested with a 95% success rate against the 'Vandal' supersonic missile capable of Mach 2.5 speeds but does not have the radar evading and final flight maneuvers of Russian anti-ship missiles. Naval ships are having their anti-ship missile defense fitted with the new Sea-RAM. However, the Sea-RAM has not yet been tested in actual battle conditions nor against the Sunburn or Yakhonts missiles which out-perform the Vandal. The Vandal is currently scheduled for replacement by the 'Coyote' which replicates many of the evasive maneuvers of the Russia anti-ship missiles necessary for developing an effective defense.
So great is the threat posed by the Sunburn, Yakhonts and other advanced anti-ship missiles being developed by Russia and sold to China, Iran and other countries, that the Pentagon's weapons testing office in 2007 moved to halt production on further aircraft carriers until an effective defense was develope. Iran has purchased sufficient quantities of both the Sunbeam and Yakhonts to destroy much or all of the Fifth Fleet anywhere in the Persian Gulf from its mountainous coastal terrain.
....
Conclusions
The above scenario is very plausible given the military capacities of Iran's anti-ship cruise missiles and the U.S. Navy's vulnerability to these while operating in the Persian Gulf. The Bush administration has hidden from the American public the full extent of the Fifth Fleet's vulnerability, and how it could be trapped and destroyed in a full scale conflict with Iran. This is best evidenced by the controversial decision to downplay the real results of the Millennium Challenge wargames and the dissenting views of Lt. General Van Riper over the lessons to be learned. This culminated in General Van Riper joining a group of retired generals in calling for the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld. In a PBS interview he referred to Rumsfeld as "unwilling to accept advice … relieving people or publicly humiliating people" and even making decisions that "are unlawful." The Bush administration is also downplaying the significance of the 2000 GAO report on US Navy vulnerability to cruise missile attacks.
Neo-conservatives within the Bush administration are fully aware of the vulnerability of the Fifth Fleet, yet have at times tried to place up to three carrier groups in the Persian Gulf which would only augment U.S. losses in any war with Iran. Yet the Bush administration has still attempted to move forward with plans for nuclear, conventional and/or covert attacks on Iran which would precipitate much of the terrible scenario described above.
A reasonable conclusion to draw is that neoconservatives within the Bush administration are willing to sacrifice much or all of the U.S. Fifth Fleet by militarily provoking Iran to launch its anti-ship cruise missile arsenal in order to justify 'total war' against Iran, and force regime change. An immediate solution is to expose the neo-conservative agenda to sacrifice the Fifth Fleet and to make accountable all those responsible for it.
kevlarman @ Fri Nov 09, 2007 2:48 pm
Alas, exposure of their efforts likely won't result in anything good since the politicians, hell, even the Democrats pretty much know that attacking Iran is FAR more palatable to the voting public than the Iraq war EVER was. You have to take into account how the American public rallies around it's soldiers, their flag, and the whole concept of "sacrifice" for their God-Blessed American way of life. That's what would likely drive people to strongly support this proposed war.
I tend to agree with what was said in the tail end of your post, that the neo-conservatives know what the obvious outcome will be and are quite willing to sacrifice a few thousand to push Iran's leadership out of power.
However that won't be as easy as Iraq, and Iraq wasn't easy at all. Time will tell what will happen. ![[popcorn]](./images/smilies/popcorn.gif "Eating Popcorn")
dog77_1999 @ Fri Nov 09, 2007 3:03 pm
Well, the only thing that could defend against that threat would be the AEGIS cruisers, though I don't know how many there are in that fleet.
The sad truth is that most navies are giant floating targets. Until there are better point defence weapons(aka fast firing lasers), I do fear this guy is right.
But then again, I don't think the US will do anything against Iran. Israel might though.
HyperionTheEvil @ Fri Nov 09, 2007 3:17 pm
Scape Scape:
The New Pearl Harbor
$1:
The Bush administation has covered up and ignored dissenting Pentagon war games analysis that suggests an attack on Iran's nuclear or military facilities will lead directly to the annihilation of the Navy's Fifth Fleet now stationed in the Persian Gulf. Lt. General Paul Van Riper led a hypothetical Persian Gulf state in the 2002 Millennium Challenge wargames that resulted in the destruction of the Fifth Fleet. His experience and conclusions regarding the vulnerability of the Fifth Fleet to an .........which would only augment U.S. losses in any war with Iran. Yet the Bush administration has still attempted to move forward with plans for nuclear, conventional and/or covert attacks on Iran which would precipitate much of the terrible scenario described above.
A reasonable conclusion to draw is that neoconservatives within the Bush administration are willing to sacrifice much or all of the U.S. Fifth Fleet by militarily provoking Iran to launch its anti-ship cruise missile arsenal in order to justify 'total war' against Iran, and force regime change. An immediate solution is to expose the neo-conservative agenda to sacrifice the Fifth Fleet and to make accountable all those responsible for it.
A reasonable conclusion to draw is that neoconservatives within the Bush administration are willing to sacrifice much or all of the U.S. Fifth Fleet by militarily provoking Iran to launch its anti-ship cruise missile arsenal in order to justify 'total war' against Iran, and force regime change. An immediate solution is to expose the neo-conservative agenda to sacrifice the Fifth Fleet and to make accountable all those responsible for it.
Is this the same guy?
Dr. Michael Emin Salla, Ph.D. (September 25, 1958) is an international politics scholar who in 2001 became interested in the study of exopolitics and subsequently embarked on a personal effort to disseminate his exopolitical beliefs and hypotheses via the mediums of the internet, UFO and New conferences, and radio appearances. Salla's most recent academic position was in Washington at American University, Center for Global Peace. The Center did not sanction his ufological research, and emphasizes that it is personal.[1] Controversy would eventually lead to Salla's dismissal from the university.
His unconventional views have made his work the subject of considerable controversy and criticism within both the ufological and mainstream academic communities. Much of the testimony he uses to support his position is controversial due to a lack of empirical evidence to substantiate many of the claims. While many of Salla's sources are considered to be credible by adherents to the UFO Disclosure movement who cite a variety of supporting documents and credentials, critics argue these sources have been discredited for a variety of reasons; among these the dissemination of patent falsehoods in the content of claims made, and the misrepresentation of credentials.
Anyone these days who begins an article with the term Neo-Conservatives runs the risk of being just another Bush-Hater.
kevlarman @ Fri Nov 09, 2007 5:06 pm
dog77_1999 dog77_1999:
Well, the only thing that could defend against that threat would be the AEGIS cruisers, though I don't know how many there are in that fleet.
The sad truth is that most navies are giant floating targets. Until there are better point defence weapons(aka fast firing lasers), I do fear this guy is right.
But then again, I don't think the US will do anything against Iran. Israel might though.
The sad truth is that most navies are giant floating targets. Until there are better point defence weapons(aka fast firing lasers), I do fear this guy is right.
But then again, I don't think the US will do anything against Iran. Israel might though.
The USA is working on lasers to defend bases from missiles and mortars as well as ships from fast, incoming missiles. Some of the laser programs are participated alongside some of her allies like Israel who would love an anti-mortar / missile system of their own.
$1:
The Missile Defense agency conducted its first ever demonstration test of the laser weapon which will be used on the developing Airborne Laser (ABL) program, announces Northrop Grumman.
The ground-based test, called “First Light,” took place on November 10 at Edwards Air Force Base, in California, and involved the a simultaneous firing of all six laser modules comprising the Chemical Oxygen Iodine Laser (COIL), according to the press release.
The ground-based test, called “First Light,” took place on November 10 at Edwards Air Force Base, in California, and involved the a simultaneous firing of all six laser modules comprising the Chemical Oxygen Iodine Laser (COIL), according to the press release.
http://www.missilethreat.com/archives/id.58,page.6/subject_detail.asp
Other links:
http://www.wsmr.army.mil/pao/FactSheets/laser.htm
http://helstf-www.wsmr.army.mil/
BartSimpson @ Fri Nov 09, 2007 5:25 pm
The point of wargames is to help expose the weaknesses of a military force and then form strategy to either ameliorate that weakness or to use the weakness to an advantage.
Next, the assumption that there actually IS a weakness is something that no one should simply take for granted.
By publicizing such an apparent weakness the purpose of the article may well be to goad the Iranians into coming out to play thereby giving the Bush Administration the needed provocation to justify an attack on Iran.
Persian Gulf = Tonkin Gulf 
xerxes @ Fri Nov 09, 2007 5:29 pm
I think it's safe to assume though, that the Russian made missiles came with the instructions: "For best results, point at American ships".
DerbyX @ Fri Nov 09, 2007 5:31 pm
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
The point of wargames is to help expose the weaknesses of a military force and then form strategy to either ameliorate that weakness or to use the weakness to an advantage.
Next, the assumption that there actually IS a weakness is something that no one should simply take for granted.
By publicizing such an apparent weakness the purpose of the article may well be to goad the Iranians into coming out to play thereby giving the Bush Administration the needed provocation to justify an attack on Iran.
Persian Gulf = Tonkin Gulf
Next, the assumption that there actually IS a weakness is something that no one should simply take for granted.
By publicizing such an apparent weakness the purpose of the article may well be to goad the Iranians into coming out to play thereby giving the Bush Administration the needed provocation to justify an attack on Iran.
Persian Gulf = Tonkin Gulf
Provocation is a 2 way street.
I think the US has given Iran (as well as many others) sufficient provocation for a first strike option.
Wouldn't you think so if the positions were reversed?
EyeBrock @ Fri Nov 09, 2007 5:36 pm
I see the authors point on vunerability, but I think the advantage of 'force projection' out weighs the negatives here.
Three carrier groups means about 450 combat aircraft very close to a target. Go on, blink. The yanks won't.
sasquatch2 @ Fri Nov 09, 2007 5:36 pm
Yeah I picked up on that "neoconservative" remark.
Believe it or not the new Canadian frigates equiped with the vertical launch "Sea Wolf anti-missile system are a viable defence against even a saturation attack by supersonic, terminal maneuvering sea-skimming missiles.
This fool reminds me of the experts, of which he was one, who predicted disaster prior to "The Mother Of All Battles"/Desert Storm. They claimed Iraq's military as modern, sophistocated and the world's 4th most powerful-----although it could not defeat primitive Iran after 10 years of trying.
In the end despite, a whack of spohistocated Soviet weapons systems, Iraq was a bunch of monkeys trying to use typewriters.
Yawn.
EyeBrock @ Fri Nov 09, 2007 5:40 pm
sasquatch2 sasquatch2:
Yeah I picked up on that "neoconservative" remark.
Believe it or not the new Canadian frigates equiped with the vertical launch "Sea Wolf anti-missile system are a viable defence against even a saturation attack by supersonic, terminal maneuvering sea-skimming missiles.
This fool reminds me of the experts, of which he was one, who predicted disaster prior to "The Mother Of All Battles"/Desert Storm. They claimed Iraq's military as modern, sophistocated and the world's 4th most powerful-----although it could not defeat primitive Iran after 10 years of trying.
In the end despite, a whack of spohistocated Soviet weapons systems, Iraq was a bunch of monkeys trying to use typewriters.
Yawn.
Believe it or not the new Canadian frigates equiped with the vertical launch "Sea Wolf anti-missile system are a viable defence against even a saturation attack by supersonic, terminal maneuvering sea-skimming missiles.
This fool reminds me of the experts, of which he was one, who predicted disaster prior to "The Mother Of All Battles"/Desert Storm. They claimed Iraq's military as modern, sophistocated and the world's 4th most powerful-----although it could not defeat primitive Iran after 10 years of trying.
In the end despite, a whack of spohistocated Soviet weapons systems, Iraq was a bunch of monkeys trying to use typewriters.
Yawn.
Yep, I remember all that crap the media put about re mega coalition casualties.
Why do the media relish portraying our young men and women in uniform so negatively?
What is the upside on pissing on our guys in Afghanistan?
BartSimpson @ Fri Nov 09, 2007 5:46 pm
EyeBrock EyeBrock:
Yep, I remember all that crap the media put about re mega coalition casualties.
Why do the media relish portraying our young men and women in uniform so negatively?
What is the upside on pissing on our guys in Afghanistan?
You get invited to all the right parties where they serve Cristal and Beluga caviar and, if you're lucky, you'll get to meet Barbara Streisand.
BartSimpson @ Fri Nov 09, 2007 5:49 pm
DerbyX DerbyX:
I think the US has given Iran (as well as many others) sufficient provocation for a first strike option.
Wouldn't you think so if the positions were reversed?
If I were an Iranian I'd be asking what the hell my government was doing by trying to build a couple nukes and simulataneously making my city a target for a nation that has so many nukes they can't keep track of them all.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation ... 4669.story
DerbyX @ Fri Nov 09, 2007 5:56 pm
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
DerbyX DerbyX:
I think the US has given Iran (as well as many others) sufficient provocation for a first strike option.
Wouldn't you think so if the positions were reversed?
If I were an Iranian I'd be asking what the hell my government was doing by trying to build a couple nukes and simulataneously making my city a target for a nation that has so many nukes they can't keep track of them all.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation ... 4669.story
Interesting point.
My Iranian friend, who consideres the current gov't to be nothing less then a gangster gov't who stole the election oddly considers that Iran should get Nukes for its own protection and says that they would never consider using them offensively in the manner the US believes.
Its an odd contradiction but one he says is widely held by even the people who don't support Aber-whatever.
What they keep on asking is why does the US keep interfering in the region causing all kinds of disturbances?
Perhaps you just treat them the way you want to be treated and leave them alone?
Streaker @ Fri Nov 09, 2007 6:00 pm
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
DerbyX DerbyX:
I think the US has given Iran (as well as many others) sufficient provocation for a first strike option.
Wouldn't you think so if the positions were reversed?
If I were an Iranian I'd be asking what the hell my government was doing by trying to build a couple nukes and simulataneously making my city a target for a nation that has so many nukes they can't keep track of them all.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation ... 4669.story
Considering America's hostile attitude to Iran over the past few decades, Iran's wish to acquire nukes is entirely understandable.