Russian intelligence sees U.S. military buildup on Iran border
- Thread starter fisherman66
- Start date
Rangefinder
New member
Yah, it's been my biggest argument all along for locking off the southern border tight--with the amount of illegals that sneak in and dissolve into the US every single day, how big of a stretch of the imagination does it take to see the next big terrorist attack sneaking in through the same wide-open door? Seems not only "poised and capable", but more like an open invitation.
But that's not the topic here...
Personally, anyone in the middle-east with nuclear weapon capabilities makes me a bit nervous. Way too much fanaticism to be comfortable with, even from the other side of the planet. The US and USSR maintained a stand-off during the Cold War without touching off a nuke based on the principle of mutually assured destruction--and neither one really wanted to get vaporized. When we're addressing a whole region where large amounts of people (who may or may not be the area's controlling power, depending on the day) follow ideals that promote a higher glory in sacrificing themselves for the purpose of destroying their "holy enemies" throughout the world, I'd prefer they didn't have anything more than a handfull of rocks to throw.
The problem with "securing the border" with Iran is that the Iraq/Iran border is the entire eastern edge of Iraq. That's a huge amount of mostly mountainous land (~600-800 miles) to secure.
(See map of middle-east)
Re: Gulf of Tonkin -- I, too, am concerned about another gulf of Tonkin type "incident" (i.e. manufactured to provide an excuse for widening a war). The bad news is that I think some of the Iranian leadership is nuts enough to really start something. The biggest worry is having them try to prove something to the Arab and/or Muslim world by using a nuclear weapon against a fleet in the Gulf.
Should that happen, I'm afraid the response would almost certainly employ the long-standing military SST doctrine (swift, strategic and thermonuclear).
(See map of middle-east)
Re: Gulf of Tonkin -- I, too, am concerned about another gulf of Tonkin type "incident" (i.e. manufactured to provide an excuse for widening a war). The bad news is that I think some of the Iranian leadership is nuts enough to really start something. The biggest worry is having them try to prove something to the Arab and/or Muslim world by using a nuclear weapon against a fleet in the Gulf.
Should that happen, I'm afraid the response would almost certainly employ the long-standing military SST doctrine (swift, strategic and thermonuclear).applesanity
New member
I'm gonna play optimist here and say it's a bluff. Given the worldwide, "shoot first" rep that Dubya has, is it really, really a bluff that Iran wants to call?
And if Iran does, well, then Dubya will speed-dial the IDF and let them take care of things.
I'm not going down the Iran road on this forum, because its just not worth my time and effort, just like its not worth your time or effort to respond to my posts about it. Fair, right? Right! But, I do wanna just comment on one thing:
Let's think about Iran for a second... Go ahead, picture it in your mind. What's there? Well, we've got some mountains, and some desert, and...what, Persian rugs, right? Anything else? Besides an "ocean of oil" and, unmentioned, lots of untapped natural gas resources.
So, let's think about what Iran can sell to the rest of the world... Dirt? No. Persian rugs? Well, sure.. but not enough to run a country. How about an ocean of oil and natural gas?
And that's why they want to make nuclear electricity, because both the West and the East will give them lots of money for their only natural resource, and in turn they can build nuclear power plants that they're not afraid of to keep themselves humming along.
Why? Why would anyone do such a thing? Doing so garuntees that your nation will actually face an honest-to-goodness coalition of the willing, because you've unleashed the atom. If Iran has nuclear arms, why would they be willing to sell them to another group to be used as a hostile weapon, which in turn would bring the world's armies down on Iran? What sense does that make? How does Iran win or profit from that scenario?
Anyways, carry on with the war drums, guys. I mean, Iraq was so easy, Iran with its even more docile people and pro-Western stance, plus its sunny, cheery geography should be a cake walk, right?
Let's think about Iran for a second... Go ahead, picture it in your mind. What's there? Well, we've got some mountains, and some desert, and...what, Persian rugs, right? Anything else? Besides an "ocean of oil" and, unmentioned, lots of untapped natural gas resources.
So, let's think about what Iran can sell to the rest of the world... Dirt? No. Persian rugs? Well, sure.. but not enough to run a country. How about an ocean of oil and natural gas?
And that's why they want to make nuclear electricity, because both the West and the East will give them lots of money for their only natural resource, and in turn they can build nuclear power plants that they're not afraid of to keep themselves humming along.
Why? Why would anyone do such a thing? Doing so garuntees that your nation will actually face an honest-to-goodness coalition of the willing, because you've unleashed the atom. If Iran has nuclear arms, why would they be willing to sell them to another group to be used as a hostile weapon, which in turn would bring the world's armies down on Iran? What sense does that make? How does Iran win or profit from that scenario?
Anyways, carry on with the war drums, guys. I mean, Iraq was so easy, Iran with its even more docile people and pro-Western stance, plus its sunny, cheery geography should be a cake walk, right?
WeedWacker
New member
My remark was mostly sarcastic but if we were to take the possibility seriously, on the black market Iran can make money off it's nuclear waste and not have any ties to them for terrorist attacks. Not that it will happen because I'm pretty sure they are gonna get waxed pretty soon, and if not by us but by the Isrelis or Pakistanis or someone who has reason to. And we know the terrorists won't use nikes on Isreal because they WILL find out who sold them the material and consequently turn the sellers into piles of ash. However the US is governed by basically international "rule" with our hands tied by peer pressure :barf:
If an attack is placed in the US and we cannot acquire concrete evidence we WILL be condemned by the rest of the world for invading without substantial evidence again. If we didn't have the crap UN telling us what we can rightfully do or not do we would probably have eliminated Saddam long ago, and probably other things would have been done as well. the whole herding instinct the UN encourages in thinking is causing the peer preassure and when the strongest nations economically and militarily line up against the US all the other weaker nations, like France, line up behind them because they want to be on the "in" crowd (note the "in" crowd is just the majority) and have ceased to think for themselves.
Jeffenwulf
New member
I hate to oppose the majority here, but gfen is completely right. It makes financial sense for Iran to use nuclear energy instead of burning off their oil and natural gas. Actually, if they were to declare to the world that they were no longer selling oil because they needed it to sustain their own country, they wouldn't last more than a month. They need to continue to sell oil. They'll have nothing left when the oil is gone. They don't want to rely on outsiders to provide their energy, which is exactly what we would be doing if we were capable.
Iran needs to maintain the delicate balance of selling enough oil while not selling too much. If they don't sell enough oil, they'll be invaded by a country that feels they need it. If they sell too much oil, it won't be as profitable and won't last through this century (it probably won't anyway). When Saudi can't produce enough oil (within the next decade or so), Iran will be even more pressured to export oil, using less for domestic consumption. If they can't rely on other sources of energy, they risk losing their country to foreigners. Iran has had a decent relationship with France, who produces about 80% of their energy from nuclear reactors, so it's little surprise that Iran is interested in such an option.
Give it some serious thought and decide if you would do the same if you were leading Iran. Would you try to keep the oil for yourself and risk invasion or would you try to find alternate sources of energy for domestic use? Would you just continue to sell all of your natural resources at low prices and hope that when it's all gone the countries that benefited from your idiocy would help you? I think it's pretty clear. I'd be pursuing nuclear energy if I were them as well.
Iran needs to maintain the delicate balance of selling enough oil while not selling too much. If they don't sell enough oil, they'll be invaded by a country that feels they need it. If they sell too much oil, it won't be as profitable and won't last through this century (it probably won't anyway). When Saudi can't produce enough oil (within the next decade or so), Iran will be even more pressured to export oil, using less for domestic consumption. If they can't rely on other sources of energy, they risk losing their country to foreigners. Iran has had a decent relationship with France, who produces about 80% of their energy from nuclear reactors, so it's little surprise that Iran is interested in such an option.
Give it some serious thought and decide if you would do the same if you were leading Iran. Would you try to keep the oil for yourself and risk invasion or would you try to find alternate sources of energy for domestic use? Would you just continue to sell all of your natural resources at low prices and hope that when it's all gone the countries that benefited from your idiocy would help you? I think it's pretty clear. I'd be pursuing nuclear energy if I were them as well.
WeedWacker
New member
There are other sources of energy other than nuclear power. Iran, being in a deasert, could feasably utilize wind to create energy, enough for the small towns and villages outside the bigger cities. They can also utilize solar power more than other countries due to the vast amount of sunlight they have year round. There are waterways that could be utilized as well.
Unfortunately there are limitations for Iran on some of these.
1. Sand: can gunk up the wind generators but proper precautions and a little innovation can prevent this.
2. Solar power does not produce massive amounts of energy but if each household had a solar converter that would cut down on consumption of oilk for electricity drastically.
3. Water is scarce: There is a scarcity of rivers that can feasably be used for power. Building hydroelectric dams poses an environmental hazard to some forms of wildlife. The dams raise water temperature, but in the deasert I do not think this will pose much problem to the fish ans water plants/algea that live in the water.
As to what they have already I think there are a few hydroeclectric dams and some solar and wind generators being used but not on a massive scale that could produce enough for outlying regions.
Unfortunately there are limitations for Iran on some of these.
1. Sand: can gunk up the wind generators but proper precautions and a little innovation can prevent this.
2. Solar power does not produce massive amounts of energy but if each household had a solar converter that would cut down on consumption of oilk for electricity drastically.
3. Water is scarce: There is a scarcity of rivers that can feasably be used for power. Building hydroelectric dams poses an environmental hazard to some forms of wildlife. The dams raise water temperature, but in the deasert I do not think this will pose much problem to the fish ans water plants/algea that live in the water.
As to what they have already I think there are a few hydroeclectric dams and some solar and wind generators being used but not on a massive scale that could produce enough for outlying regions.