Rogue Nation

Last post 07-12-2008 8:42 AM by BigNeerav. 86 replies.
Page 1 of 6 (87 items) 1 2 3 4 5 Next > ... Last »
Sort Posts: Previous Next
  • 07-02-2008 7:50 PM

    Rogue Nation

    Rogue Nation

    by Charley Reese

    DIGG THIS

    "); //]]>-->
    -->

    One gets the impression that there are some people in Washington who believe that Israel or the U.S. can bomb Iran's nuclear reactors, fly home, and it will be mission complete.

    It makes you wonder if perhaps there is a virus going around that is gradually making people stupid. If we or Israel attack Iran, we will have a new war on our hands. The Iranians are not going to shrug off an attack and say, "You naughty boys, you."

    Consider how much trouble Iraq has given us. Some 4,000 dead and 29,000 wounded, a half a trillion dollars in cost and still climbing, and five years later, we cannot say that the country is pacified.

    Iraq is a small country compared with Iran. Iran has about 70 million people. Its western mountains border the Persian Gulf. In other words, its missiles and guns look down on the U.S. ships below it. And it has lots of missiles, from short-range to intermediate-range (around 2,200 kilometers).

    More to the point, it has been equipped by Russia with the fastest anti-ship missile on the planet. The SS-N-22 Sunburn can travel at Mach 3 at high altitude and at Mach 2.2 at low altitude. That is faster than anything in our arsenal.

    Iran's conventional forces include an army of 540,000 men and 300,000 reserves, including 120,000 Iranian Guards especially trained in unconventional warfare. It has more than 1,600 main battle tanks and 21,000 other armored combat vehicles. It has 3,200 artillery pieces, three submarines, 59 surface warships and 10 amphibious ships.

    It's been receiving help in arming itself from China, North Korea and Russia. Unlike Iraq, Iran's forces have not been worn down with bombing, wars and sanctions. It also has a new anti-aircraft defense system from Russia that I've heard is pretty snazzy.

    So, if you think we or Israel can attack Iran and not expect retaliation, I'd have to say with regret that you are a moron. If you think we could easily handle Iran in an all-out war, I'd have to promote you to idiot.

    Attacking Iran would be folly, but we seem to be living in the Age of Folly. Morons and idiots took us into an unjustified war against Iraq before we had finished the job in Afghanistan. Now we have troops tied down in both countries.

    China has a tremendous investment and interest in Iran and would likely see an attack as a threat to its national interests. China could strike a large blow against the U.S. just by dumping the financial paper we have foolishly allowed the Chinese to pile up, thanks to the trade deficit.

    For some years now, I've worried that we seem to be more and more like Colonial England – arrogant, racist, overestimating our own capacity and underestimating that of our enemies. As the fate of the British Empire demonstrates, that is a fatal flaw.

    The British never dreamed that the "little yellow people" could come ashore by land and take Singapore from the rear or that they would sink the pride of the British fleet, but they did both.

    I suppose no one in Washington can imagine the Iranians sinking one of our carriers in the Persian Gulf. How'd you like to be the president who has to tell the American people that we've lost a carrier for the first time since World War II?

    Exactly how the Iranians will respond to an attack, I don't know, but they will respond. In keeping with our present policy, our attack on Iran would be illegal, since under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran has the right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes.

    Who would have thought that we would become the rogue nation committing acts of aggression around the globe?

     

    June 30, 2008

    Charley Reese has been a journalist for 49 years.

  • 07-02-2008 8:06 PM In reply to

    Re: Rogue Nation

    Very good Magoo. And I'm glad to see you posting something of substance. All, I can say to your thread here is that an Obama presidency, can't get here soon enough.

    Carpe Diem.!!

  • 07-02-2008 8:34 PM In reply to

    Re: Rogue Nation

    Seti03:

    Very good Magoo. And I'm glad to see you posting something of substance. All, I can say to your thread here is that an Obama presidency, can't get here soon enough.

    Carpe Diem.!!

    So you must want the destruction of this nation as fast as with McInsane.
  • 07-03-2008 4:58 PM In reply to

    Re: Rogue Nation

    Mr. Magoo:

    Seti03:

    Very good Magoo. And I'm glad to see you posting something of substance. All, I can say to your thread here is that an Obama presidency, can't get here soon enough.

    Carpe Diem.!!

    So you must want the destruction of this nation as fast as with McInsane.

     First off.....what Magoo said Seti!! Except one fact Magoo, it will be much faster with Osama!

    And that was interesting reading, IF Isreal even attempts to attack Iran with or without the US involvement, our world is never going to be the same, I believe with what the world conditions are at this moment all the wars and destruction going on we are in WW III , if Isreal attacks we will have just moved onto the doorstep of Armaggedon

     

  • 07-03-2008 5:03 PM In reply to

    Re: Rogue Nation

    Very true James. The USA is the ONLY buffer in the middle east at the moment and nobody at this point anyway, can afford a pull out without instilling stability in the region.

    ******************************

    JamesLT:

    Mr. Magoo:

    Seti03:

    Very good Magoo. And I'm glad to see you posting something of substance. All, I can say to your thread here is that an Obama presidency, can't get here soon enough.

    Carpe Diem.!!

    So you must want the destruction of this nation as fast as with McInsane.

     First off.....what Magoo said Seti!! Except one fact Magoo, it will be much faster with Osama!

    And that was interesting reading, IF Isreal even attempts to attack Iran with or without the US involvement, our world is never going to be the same, I believe with what the world conditions are at this moment all the wars and destruction going on we are in WW III , if Isreal attacks we will have just moved onto the doorstep of Armaggedon

     

  • 07-03-2008 5:25 PM In reply to

    Re: Rogue Nation

    We are all talking to ourselve here "No one is really listening"

    But, I refuse to give up. We've been blessed that a man like Barack Obama that has arrived on the scene. the Question is "ARE WE BRAVE ENOUGH"

  • 07-03-2008 5:38 PM In reply to

    Re: Rogue Nation

    Seti03, another chace to show us your candidates assets.

    How have we been blessed??

  • 07-03-2008 5:39 PM In reply to

    Re: Rogue Nation

    Not necessarily Seti,

    The only way to instill peace in the middle east to avoid such a doomed path is for the next president to be the one to sit down at that table and actually negotiate.  McCain and the Bush administration have already said that negotiating with the "enemy" isn't an option.

    We cannot afford to go to war with Iran, regardless of what any religious conservative dictates.  The reasoning behind that is that Iran and the USA are not the only countries on the map and as well, lets not forget what opportunism will bring from the rest of the world.

    Obama would be the last bastian to be the one to sit down with who we unillaterally deemed our enemy (what has Iran actually done to say "we declare war on you")

    Unilatteral action would be a HUGE mistake. Pulling out would be an even bigger mistake.  Let's throw down this conservative/liberal garbage and look at what make sense.

    ************************************ 

    Seti03:

    We are all talking to ourselve here "No one is really listening"

    But, I refuse to give up. We've been blessed that a man like Barack Obama that has arrived on the scene. the Question is "ARE WE BRAVE ENOUGH"

     
  • 07-03-2008 6:14 PM In reply to

    Re: Rogue Nation

    I agree......we need to quit this bickering over who is ideologically is right and do what is right for the American people, regardless of political affiliation. I am tired of the partisan bickering going on between the "Looney Left" and the "Rabid Right" on EVERY political issue.......sheesh!

     

    - Neerav (A grumpy Independent)

  • 07-03-2008 8:25 PM In reply to

    Re: Rogue Nation

    Seti03:

    We are all talking to ourselve here "No one is really listening"

    But, I refuse to give up. We've been blessed that a man like Barack Obama that has arrived on the scene. the Question is "ARE WE BRAVE ENOUGH"

     

    More like cursed!!  I dont see how you can defend a liar, and a chicken sh*t, he wants to do a town council on the 4th of July when he KNOWS no one will be watching...he's been in a political office (senator or whatever the hell he is) for 2 years and has no experience....this country is doomed if he is elected!!

  • 07-04-2008 7:49 AM In reply to

    Re: Rogue Nation

     Woohoo... JamesLT for president. Come on, I know you wanna... Where do I sign you up?

    JamesLT:

    Seti03:

    We are all talking to ourselve here "No one is really listening"

    But, I refuse to give up. We've been blessed that a man like Barack Obama that has arrived on the scene. the Question is "ARE WE BRAVE ENOUGH"

     

    More like cursed!!  I dont see how you can defend a liar, and a chicken sh*t, he wants to do a town council on the 4th of July when he KNOWS no one will be watching...he's been in a political office (senator or whatever the hell he is) for 2 years and has no experience....this country is doomed if he is elected!!

     

  • 07-04-2008 9:15 AM In reply to

    • Soju
    • Top 75 Contributor
    • Joined on 07-04-2008
    • Posts 244

    Re: Rogue Nation

     Europe is in a recession they will back up the U.S even if Israel destroyed their plants like they did Syria. The U.S won't attack Iran, they don't have to. This article is utter garbage; no different then the tripe from televangelists predicting the end of the world.

    Well it ain't coming. 

  • 07-04-2008 10:12 AM In reply to

    Re: Rogue Nation

     I can answer that with several words... China, Russia, Pakistan and any other country that also has the bomb that could come to Iran's aid.  No amount of ally can save the US if these bombs start flying.  Pakistan at India, India in retaliation, China/Russia at Europe, eachother and the US, Isreal at anything that moves, Europe in retaliation... etc... There are more than enough senerios that have already looked at the "what if" factor.  Pay careful attention to scenerio 2 and 3.

      A world nuclear war is one that involves most or all nuclear powers releasing a large proportion of their nuclear weapons at targets in nuclear, and perhaps non-nuclear, states.  Such a war could be initiated accidentally, aggressively or pre-emptively and could continue and spread through these means or by retaliation by a party attacked by nuclear weapons.  While some speak of "limited nuclear war," it is likely that any nuclear war will quickly escalate and spiral out of control because of the "use them or loose them" strategy.  If you don't use all your nuclear weapons you are likely to have them destroyed by the enemy's nuclear weapons.
         Such a war could start through a reaction to terrorist attacks, or through the need to protect against overwhelming military opposition, or through the use of small battle field tactical nuclear weapons meant to destroy hardened targets. It might quickly move on to the use of strategic nuclear weapons delivered by short-range or inter-continental missile or long-range bomber.  These could deliver high altitude bursts whose electromagnetic pulse knocks out electrical circuits for hundreds of square miles.  Or they could deliver nuclear bombs to destroys nuclear and/or non-nuclear military facilities, nuclear power plants, important industrial sites and cities.  Or it could skip all those steps and start through the accidental or reckless use of strategic weapons. 
        Below are seven scenarios by which world nuclear war could come about. While these are some of the major scenarios and combination of attacks and retaliations, they are hardly exhaustive.  U.S., Russian and other nuclear nations' weapons strategizers deal with these scenarios every day but rarely let mere citizens in on their grizzly thinking.  Citizens must end their denial and become aware of such scenarios.

    GENERAL SCENARIOS

          Accidental:  Since the United States and Russia have "launch on warning" systems that send off rockets before it is confirmed a nuclear attack is underway, any tensions between them can lead to massive nuclear war within thirty minutes of a warning -- no matter how false the warning may be.


        Aggressive:  One or more nations decides to use weapons against nuclear or non-nuclear nations in order to promote an economic, political or military goal, as part of an ongoing war or as a first strike nuclear attack. (The state , of course, may claim it is a pre-emptive, retaliatory or even accidental attack.)


        Pre-emptive:  One or more nations believes (correctly or incorrectly) or claims to believe that another nuclear nation is about to use nuclear weapons against its nuclear, military, industrial or civilian targets and pre-emptively attacks that nation.  May result from political or military "brinkmanship."


         Retaliatory: Use of nuclear weapons in response to a nuclear attack -- or even a conventional, chemical or biological attack by a non-nuclear nation.

    ASSUMPTIONS OF THESE SCENARIOS
         There is a whole body of knowledge and assumptions that is taken into account when putting together scenarios like the below.  My bottom line assumption is that any nuclear exchange has an excellent chance of resulting in a series of escalations that will spiral out of control, setting off a round of exchanges among various enemies under a "use it or lose it" philosophy, as well as among the treaty allies of the relevant nuclear powers and their allies.   This continues until most of the planets' 20,000 odd nuclear weapons are exhausted.  In making "limited nuclear war" calculations all nations should assume "whatever can go wrong, will go wrong."  Unfortunately, too many strategizers assume they can conduct limited strikes and keep them limited.
          Related assumptions include:

            **  Any nuclear attack on a primary Russian target like Moscow, St. Petersburg, or nuclear command headquarters, by any nation or group, known or unknown, could lead to a commander turning on "The Dead Hand" strategy and/or prompt one or more of Russia’s semi-autonomous military field commanders to retaliate against U.S. and European nuclear targets.  Attacks on secondary targets or nuclear detonations very close to Russian soil also might lead to some sort of nuclear escalation.
            ** Any nuclear attack on US and/or European sites by any nation or group, known or unknown, probably will result in massive US and/or European retaliation against the known or assumed perpetrators or their known or assumed allies.
            ** It is likely that the U.S., Russia, China, Israel, India and Pakistan will use some of their weapons to attack other nuclear and non-nuclear nations which might threaten them after they have been devastated by nuclear war.
            ** Any nuclear attack on Israel by terrorists, or Pakistan, Russia or China will result in Israel’s surviving land, air and submarine carried or based missiles being used against Arab and Muslim capitals.  A particularly devastating attack (including with chemical or biological weapons) might result in possibly in a full scale "Samson Option" attack on  European and Russian targets.  The latter of course would result in Russian retaliation against the United States, perhaps its punishment for not having done enough to protect Israel.
           ** Any nation's use of nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear nation will be only somewhat less inflammatory than using them against a nuclear nation, especially if that nation has many treaty allies. It will ratchet all nuclear nations alert systems and lead to unforeseeable consequences that could easily spiral to world nuclear war.


    NOTE: COLORS OF LINES AND DESCRIPTIONS ARE COORDINATED
    Aggressive      Pre-Emptive      Retaliatory     Accidental

    SCENARIO 1.  RUSSIA OR U.S. MISTAKENLY INTERPRETS GLITCH DURING TIME OF TENSION AS NUCLEAR ATTACK, LEADING TO WORLD NUCLEAR WAR

    During time of minor or major political tension, especially active U.S. bombings of other nations or any use of nuclear weapons, Russian commanders' faulty early warning system detects false evidence of a nuclear attack from the U.S.   Russia launches a large proportion of its weapons at the U.S. and pre-emptively at U.S. European and Israeli allies, as well as China, India and Pakistan to cripple their nuclear capability.   The U.S. and Europe retaliate at Russia and U.S. attacks China to destroy its nuclear stocks.  Israel retaliates against Russia and initiates aggressive attacks against Arab and Muslim capitols.  India and China may strike each other to destroy any remaining nuclear or other military capability. (While less likely the United States would experience such a glitch, if so, the U.S. would strike Russia and China, they would retaliate against the U.S. and Europe and probably attack other potentially hostile nuclear powers to knock out their capability.)

    SCENARIO 2.
    U.S. OR RUSSIA THREATEN OR ENGAGE IN MILITARY AGGRESSION AGAINST SMALLER NATION, STARTING ESCALATION TO WORLD NUCLEAR WAR
    Russia and US engage in threats over further US aggression in the Middle East or Russia's refusal to withdraw troops from former Soviet Republic Georgia.  Russia and/or the U.S. pre-emptively strike the others' nuclear targets, leading to further rounds of retaliatory exchanges. Russia strikes pre-emptively at U.S. European and Israeli allies, as well as China, India and Pakistan to cripple their nuclear capability.  Europe retaliates at Russia and U.S. attacks China to destroy any remaining nuclear stocks.  Israel retaliates against Russia and initiates revenge attacks against Arab and Muslim capitols. India and China may strike each other to destroy any remaining nuclear or other military capability.

    SCENARIO 3.
    ISRAEL ATTACKS IRAN'S NUCLEAR FACILITIES AND/OR SYRIA AND LEBANON WHICH RETALIATE WITH MASSIVE CONVENTIONAL OR WMD ROCKET ATTACKS, ISRAEL RETALIATES WITH NUCLEAR WEAPONS, ESCALATING TO WORLD NUCLEAR WAR
    Israel attacks Iran's nuclear facilities and/or Syria and Lebanon.  These countries respond with massive rocket attacks using conventional bombs and even some chemical, biological or radiological weapons.   Israel responds with nuclear strikes against these nations and Pakistan.  Outraged Pakistan retaliates against Israel and pre-emptively attacks Israel's ally/Pakistan's enemy India, which retaliates.  Israel initiates "Samson option" and attacks Arab and Muslim capitols, as well as "antisemitic" Europe and Russia.  Russian regional commanders retaliate against Israel, its ally the U.S., and U.S. European allies and China, to destroy its nuclear capability.  The U.S. retaliates against Russia and hits China's nuclear capability.  China uses any remaining nuclear weapons against Russia, the U.S. and India. India retaliates against China.
    SCENARIO 4. INDIA-PAKISTAN NUCLEAR EXCHANGE ESCALATES TO WORLD NUCLEAR WAR
    Hindu and Muslim rioting or conflicts in Kashmir escalate into preemptive nuclear exchanges between India and Pakistan. A rogue Indian general strikes China which massively retaliates.   Russian communications knocked out by electromagnetic pulses hit Europe and China with limited number of missiles. U.S. retaliates against Russia and attacks China to destroy its nuclear stocks. Russia retaliates against the U.S. and hits U.S. ally Israel. Israel initiates revenge attacks against Arab and Muslim capitols.
    SCENARIO 5.  CHINA INVADES TAIWAN, STARTING ESCALATION TO WORLD NUCLEAR WAR
    Taiwan declares independence. China begins Taiwan invasion, threatening to use nuclear weapons against  U.S. cities.  U.S. gives China an ultimatum to pull out which it ignores and U.S. uses nuclear weapons to destroy China's weapons. China retaliates against U.S. and nukes Taiwan.  A few nervous or chauvinistic Russian regional missile commanders make a first strike against U.S., European and Israeli nuclear weapons sites.   The U.S., Israel and Europe retaliate.  Israel initiates revenge attacks against Arab and Muslim capitols.  Pakistan, India and China exchange pre-emptive nuclear strikes.

    SCENARIO 6.
    UNKNOWN PARTIES USE NUCLEAR WEAPONS ON ISRAEL, RUSSIA OR THE
     U.S. STARTING ESCALATION TO WORLD NUCLEAR WAR
    Terrorists or some unknown nation explodes one or two nuclear weapons in Russia, Israel, or U.S., possibly delivered via surreptitious means.  Russia and the U.S. blame each other escalating to mutual "retaliatory" attacks, including on Europe. If Russia attacks Israel, Israel immediately initiates revenge attacks against Arab and Muslim capitols, and possibly "anti-semitic" Europe and Russia.   Russia and U.S. preemptively attack China, and India and Pakistan pre-emptively attack each other, to destroy nuclear and military capabilities.

     

    ************************** 

    Soju:

     Europe is in a recession they will back up the U.S even if Israel destroyed their plants like they did Syria. The U.S won't attack Iran, they don't have to. This article is utter garbage; no different then the tripe from televangelists predicting the end of the world.

    Well it ain't coming. 

     
  • 07-04-2008 10:23 AM In reply to

    Re: Rogue Nation

     By the way, I am neither liberal nor conservative. I am a realist with a brain and have studied this stuff in University and strategic annalysis while I was in the military.

    One idiot...is all it would take to track us down that road. Just one. 

  • 07-04-2008 10:42 AM In reply to

    Re: Rogue Nation

    Mr. Magoo:

    Seti03:

    Very good Magoo. And I'm glad to see you posting something of substance. All, I can say to your thread here is that an Obama presidency, can't get here soon enough.

    Carpe Diem.!!

    So you must want the destruction of this nation as fast as with McInsane.
      Even though we seldom ever agree, I think an Obama Presidency is now about a 60-40 likelihood. I think it would be a total disaster, but that may be what the American people need to wake them up once and for all.
Page 1 of 6 (87 items) 1 2 3 4 5 Next > ... Last »