Loosening Up in IranFollow

What's dismantled mean anyway? If I take out the a couple of necessary pieces and put them in the corner where you can observe them over the 6 months is that enough? Not a huge difference there. Or are we talking about taking each part and mailing it to observers in different countries so they never can be assembled again. I notice it doesn't say dismantled and destroyed anywhere. I probably am missing something here, but those 2 positions seem pretty compatible.

Same thing, one just goes into detail about how they plan to "get rid of it," it makes the white house look more bad when worded the Iranian way, so they gloss over it.

I was under the impression we were recognizing their right to enrich, at least to 5%, how's that inconsistent? We didn't use the words, but it's what we're de-facto agreeing to.

The not attack them thing isn't worth the paper it's printed on, imo. Not like we ever really had any plans to do that, and not like we wouldn't bomb them if the situation changed and it was worthwhile. Really there's no reason for us to attack them at this point when Israel is much more apt to do it for us anyway, might as well sign away.

Light infintry, I'd be inclined to call it for Israel based on numbers, weapon and vehical superiority.

Just say "I'm randomly guessing" it would save time. I'd say it would save you embarrassment, but I don't think anyone else is particularity engaged in comparison of raw firepower between the two nations. Were they, they'd probably look to any one of the dozen or so consultancies that do that for a living (you know, instead of guessing between Warhammer matches) which would demonstrate them to be about equivalent in pretty much every case. Sometimes with Israel at 20-22 globally and Iran at 25, sometimes reversed with Iran as slightly more powerful. Again, that's raw firepower. In a vacuum, if both nations went to war, who would have the advantage. If we teleported the armed forces of each country to Mars and they fought each other it would be a coin flip.

So, given that it's a roughly equal starting point....I'd imagine you can probably deduce why it wouldn't go well for Israel to proactively invade Iran. That aside, even engaging in a proactive enough strike against Iran, bombing enrichment sites, say, could result in a reaction from Iran that occupies enough of Israel's military strength to allow catastrophic consequences. They don't operate in a vacuum, you see. They operate in a region where many of their neighbors would like to do them considerable harm and currently cannot because of fear of reprisal. That fear becomes lessened substantially if Israel is entangled in a major conflict. So they won't be, don't worry. They'll talk tough and bomb apartment buildings in Lebanon or whatever other soft target they choose to harm to demonstrate their capabilities. There is zero chance they engage Iran in any serious way. Zero. The idea is laughable to any serious military analyst, and really, anyone outside of the US media or it's consumers. They'll whine because they want to remain the only nuclear power in the area, but obviously you can only continue to repress other nations ability to manufacture 60 year old technology for so long, it's a fight you can't win.

Ok, so iran has 125,000 active duty armed forces members in all branches, armed with Soviet era small arms, and a reserve of roughly 90,000. Israel has 176,500 Active duty armed forces members and 445,000 reserves, all armed with arguably at least slightly better equipment, especially on the uzi side. Thats 215,000 guys with weapons vs. 621,500, Israel. Israel has better vehicles. Israel has spare parts. I don't think that a statement claiming correctly that Israel has greater numbers, better and greater number of weapons, and superior vehicals is out of line in that regard. Add to that air superiority (there is no way in hell a Mig 29b or an F--14a can take an export F-15E or an F-16D equivelent. the air combat piece would be laughably one sided) Naval superiority (israel has one, Iran has PT boats), and the fact that an Israel - Iran conflict would start out at least as just two countries fighting since a coalition against Israel would result in Nato intervention. So ignoring that whole aspect since it would be a moot point unless someone took the U.S. off the table, Israel Vs Iran can be looked at as a simple numerical comparison. Sure there is always the chance that one or the other side will come up with a brilliant force multiplying general or new secret weapon, but looking at the publically available force and equipment numbers, Israel wins on paper even in an offense role. The question wasn't "Would they invade" or "Could they invade". It was "if they did invade, would they "lose badly"". And the answer to that question for anyone who can do basic math and strategic assessments is "no, Israel would not lose badly, if at all". They have numbers, better equipment, more equipment, intact supply lines, intact infrastructure not warn down by years of sanctions, food reserves

There are of couse wildly differeng numbers for the amount of available troops in Iran. CSIS calls it closer to 700,000. Al Jazera has it closer to 1.2 million. If those numbers are accurate, then maybe. But Iran still would lose air superiority almost immidiatly based on relitive capabilities and number of targets. Israel also has to protect a much smaller area so 80% of their forces will be available for offense. You lose air superiority, you lose most of your heavy ground weapons and artilliary. Lose those, you lose your manufacturing centers, then the rest of your infrastructure.

A "serious military analyst" would probably acknowledge that with an air superiority disparity as big as the one that existsthe question is by no means settled.

Probably as alone as Israel would be if they acted against Iran.

I should add the nations have spent the better part of 20 years designing systems to prevent the other from being able to win, and 30 years before that being supplied by the US and USSR.

I think I said it in another thread, but military power, and equipment is largely irrelevant in modern society and has been since probably the Vietnam war. The only thing that matters today is economic power, and even despite 30 years of Sanctions Iran is about 4 times as powerful economically than Israel, and Israel is worried that if sanctions are eased or even lifted this would allow Irans much more attractive commodities even more room to grow. This isn't about the nukes...because they are largely irrelevant as weapons today as well...

(they are really good at fear tactics though, which is why they make a nice centerpiece while the world decides how to ease Irans G8 like Economy into the markets.)





Edited, Dec 1st 2013 8:35pm by rdmcandie

Edited, Dec 1st 2013 8:35pm by rdmcandie

All I see is more wars by proxy and the US getting the shaft win or lose if we keep staying on Israel's side with out them making reforms of their own. What has really got Iran to come to the table is they have about 50 years before they are irrelevant and the world moves beyond oil and prolonging the hostile atmosphere of the middle east is only increasing interests in fuels beyond oil. What we are getting now is predictable face saving back and forth from both sides to make it look like there is real bargaining going on. Really though all the money being blown in the middle east could be better spent speeding up alternative energy R&D.

Wait, you mean the drone that some idiot technician programmed a negitive instead of a positive coordinate into and it landed exactly where said idiot technician told it to land unopposed and sat in a desert for a week unnoticed until some iranian sheep herder found it? That drone? Technically that was a CIA drone anyways, operated by the airforce, but still Iran had as much to do with brinigng it down as I have to do with determining the price of silver every morning...

The Iranian anti-aircraft defense system is pretty much a pile of old 1970's era US missiles, a couple hundred anti aircraft guns (some of which even have radar!), a bunch of domestically designed missiles (Iran sucks at missle building by the way) and a few hundred SA-5 and SA-6 tubes, a couple of S-300's and probably a handful of whatever the Chinese want tested. Their anti aircraft deathstar also has a large thermal exhaust port that is vulnerable to proton torpedos.

The Israeli anti aircraft system on the other hand is pretty much the same stuff we use, except with added lasers! (they also have pretty much all of our anti missile fighter pods, etc)

I hear Amazon is making plans for delivery drones. The CEO says in five years they can be making deliveries via unmanned drones; I think that's ambitious.

I wonder if the little drone buggers will be only be released from their warehouses, or if they'll have like a van loaded up with little drones that will drive to various areas and then disseminate.

I'm looking forward to the Amazon drone showing up at my door. Ding Dong - Amazon calling. Do you think they'll have door bell ringing capabilities?


Edited, Dec 2nd 2013 4:33pm by Elinda

As a marketing tool, this has certainly worked. Everyone's talking about Amazon right at the start of the holiday shopping season. You can't buy that kind of publicity.

Well, you can but it'll cost you a couple hundred bucks for a drone kit and a cell phone to shoot the one minute video.

They don't need any help in that department. I showed up this morning at work and 3/4 of the e-mails I got over the 4-day holiday were from Amazon. @#$%ing spambots.

A drone that size is going to run you closer to $1,500. I can 3d print the frame pieces though!

There's no such thing as bad ****, there's only **** you don't like.

Edited, Dec 2nd 2013 2:36pm by Demoncard

For R&D you can contract out to local schools during their Egg-Drop competitions.

I just wrapped the egg in your generic packing foam. Rolled it up in a tube shape, enough duct tape to keep it from unraveling and off it went. To this day that's my go-to solution for most of life's problems.