Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 2857
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 25 Sep 2017, 11:04 am

Even if your analysis Ricky that it would never be rational for the US to use force to stop North Korea from developing ICBMs is right that really doesn't matter if North Korea and/or China is convinced he will. Because then it would not be worth it for them to develop ICBMs (see RJ's point about considering the other side's downside). This is a matter of psychology. Regardless of whether Trump would use military force or not, he needs to convince NK and/or China that he will. If is able to do that...he will win. And his unpredictability must give Kim Jong Un pause. He likely game-planned like you did, it will be too risky for the US to do anything. But how sure is he that Trump will analyze like he did or just decide to use military force, anyway?

We have to do everything we can to demonstrate we will use military force, regardless of whether in the final analysis we will. I still think we should anyway...but the psychological aspect is key to a successful bloodless outcome.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4670
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 26 Sep 2017, 7:23 am

Ricky:
The treaty has worked exactly as designed.
That it hasn't humiliated Iran to the extent Israel and right wing Americans would like, is not a failing of the treaty.


I think the Israelis have the right to be concerned that a country that has called for their elimination, is further developing missiles that can accurately hit its major cities, has indicated that it can go nuclear at any time, whose disdain is so strong that it will not even mention the name "Israel", funds terrorists on Israel's doorstep as well as in South America to attack its citizens, and has transferred major weapon systems to its neighbors, including a neighbor that is labeled terrorist. Why you consider that Israel trying to humiliate Iran, reflects something about you, not Israel.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4670
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 26 Sep 2017, 7:42 am

freeman3 wrote:Maybe we should have gotten more in the Iran deal. But trying to nix it now is asinine. Iran got their money, sanctions would be impossible to reintroduce if we're the ones that break the treaty, and Iran would be free to start their nuclear program again.


I tend to agree that it would be poor tactics to nix the agreement now. Here's an interesting op ed in today's WSJ about a different tactical approach:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-trump- ... nts_sector

It's protected content so I don't seem to be able to copy some good parts, but I can e-mail it to you if you like.

Basically, Trump can decertify the deal without breaking it. He could also designate the Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization and sanction. He can impose new sanctions on companies that are helping develop Iran's ballistic missile program as well as companies that are helping them with their cyberattacks. He can also designate Iran Air as a terrorist entity for airlifting weapons and fighters to Syria.

Even with all of this, the Nuclear deal would still be in effect. If Iran wants to avoid US sanctions they would have to go further: stop funding terrorists, stop perfecting nuclear-capable ballistic missiles, grant full access to UN inspectors, and permanent restrictions on developing nuclear weapons. Trump won't get all of this, but he'll get some of it.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10796
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 26 Sep 2017, 8:21 am

Rayjay
I think the Israelis have the right to be concerned that a country .....

I think Israel has very good reasons to be concerned about Iran.
I think Iran has reasons to be concerned about Israel.
Only 1 of these nations has nuclear weapons.
Only 1 has entered into a treaty that will commit it to a non-nuclear path...

However when I say humiliated....I mean that the US and Israel want an Iran that accepts whatever terms that they wish to impose on Iran. Only weapons that they perceive as low level threats...

I ask you to consider what level of defense Iran should want or need?
Does it not have the right to retaliate with appropriate weapons if they are attacked ?
Ballistic missiles don't mean nuclear missiles. They mean missiles capable of targeting many miles away. Its what Iraq poured on their defenseless cities for 8 years. Do you think its unreasonable that they should want to be able to retaliate if they are faced with the same onslaught from another enemy in the future?


rayjay
funds terrorists on Israel's doorstep

And Israel funds and uses .. Jundallah and PJAK. No ones' hands are clean.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10796
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 26 Sep 2017, 8:28 am

freeman3
Even if your analysis Ricky that it would never be rational for the US to use force to stop North Korea from developing ICBMs is right that really doesn't matter if North Korea and/or China is convinced he will. Because then it would not be worth it for them to develop ICBMs (see RJ's point about considering the other side's downside). This is a matter of psychology. Regardless of whether Trump would use military force or not, he needs to convince NK and/or China that he will. If is able to do that...he will win. And his unpredictability must give Kim Jong Un pause. He likely game-planned like you did, it will be too risky for the US to do anything. But how sure is he that Trump will analyze like he did or just decide to use military force, anyway?


This is so convoluted...
Look, assured destruction has worked as a deterrent to the sue of nuclear weapons for decades. It hasn't required the presence of an unpredictable, unreliable dotard ...
Very sensible Presidents have relied upon the concept . And it has worked.

freeman3
We have to do everything we can to demonstrate we will use military force, regardless of whether in the final analysis we will

At what point in the last 50 years do you think NK thought that they could invade SK with impunity?
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 2857
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 26 Sep 2017, 9:58 am

RJ, I don't have a problem with sanctioning Iran for other things they are doing (sponsoring terrorism, developing ballistic missiles, etc.), but the reality is what gave us so much leverage before with Iran is that other countries were on board with sanctions. It seems to me the tactics we should be using involve trying to get other countries to support sanctions against Iran for the activities you describe.it is doubtful the going it alone approach will impact Iran's activities in any significant manner.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 2857
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 26 Sep 2017, 10:07 am

Ricky, I think my post on trying to convince NK that we will use military force is necessary no matter what we ultimately decide to do is clear. You have no answer so you try to claim it is convoluted and go back to your MADD strategy...with a madman.

Did you read the story a North Korean defector said that Kim had done to 11 people who made a porn video? In front of thousands of people he had them lashed to the ends of anticraft guns, set off the guns one by one which virtually exploded the bodies, then ran over the bodies with vehicles until there was nothing left.

This is the guy you would allow to have the ability to hit us with ICBMs.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10796
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 26 Sep 2017, 1:25 pm

freeman3
This is the guy you would allow to have the ability to hit us with ICBMs

If it were in my power, I certainly would not allow him ICBMs.
But who has such power?
I hope sanctions work. I suspect they won't.
Threats of military action? Won't work.(Hasn't has it?)
If NK is indeed prepared to, as Putin says, eat grass.... then only military action would stop him
And yet, that military action would unleash the very thing we all wish to avoid. A conflict on the Korean pennisula that would destroy much of SK and NK. And which will probably include the use of nuclear weapons...
What kind of solution is that? Utter destruction in order to avoid utter destruction?
Which means that if NK is determined to preserve itself, rather than risk utter destruction, it will not initiate a conflict.
If it does, then you get utter destruction.
But the only solution that doesn't end in utter destruction, presuming that sanctions won't work .... is relying on NK to want to avoid its destruction by using any weapons it has...
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 1501
Joined: 15 Oct 2002, 9:34 pm

Post 27 Sep 2017, 12:14 pm

Not to disrupt the flow of the current thread but what NK did to this poor Warmbier is horrific. If only half of what is reported about what happened to him is true, the perpetrators deserve the lowest rungs of hell.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20737
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 27 Sep 2017, 12:33 pm

dag hammarsjkold wrote:Not to disrupt the flow of the current thread but what NK did to this poor Warmbier is horrific. If only half of what is reported about what happened to him is true, the perpetrators deserve the lowest rungs of hell.


They tortured and killed him, but hey, that's okay. Let's not make a big deal out of it! After all, we don't want to spook NK into bad actions.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4670
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 29 Sep 2017, 6:29 am

Ricky:
I ask you to consider what level of defense Iran should want or need?
Does it not have the right to retaliate with appropriate weapons if they are attacked ?
Ballistic missiles don't mean nuclear missiles. They mean missiles capable of targeting many miles away. Its what Iraq poured on their defenseless cities for 8 years. Do you think its unreasonable that they should want to be able to retaliate if they are faced with the same onslaught from another enemy in the future?


Do you realize this makes no sense? Countries develop ballistic missiles that can attack 2,000 KMs so they can be launched with nuclear weapons. Per Wikipedia:

Tactical, short- and medium-range missiles are often collectively referred to as tactical and theatre ballistic missiles, respectively. Long- and medium-range ballistic missiles are generally designed to deliver nuclear weapons because their payload is too limited for conventional explosives to be cost-effective


Furthermore, Iraq is now an ally of Iran and Baghdad and is only 200 KMs away from the border and less than 1,000 KM from Tehran.

Iran is developing the ability to deliver nuclear weapons on Israel. They may have slowed their development of the nuclear weapons (by developing them in secret) but they are marching full speed ahead on developing the capacity to deliver them. Just like NK.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4670
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 29 Sep 2017, 7:06 am

Ricky:
And Israel funds and uses .. Jundallah and PJAK. No ones' hands are clean.


I'm not sure they are still doing so, but Israel has done everything they can to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. I wish South Korea was as vigilant.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10796
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 29 Sep 2017, 4:03 pm

RAYJAY
Iran is developing the ability to deliver nuclear weapons on Israel. They may have slowed their development of the nuclear weapons (by developing them in secret) but they are marching full speed ahead on developing the capacity to deliver them. Just like NK.

Actually they've stopped their development of nuclear weapons...
But Israel, has them. And the ability to deliver them on Iran.
Considering how insecure Iran must feel about Israel, the commitment to give up their nuclear weapons development is brave.

RayJay
Countries develop ballistic missiles that can attack 2,000 KMs so they can be launched with nuclear weapons. Per Wikipedia:


Yeah, its a little more complex than that.. Also from Wikipedia
The missiles had ranges from 300 km (190 mi) to up to 2,000 km (1,200 mi)...Iranian experts have made some changes to Shahab-3 missiles installing cluster warheads in them with the capacity to carry 1,400 bombs.With an accuracy of 2,500 m CEP, the Shahab-3 missile is primarily effective against large, soft targets (like cities).

I think that they are Iran's deterrent against Israel or Saudi Arabia launching an attack on them. And I guess they've adjudged thas they don't need them to be nuclear to be an effective deterrent...

And they have a whole range of ballistic missiles .... more here.

Iran has been working on its ballistic missile programme for several decades, using both Soviet and proprietary technology.
In June 2017, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard used some of these missiles to attack ISIL positions in the Syrian province of Deir Az Zor.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/intera ... 51403.html

rayjay
I'm not sure they are still doing so, but Israel has done everything they can to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons

And yet they are almost alone in disapproving of the 5+1 treaty which achieves exactly that.....
Well, them and Trump....
When you agree with Trump, its time to reconsider..
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20737
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 29 Sep 2017, 4:30 pm

Image
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4670
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 01 Oct 2017, 5:00 am

Ricky:
RAYJAY
Iran is developing the ability to deliver nuclear weapons on Israel. They may have slowed their development of the nuclear weapons (by developing them in secret) but they are marching full speed ahead on developing the capacity to deliver them. Just like NK.

Actually they've stopped their development of nuclear weapons...


I've bolded the word "deliver" and the word "develop" to help you understand my point. I keep coming back to NK in this discussion. NK already has nukes. They are focusing on delivery right now which is the issue.

Ricky:
And they have a whole range of ballistic missiles .... more here.

Iran has been working on its ballistic missile programme for several decades, using both Soviet and proprietary technology.
In June 2017, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard used some of these missiles to attack ISIL positions in the Syrian province of Deir Az Zor.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/intera ... 51403.html


Your link makes my point. Their current capability is the yellow circle and they are developing the capability of the blue circle. The first hits Riyadh. The second hits Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, and Haifa.

Ricky:
And yet they are almost alone in disapproving of the 5+1 treaty which achieves exactly that.....


Go back to the link you posted. You'll notice that the other countries are not in the blue circle. BTW, here's a compendium of words uttered by Iranian leaders relating to what you refer to as "deterrent".

Mohammad Khatami, the former president of Iran: “If we abide by real legal laws, we should mobilize the whole Islamic world for a sharp confrontation with the Zionist regime … if we abide by the Koran, all of us should mobilize to kill.” (2000)

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei: “It is the mission of the Islamic Republic of Iran to erase Israel from the map of the region.” (2001)

Yahya Rahim Safavi, the former commander of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps: “With God’s help the time has come for the Zionist regime’s death sentence.” (2008)

Mohammad Hassan Rahimian, Khamenei’s representative to the Moustazafan Foundation: “We have manufactured missiles that allow us, when necessary to replace [sic] Israel in its entirety with a big holocaust.” (2010)

Mohammad Reza Naqdi, the commander of the Basij paramilitary force: “We recommend them [the Zionists] to pack their furniture and return to their countries. And if they insist on staying, they should know that a time while arrive when they will not even have time to pack their suitcases.” (2011)

Khamenei: “The Zionist regime is a cancerous tumor and it will be removed.” (2012)

Ahmad Alamolhoda, a member of the Assembly of Experts: “The destruction of Israel is the idea of the Islamic Revolution in Iran and is one of the pillars of the Iranian Islamic regime. We cannot claim that we have no intention of going to war with Israel.” (2013)

Hojateleslam Alireza Panahian, the advisor to Office of the Supreme Leader in Universities: “The day will come when the Islamic people in the region will destroy Israel and save the world from this Zionist base.” (2013)

Hojatoleslam Ali Shirazi, Khamenei’s representative in the Revolutionary Guard: “The Zionist regime will soon be destroyed, and this generation will be witness to its destruction.” (2013)

Khamenei: “This barbaric, wolflike & infanticidal regime of Israel which spares no crime has no cure but to be annihilated.” (2014)

Hossein Salami, the deputy head of the Revolutionary Guard: “We will chase you [Israelis] house to house and will take revenge for every drop of blood of our martyrs in Palestine, and this is the beginning point of Islamic nations awakening for your defeat.” (2014)

Salami: “Today we are aware of how the Zionist regime is slowly being erased from the world, and indeed, soon, there will be no such thing as the Zionist regime on Planet Earth.” (2014)

Hossein Sheikholeslam, the secretary-general of the Committee for Support for the Palestinian Intifada: “The issue of Israel’s destruction is important, no matter the method. We will obviously implement the strategy of the Imam Khomeini and the Leader [Khamenei] on the issue of destroying the Zionists. The region will not be quiet so long as Israel exists in it …” (2014)

Mohammad Ali Jafari, the commander-in-chief of the Revolutionary Guard: “The Revolutionary Guards will fight to the end of the Zionist regime … We will not rest easy until this epitome of vice is totally deleted from the region’s geopolitics.” (2015)


When they have missiles that can reach another of the 5 plus 1 countrie and have missiles that can target those countries get back to me.