Re: Jakarta: Iran's nuclear program is peaceful and diplomacy can resolve the international stand-off


Paul Saccani wrote:
On 31 May 2006 08:46:06 -0700, "Mr Magoo" <sham@xxxxxxx> wrote:

What do you meant by he knew what he is talking about? He yet to
counter my argument that it still gonna take times to prepare a MRBM
missile for launch (and hence it will give US and Israel ample time to
preempt any attack) especially for those liquid fuel type of missiles
like the Shahab 3 which the Iranian have. Please bare in mind, we are
not talking about lobbing a few Katyusha rockets here.

Are you quite serious here? Did you not read *anything* I wrote?

I asked you quite a few questions on this issue, yet you have chosen
not to address them.

1. I asked you if you consider it is OK for Israel to launch a
pre-emptive strike every time Iran prepares to launch a missile which
might reach Israel, given that Iran actually does this several times a
year.

Yes. If Israel intel has a very good reason to belief that that
preparation is to attack Israel and the attack is inevitable.

2. I asked you to consider how long it takes to prepare such a
mission.

Hehe... Don't tell me the Israel pilots is sitting on their arse on
their desert camp. Last I heard, they have already prepared a mock up
bombing test on Iranian Nuclear site.

BTW, the real detterent the Israel have is via their subs with couple
of nukes station near to Iranian water.

3. I pointed out to you that the current Iranian liquid fuelled
missiles can be stored in a fuelled state, and in any case, are stored
and moved around underground sites, so are difficult to target, and in
any case, give no indication as to their state of readiness. I then
asked you, on the basis of your truthful, yet false assertion that
Israeli submarines are capable of carrying nuclear weapons (they are,
just like Malaysian ones!) if you expected them to launch a nuclear
strike every time the Iranians went to launch such a missile.

Last I heard, the Dolphin class subs (like the one Israel have) got 4 x
650mm tube whereas the Scorpene one only have 533mm tube. As such it is
much more possible that the Israel one is meant for SLCM and bare in
mind, Israel *have* cruise missile like the Popeye which is stupid for
Israel if they have subs but don't intend to put this nukes capable
missile on the boat.

Btw, I don't expect Israel to launch a nuke strike at Iran but the subs
that they have together with their nukes on it surely is a detterent
force for Iran not to act stupidly.

4. You have yet to provide a reasoned response outlining what choices
are available to Israel and the US.

I believed, the option for US and Israel is to work with the
international community to make sure Iran nuclear ambition is within
their NNPT agreement. If the Iranian didn't follow it then probably
they can try to bring this attention to UN security council and action
should be agree among the members.

What I am against is the Israel or US unilateral action which will just
going to destabilise the region.

Beyond that, you have continued to ignore the utterly ridiculous
nature of your assertion that you can simply make a pre-emptive strike
in the time it takes to prepare a missile for launch. Even if it took
four hours, that would not be enough time, even if you knew the
instant that they started, which you won't, because they are
underground. Do you get it, underground! They can be transported
fully fuelled, and the 2000 block Shahab III does not even require a
pre-surveyed site, all you have to do is stop and erect the missile to
launch it.

Arent you been exaggerating the number of Shahab 3 missiles the Iranian
is tought to have?

Strangely, you don't even seem to consider the problems involved in a
pre-emptive strike against a mobile TEL, nor the obvious
countermeasures that the Iranians could use, such as the simultaneous
launch of many missiles, and the use of decoy TEL.

Sure. Any military action have a risk to it and it is entirely possible
that some of the missiles might be launch without been detected.

I am not at all sure why you think that underestimating the magnitude
of the difficulty of a pre-emptive strike against a putative missile
launch by several tens of thousands of times is somehow a good
argument.

(I am aware that Iranian has boosted that they managed to test solid
fuel rocket engine, but if you are smart enough, you should know by now
how Iranian like to exaggerate their success).

This is a classic example of just how wooly headed you can be at
times.

You do not understand the significance of solid fuelled IRBM's.

That significance is DEFENSIVE, not offensive. Using SR IRBM means
that you have more of a chance to launch a counter attack if attacked
by a BM. It in no way enhances the capability to launch a pre-emptive
strike, precisely because of the reasons that you continue to ignore,
that the time involved in preparing a liquid fuelled missile for
launch does not give enough time for a pre-emptive strike.

What are you talking here?

Iran is at the moment probably don't have solid fuel IRBM. As such,
that is my argument why they need times to prepare for missile launch
unlike in the case if they have solid fuel.

Furhermore, if there is ever going to be a nuclear conflict, the
Iranian surely is aware that the Israel nuclear missile on one of their
subs been stationed nearer to Iran is capable to hit their country
first then their missile gonna hit Israel. Do not try to fool us when
it is pretty clear that the one of the subs are meant to be station
near the Persian gulf area. Any pundit will surely bet on that one
lah...

Why you consider ignoring real problems with your hypothesis to be a
valid debating technique is quite beyond me, as to is why you think
silence is an adequate answer to the very germane questions you have
been asked, such as whether or not you consider it would be OK for
Israel to launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike (as you suggest) every
time Iran makes preparations for one of the twenty or so launches they
do every year.

It doesn't necesarily a pre-emptive nuclear strike. A conventional
cruise missile strike against strategic target in Iran can be done *if
and only if* you have a concrete evidence that the Iranian is preparing
a nuclear strike on Iran. By making a unilateral action without a very
concrete proof, you are just making this world a much more dangerous
place for us all.

Just like in the example on Mike question to me. You don't go and kill
your neighbour just because he bought a shotgun and in the past have
made a threat on your family. However, you can if for example, you see
him carrying the gun towards the direction of your house in a hostile
manner and about to shot at you.

Why is it that you start blathering about the USA instead of answering
these questions?

Why can't you admit it when you are shown to be in error?

It isn't hard to do so.
--
Cheers
Paul Saccani
Perth, Western Australia.

.

Relevant Pages