›
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Betting pool: IRAN

Dr. TimoDr. Timo
edited January 2012 in Politics
So how long until the war starts? Years, Months, Weeks?

I'm in the Months camp. Especially if there are voting irregularities that need attention to be diverted away from.

Am I cynical? Sure. Is it late and I have cabin fever due to being stuck inside with a cold for a week? Also true. Despite the toung in cheek setup, though, the subject is serious; what are your prognostications for when and possibly what is going to happen (I assume everybody pretty much agrees that the US is in a state of undeclared war with Iran right now so you can take that as a given).
Post edited by Dr. Timo on
«13

Comments

  • AprecheApreche
    I vote never. It's been worse, and it's been better, and it hasn't happened yet. Why would this time be any different?
  • CremlianCremlian
    Well we keep rescuing Iranian ships and they keep being slightly douche-baggy about it. Usually when you do things like rescue the other guys civilians you hope the other side warms up a bit to you. That's at least what video game diplomacy as taught me :-p
  • AxelAxel
    Well we keep rescuing Iranian ships and they keep being slightly douche-baggy about it. Usually when you do things like rescue the other guys civilians you hope the other side warms up a bit to you. That's at least what video game diplomacy as taught me :-p
    No, we didn't give them cotton. How stupid, you always give them gifts first!

  • ShiamShiam
    I vote months to years at the absolute earliest. I see this as being mostly the same as with N Korea last year, it's mostly posturing by a state that cant afford to look weak. It seems highly unlikely that the US goes to war with Iran without either major aggression by Iran or a major 3rd party incident.
  • AndrewAndrew
    Within the year. If we don't start it, Israel will.
    I vote never. It's been worse, and it's been better, and it hasn't happened yet. Why would this time be any different?
    Iran is at worst, within a year or two of having enough fissionable material for a nuke. That takes away Israel's theater dominance and forces them to address the Palestinian problem.

  • AprecheApreche
    Within the year. If we don't start it, Israel will.
    I vote never. It's been worse, and it's been better, and it hasn't happened yet. Why would this time be any different?
    Iran is at worst, within a year or two of having enough fissionable material for a nuke. That takes away Israel's theater dominance and forces them to address the Palestinian problem.

    Even if a nuke is one or two years away, they also need a way to deliver it. Even if they already have a way to deliver it, it has to work! If they test it first, then how long before they have enough material for another one? And if it doesn't work, then they have to test again. Maybe they try to test by actually using it for reals. In that case, clearly the entire rest of the world will descend and smack everyone down.
  • Dr. TimoDr. Timo
    Why now? Well when the pentagon requests funds to upgrade their largest non-nuke bomb citing concerns over Irans nuclear facilities' fortifications...

    That's a bit more than sabre rattling if that passes.
  • Anthony HemanAnthony Heman
    My tinfoil hat theory will be that Iran will be the stage for testing a new kind of warfare that's supposed to be cheaper, more efficient, and more effective. It will hinge on using technology for propaganda and information warfare almost exclusively to break down the system. At some point Iran will go completely dark to the world for just a short amount of time, and while we will have a great deal of information about the general events going on in the country - there will be something incredibly important that will be completely wiped from any recorded history. Maybe it will be Ahmadinejad's death, or something more subtle... but either way this will feed conspiracy theorists for generations. Also dinosaur-riding desert-men will conquer spain.
  • AndrewAndrew
    Even if a nuke is one or two years away, they also need a way to deliver it. Even if they already have a way to deliver it, it has to work! If they test it first, then how long before they have enough material for another one? And if it doesn't work, then they have to test again. Maybe they try to test by actually using it for reals. In that case, clearly the entire rest of the world will descend and smack everyone down.
    You know that it's possible to test missiles with similar weight and dynamic properties as one with a nuclear warhead, right? Besides, Iran already has a large fleet of ballistic missiles.



    Again, despite what you have been led to believe, Ahmadinejad is not a madman. Their goal is not to nuke Tel Aviv the minute they get the nuke. They want to use it as a way to secure their sovereignty. It's exactly the case with North Korea. The reason we don't do shit with N.K. is because of their nuclear capabilities.
  • AprecheApreche
    You know that it's possible to test missiles with similar weight and dynamic properties as one with a nuclear warhead, right? Besides, Iran already has a large fleet of ballistic missiles.
    You have to test the warhead. Can you imagine if they launched a nuke, it landed, and didn't go off? Great idea for an Armageddon/Outbreak style blockbuster movie! You can have the panic and the evacutation. Then the big star actor can go in and defuse that shit. In reality it would be robots doing all the work by remote, a lot less dramatic.
  • johndisjohndis
    Iran will only be a threat if we have OBUNGLER in office messing things up! Gingrich 2012!!!
  • ShiamShiam
    Also dinosaur-riding desert-men will conquer spain.
    The Moors Strike Back?
    I'm kinda with Scott on the nuke thing. I'd like to think that our leaders aren't so foolish as to immediately declare war when Iran has the bomb. I think it will take more than just that to start something.
  • AndrewAndrew
    You have to test the warhead. Can you imagine if they launched a nuke, it landed, and didn't go off? Great idea for an Armageddon/Outbreak style blockbuster movie! You can have the panic and the evacutation. Then the big star actor can go in and defuse that shit. In reality it would be robots doing all the work by remote, a lot less dramatic.
    Right, so even a small, one kiloton test ala North Korea 2006 will be enough to prove capability and achieve theater parity. Such a test could happen within a year. When that happens, Iran becomes un-attackable.

  • AmpAmp
    Most likely nothing will happen for a couple of years. There will be large amounts of posturing and saber rattling but very little action. If Iran was going to have a rebellion it would have done so in the last there was political strife. If there was conflict then it would be under trumped up pretenses and with rather flimsy justification.
  • Anthony HemanAnthony Heman
    edited January 2012
    Also dinosaur-riding desert-men will conquer spain.
    The Moors Strike Back?
    This is why we must elect Newt so that he can construct his moon-base and create a fully operational battle-station. It's step one. Then a lone Iranian fighter-pilot will blow up the moon.
    Post edited by Anthony Heman on
  • AndrewAndrew
    Most likely nothing will happen for a couple of years. There will be large amounts of posturing and saber rattling but very little action. If Iran was going to have a rebellion it would have done so in the last there was political strife. If there was conflict then it would be under trumped up pretenses and with rather flimsy justification.
    What does a rebellion have have anything to do with it?

  • AmpAmp
    If there is a rebellion or a large enough popular movement it could serve as justification for an intervention. Having said that we only need to look at Syria to see that this might not be the case. I would argue that there is more chance of war in Iran if there is an internal source as opposed to an external one.
  • AndrewAndrew
    If there is a rebellion or a large enough popular movement it could serve as justification for an intervention.
    Or you know, a nuclear weapons program... Just look at the Israeli strategic bombing strikes against Iraq and Syria.

  • AmpAmp
    Im in two minds over the idea of war being declared over a nuclear weapons program. It would be a contributing factor however I don't feel that it would be the sole reason.
  • AndrewAndrew
    Im in two minds over the idea of war being declared over a nuclear weapons program. It would be a contributing factor however I don't feel that it would be the sole reason.
    Oh, you mean something like massive oil fields that Iran could then manage any way they like because their sovereignty is secured by nuclear weapons? What a thought...

  • AmpAmp
    So you believe that the sole reason for war to erupt in a relatively strong nation purely due to their nuclear program?
  • Linkigi(Link-ee-jee)Linkigi(Link-ee-jee)
    edited January 2012
    The oil fields are a good point, but I'm of the feeling that war is unlikely, just because most countries are going to be really really cautious about it.

    If a war happens, it will likely involve us being dragged into the war with Israel, after a bad diplomatic incident with them and Iran. I'm not going to bet because the timing for that kind of spark is nigh-impossible to predict.
    So you believe that the sole reason for war to erupt in a relatively strong nation purely due to their nuclear program?
    Not in a general case, but the concern over Israel launching a pre-emptive strike to destroy an Iranian nuclear program is fairly well-founded.
    Post edited by Linkigi(Link-ee-jee) on
  • AmpAmp
    Thats my point it would be a combination of factors rather than one. I don't think countries will be able to go to war with as such flimsy justification as before. What is more likely would be something that we saw in Libya is countries backing an opposition faction.
  • AndrewAndrew
    Unlike the 2003 Iraq invasion, there is a very real and credible threat of an Iranian weapons program. There is nothing "flimsy" about it. Why do you think these Iranian scientists keep magically blowing up?
  • AmpAmp
    edited January 2012
    If they have nuclear weapons and are obviously planning on using them why then have they not been invaded? If invasion was justified by nuclear threat then it smacks of world police.
    Post edited by Amp on
  • AndrewAndrew
    There are a couple of reasons. First of all, a ground invasion would be extremely costly and would see massive casualties on both sides. More likely, the Israel (and by proxy the United States) will utilize their extreme air superiority to target Iran's nuclear facilities.

    Now, Iran has a couple options. They could mine the Straits of Hormuz and stop oil flow for several weeks from Saudi Arabia. Another option would be to launch ballistic missile strikes against Saudi Arabia's oil production facilities, causing massive economic damage. Either way, the price is extremely high, thus the reason why the U.S. is trying to delay such an action through the use of economic sanctions.
  • Linkigi(Link-ee-jee)Linkigi(Link-ee-jee)
    If they have nuclear weapons and are obviously planning on using them why then have they not been invaded? If invasion was justified by nuclear threat then it smacks of world police.
    They don't have nuclear weapons. Yet.
    Also, it's not so much "World Police" as "Israel panics and ruins fucking everything."
  • AmpAmp
    There are a couple of reasons. First of all, a ground invasion would be extremely costly and would see massive casualties on both sides. More likely, the Israel (and by proxy the United States) will utilize their extreme air superiority to target Iran's nuclear facilities.
    So the only reason that there should be intervention is due to its potential nuclear threat as opposed to its questionable system of government. This still smaks of world police. It is the equivalent of a child taking a toy away form a child.
    They don't have nuclear weapons. Yet.
    Also, it's not so much "World Police" as "Israel panics and ruins fucking everything."
    So why are we not trying to untwist Israelis knickers rather than start to gear up for the next fun trip to the middle east.
  • AndrewAndrew
    Look I never said anything about what should happen. Humans are stupid and love war. I'm talking about what will more than likely happen.
  • RymRym
    Israel will engage in air strikes, not us. The rest of the Arab world won't back Iran if they escalate from that.
Sign In or Register to comment.