Going back on an early one from Coop, for it being the most comprehensive one i can give my counter-arguments to.

That would be a perfect way to further antagonise the Iranian people. Remember that from the mid-1990s on, Iran was very obviously becoming a far less radical fundamentalist country. Unfortunately, some goon whose country got hit by a terrorist attack from Saudi Arabians suddenly named Iran as one of three countries (Iran, Iraq, North Korea) which should be held responsible for that terrorist attack. Result: the Iranian voters look at their ballot, and elect the candidate who shows the biggest finger to that very same goon.

Somehow, GWB’s diplomacy with a saw-off barrel might work for the home crowd, the rest of the world responds rather different. A bit more restraint from the US in dealing with Iran might very well have prevented Ahmedinejad getting elected.

Yes. You already made that choice when you signed up. It’s not that the US military is an organisation ment for territorial defence. At best it’s an organisation ment to defend US econo-political interests, but i can think of a few descriptions with the word ‘defence’ replaced by something more agressive.

Your assumption.

MAJOR assumption. Or have you held a poll in Iran?

What about having two not entirely stable neighbours having nukes? What about having a not-so-friendly nation, known for it’s aggressive posture, having military facilities on your doorstep? What about millions of religious rivals (Sunni muslems rather than Shia ones) in the neighbourhood?
There are literally dozens of perfectly valid reasons why Iran would want nukes. Not the least of which is that post-WW2 the West has really only taken nuclear powers completely serious on a diplomatic level. The USSR, China and India proved that becoming a nuclear power increased their diplomatic standing tremendously. I’m sure a proud nation like Iran wants that status symbol.

No you can’t, although i don’t think it’s likely either.

True, neither Europe nor Russia nor China are all too keen on a nuclear-armed Iran. But that’s the b!tch of proliferation for you, and it’s been a while since Pandora’s box has been opened. But i’m pretty sure Europe’s reservations are born for a large part out of post-9/11 Islamophobia, and for an equally large part out of general concern about proliferation. Europe wasn’t too happy about Israel, India and Pakistan joining the nuclear club either.

MASSIVE assumption on your behalf. One i personally find as far fetched as the nearest quasar.

Yeah, the Lebanese surely threatened to invade Israel in 1982, right?

Definately true, Ahmedinejad’s ramblings definately have struck a few already overly-tight-strung Israeli nerves (give those people some valium, btw). Fortunately, the role of the president in Iran is far from being a truely powerful person like it is in France or the US. Ahmedinejad is not the center of power in Iran – the role of the Persian president is more comparable to that of his colleagues in Germany or Israel.

There is your assumption again. The fact that you fear something doesn’t make it true, or even likely. I guess you haven’t learned from the ‘missing’ Iraqi WMD’s? On a sidenote, i am willing to claim my prize in our bet from a few years back as downing a case of beers together (you pay), i’ll let you pass on the suicide 😉

Coop, you said you’re having a course in targeting at this moment. Is countervalue targeting part of a future curriculum? It most definately still is a major part of any country’s, and particularly the US’, nuclear doctrine. Civilian targets are targets. Period.

Thinking countries want nuclear weapons in order to use them is a very big misconception, if you ask me. Like any other country (except the one which actually used nuclear weapons, and appearantly learned a bit from that), Iran wants nuclear weapons only to have a bigger d!ck to put on the negotiating table. You’re not kidding me into thinking that for one reason or another, Iranians are going to commit suicide-by-proxy by actually using their nuclear weapons. Of course not.

The second assurance is a fair one, and quite a solid reason for Iran to get nuclear weapons. Especially now one of it’s major self-declared enemies (there is that Axis of Evil-speech again) sits on it’s doorstep. The ‘convenient access to nukes for terrorist organisations’ is nothing but ill-thought paranoia on your behalf.

The dikes were bombed, but water levels weren’t high enough. Repeated bombings were vetoed though.

:dev2: :diablo: :p

Looks like democracy ain’t workin too hot in the M.E.

-The insurgent U.S. State Department sings democracy and talks down to just about every nation in the M.E. ( a really great way to win friends… :rolleyes: ) Irans a threat because of this or that (note they haven’t started any wars of aggression ) Syria is a threat because of this or that …. we talk down to them saying they should seal off their border along Iraq better…. ( seems like we could first practice what we preach along our Mexican border :rolleyes: ) Egypt should do this, Jordan should do that,…. Saudi should …etc…etc… etc… We push for free elections. Then the Palestinians have them. Glory be. And we don’t like the results (hypocritical to the max… you can have democracy in the M.E. but only if we like the results :rolleyes: ) Then we don’t like the results of the election and then Israel cuts off roads in and out of the place…. holds back money owed to the government. All this ruins businesses there and then we wonder why they are all upset? Of course we will always back Israel. Israel has a right to self defense. I think that is OK. However, fairness seems to be lacking. Don’t expect us to solve it. Our own insurgents here: Some jewish and some christians who blindly back Israel policy no matter what, lobby our congress. Woe be it to anyone who gets in the way.

Good piece here on how powerful the Israeli lobby effort is:
( a long but good read )
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html

A piece here on how the people that wrote it, got demonized in the U.S. press for speaking the truth.

http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_06_19/article1.html

So if you are expecting the U.S. to help out and do anything even handed…. good luck. So, the latest ant hill kicked over happened because Israel and us didn’t like the results of a free election. So we in fact hurt everyone there by ruining what business people have, en masse. I don’t like Hamas. But right now I see professional democrats and professional republicans as more of a threat to my well being, than some punk hamas group on the other side of the planet that can’t hurt me. And certainly won’t hurt me if we kept our nose out of everyones business.

Be interesting to see how it refuels. A there-and-back trip out of Diego or Guam could use a bit more than a 5,000 mile range. Our list of allies to help us on our next big adventure/ “threat” presented by Microsoft Powellpoint 2003 seems to get shorter. Diego and Guam might be it at the rate we are going. I would rather see the above working hand in hand with a super jumbo of some kind as an arsenal ship, both firing off long range hyperonic shapes of the kind that was tested off of the NASA B-52 a few years back.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sauron
This article dosn’t contain much in the way of solid information about the F-35 but enough it seems to have turned ELP into a Super Bug fan.

Seems to me we heard very similar issues about the F-22.

Sauron

Quite right, here is the Departments rebuff of the story

Quote:
JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER IS NOT ‘FLAWED’

Defence strongly disagrees with media reporting today that the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program is ‘flawed’ and should be abandoned. This reporting, following on from a newspaper article today, misrepresents the true status of the JSF program.

The original media report draws on excerpts from two risk assessments in 2005 by Australia’s Defence Science and Technology Organisation (DSTO), which identified possible risks with aspects of the JSF program at that time. Contrary to media reporting that the DSTO assessments showed the JSF program to be flawed, these assessments are a good example of best practice project management to identify risk and to take early steps to reduce or eliminate it.

In relation to the JSF cockpit display, an alternative technology has been identified as having reached a stage of maturity where it can now be incorporated – resulting in only one element of the display system needing change. This means that the cockpit display issue identified by DSTO in 2005 has been overcome and is no longer of concern.

In terms of the risk report relating to computing and software, there is no doubt the JSF will be heavily reliant on massive computing power and a lot of software – which is exactly why the JSF will be more capable than any other fighter aircraft.

As a result of DSTO’s risk assessments in 2005, the following actions have been taken:

§ A DSTO specialist has been posted to the US for fulltime monitoring of JSF computing and software development;

§ Lockheed Martin is providing excellent support with information on computing and software development; and

§ DSTO is acquiring specialised computer hardware in order for Australia to undertake our own further assessments of performance in the JSF program.

Lockheed Martin itself has risk mitigation strategies in place to provide additional computing capacity if required.

One of the key benefits Australia derives from being a partner in the JSF project is obtaining detailed inside knowledge on the development of the aircraft and the consequent ability to assess any potential issues first hand. This enables Defence to accurately understand the maturity of the JSF’s development and its potential as a highly capable military platform. Defence has full confidence that the stealthy, fifth-generation, multi-role JSF will mature on time to provide Australia’s future air combat capability in the most effective way.

By the time the Australian Government decides whether to acquire the JSF, this aircraft will have been subject to more detailed technical analysis than any other Defence project in Australia’s history. This ongoing detailed technical analysis is appropriate to the importance and level of investment in the project.

Media contact:

Defence Media Liaison (02) 6265 3343 or 0408 498 664

And after all that, it is yet to test fly. Still very high risk. We can make massive blunders and limp away. Australia making that kind of a play could be interesting if there are even more snags ( it was supposed to first test fly in 2005 ) that slipped. The 2006 schedule also slipped a few months. It is going to be an interesting hat trick with all the software that has to work. And there are still a lot of things with it that the F-22 hasn’t “proven” as some will point out.

Basing a whole purchasing plan…. which Australia is doing for most of it’s NCW weapons, for something like this, at this time is a huge huge risk. A mixed bag of conventional aircraft and F-22 is a much safer play.

RAAF and JSF has the potential to suck the life out of other defense programs if it falls on it’s face with performance that isn’t up to the customers standards. RAAF is still facing a potential gap if any more risk shows up in JSF. A gap where they will have to retire some of their existing capability and wait with no capability. One has to at least consider, that RAAF and JSF needs a solid backup plan in place if Aussie politicos see any JSF problems start to grow out of the risk comfort zone.

That was fun reading. 😀 , The F-111 becomes a huge problem now as it’s strike ability becomes operational_planning_high_risk if it gets into an adverse exposure event to a big SU.

Yeah Sauron, not that I like the platforms flying performance, but if it was unmolested because the F-22 was doing it’s job, the F-18E/F has excellent sensors and weapons to control a lot of littoral space to the north. Given that it will be an NCW setup with the Wedgetail, UAVs, and one must assume smart tankers with NCW relay nodes. Add to that an Aussie F-18E/F could be setup well as interoperability/logistics support for teamwork with the USN.

What the F-22 offers Australia is putting the air space in question, all on their own terms. That with it’s tanker support provides a final verdict. Where it also benefits in any joint ops with the USAF. Pretty much a contingency lock down on anything south of the equator in that region.

Just goes to prove, if you bomb someones towns long enough, eventually they will play ball with you. Have we put those bridges back in place over the Danube that we dropped in ’99? Or payed off all the businesses ( not all Serbian btw ) that went bankrupt from those bridges being dropped? How about some of their other infastructure that was destroyed? But I guess they need F-16s right away. :rolleyes:

Bush has decided that democracies who refuse to sign the NPT and secretly build, test and maintain nuclear weapons will be exempt from the laws. (India and our recent great deal for us giving away nuke tech for mangoes…) :rolleyes: ..Nations we do not entirely trust, like Pakistan, get no help. Nations we detest, like Iran, face sanctions and preventive wars. Including the bit where Iran, which signed the NPT and has allowed IAEA inspections of all known nuclear facilities… gets treated badly. So again our, moronic, insurgent, terrorist enabling U.S. State Department, along with our moronic administration, has gone for yet another stupid play. India says there can be inspections, but not of any of the weapons facilities. :rolleyes: So based on that inconsistentcy, we expect Iran to take this whole process seriously, without falling out of their chairs laughing?

More interesting is the kind and quality of hornets nest we could kick over by doing something dumb like bombing Iran. Of course hawks in Israel will push for a bombing too if they can and our moron hawks will agree with them. It’s good for Israel so it must be a good idea. Funny how we talked with the Soviet Union and the Chicoms in the cold war and lots and lots of nukes were involved in that period, yet refuse to talk to Iran on anything that makes sense. I think you would find, or any REAL professional diplomat would find, that Iran and U.S. have a lot of common goals if they were to use their head. Iran doesn’t have much use for taliban and AQ. But no, we will keep rattling sabres. Real, real dumb. Oil at $200 a barrel will be real fun.

Our idiodic congress is whinning about how we got in to the Iraq war, yet they were too lazy to counter an incompetent administration. Thing is they have even more work to do now. They SHOULD be talking about whether dumb dumb has any authority to push us in to yet another war, in this case Iran, …. without any kind of declaration of war. Our schools don’t teach much about the constitution. Plenty about any other topic, but not the important ones. We have an ineffective administration and an ineffective congress, sporting a comical lack of useful diplomacy… and they have oversight on the most powerful weapons systems on the planet. Pretty hard to paint a happy face on that.