Comments Posted By andy
Displaying 71 To 80 Of 258 Comments
ARE WE DAYS AWAY FROM WAR WITH IRAN?
I don't give much credit to attack rumors this year. The bases in Romania and Bulgaria are not well positioned to support a strike against Iran, particularly with F-16's. At over 1500 miles, the aircraft would require multiple aerial refuelings there and back. We'd also have to cross national boundaries which would require diplomatic approval.
The trouble with attacking Iran will come down to basing and overflight rights. It's unlikely many of the Gulf Arab countries will allow us to use their territory to support a strike for fear of Iranian retaliation. That really limit our options beyond carrier air power, long-range bombers and cruise missile strikes. If basing is a problem, then Bulgaria and Romania may be options if overflight of either Turkey (not likely) or the Caucasus nations could be negotiated. The distance to most of the targets would be about 1/2 of what we flew for the El Dorado Canyon strike against Libya in the 1980's, so it's conceivable. Another problem would be the Russians, who could detect the strike aircraft and warn the Iranians.
Finally, those news reports citing April 6th are not credible. Assuming the US has chosen that particular date, it would be one of the most closely guarded secrets and certainly would not be leaked to foreign media.
Comment Posted By Andy On 24.03.2007 @ 16:06
THE HOUSE UNDER MASSIVE SPAM ATTACK
If you can get IP's from some of the spammers, perhaps you could block them, or have your ISP block known spammer IP's for you.
Comment Posted By Andy On 14.03.2007 @ 13:08
ORBITAL EXPRESS: SERVICE STATION IN SPACE
For military uses, such capabilities would allow reconnaissance satellites to keep station over specific areas of interest and tank up on vital propellant later
That staff writer should be fired. No satellite can "keep station" over a specific area of interest unless it's in geosynchronous or geostationary orbit - and even those are limited to within a couple of degrees of the equator. I would expect a writer for space.com to know, at the very least, the basic fundamentals of orbital dynamics.
I think what he meant to say is that the ability to refuel spacecraft could permit reconnaissance satellites to adjust their orbits to optimize revisit times over certain areas of interest - and that is a cool ability in and of itself.
Comment Posted By Andy On 10.03.2007 @ 19:10
WHAT JOE WILSON'S LIES HAVE WROUGHT
I'm just glad this whole thing is over - for now. Hopefully it will die out soon because, frankly, I'm sick of hearing about it. Libby either lied or he is among the dumbest people on the planet. He'll have two years of appealing until he gets his pardon, then he can make some money on a book deal and retire in the Caribbean.
Comment Posted By Andy On 8.03.2007 @ 16:39
Nikolay,
The debate of exact translations and the context in which Ahmedinijad said is besides the point when you look at the totality of what he's said about Israel: The new Iranian hard-line movement, along with its titular head Ahmadinijad, wants Israel to cease to exist as a state. His solution may or may not including nuking parts of the country, but it's clear from his other writings and speeches that the destruction of Israel, at the very least, as a political entity, is his goal.
Now, I don't subscribe to many of the conspiracy theories about the Iranian President (the 12th Imam "death cult" being the most famous), but he is still a dangerous man.
It's also important to point out, since most blogs and the MSM never bother to, that the office of the Iranian President cannot declare war and does not control the armed forces, nor is it in charge of the nuclear program. Those powers are reserved for the Supreme Leader. So the question becomes, does Ahmadenijad speak for the Iranian hierarchy? Probably not - Iranian internal politics are very factional and even the press has recently reported that Ahmadenijad is not the dictator (in terms of military and political power) that many have made him out to be.
To be fair, Rick is basically suggesting that given the totality of the "relationship" between Israel and Iran, Israel is justified in perceiving Iran as an existential threat and I think his assessment that no leader will allow Israel to be threatened with another holocaust is spot-on. Perhaps Khamenei will not nuke parts of Israel or threaten to, but there are others who might come to power that might. Can Israel gamble on that not happening? I don't know, that's for Israel to decide, but I certainly appreciate the real dilemma Israel is in and I think Rick's post argues that well.
Comment Posted By Andy On 26.02.2007 @ 10:01
Rick,
Interesting and well written post, as usual. I agree with your overall explanation of the dilemma Israel is in but quibble with some of your supporting evidence.
First, a technical correction - uranium enrichment is not a conversion process, but a separation process. So uranium isotopes are not "converted from U-235 to U238" - instead, they are separated from each other. And for the record, enriching natural uranium to reactor-grade fuel (3-5% U235) represents 70-90% of the separative effort required to achieve weapons-grade (HEU) material. I know it sounds crazy, but you can read a good explanation here (scroll down to read comments by Yale): http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/1388/bellows-bearings-and-rotors
Here's the cliff-notes version from the link:
Imagine a bowl with 1,000 ping-pong balls in it. 993 of the balls are green. 7 of the balls are red. The balls are at “0.7% Red Enrichment.(natural uranium)â€
Now imagine reaching in the bowl and pulling out unwanted green balls. You are doing “separative workâ€. You will be leaving the red balls in the bowl.
Remove 840 green balls, a long and tedious job.
Now you have 153 green
balls and 7 red balls.You are now at “4.4% Red Enrichmentâ€
Last step. This time remove only 152 green balls.
This leaves 7 red balls and 1 green ball or an “88% Red Enrichment.â€
So note: It took EIGHT-FIVE percent of the work to go from 0.7% to 4.4%!
2nd point: I think the big problem in the event of an Iranian attack will not be in Iraq, but in the Gulf. Iran will certainly encourage proxies to attack the US forces in Iraq, but the real thrust of Iranian retaliation could be efforts to limit or regulate shipping traffic in the Gulf and strait of Hormuz.
3rd point: I don't think Sunni Arab leaders will be quietly cheering and attack on Iran. They want, most of all, stability, and such an attack would not provide it. Saudi Arabia is particularly vulnerable since it has so much critical petroleum infrastructure on the Gulf in easy reach of Iranian attack. There will also be Iranian accusations that Arab states between Israel and Iran (notably Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Iraq) allowed the Israeli aircraft, tacitly or not, to cross their airspace. Many Arab states encourage a certain amount of anti-American and anti-Israeli activity by the populous, but the outcry from this attack could destabilize Arab governments themselves, particularly those like Saudi and Egypt who are US allies.
4th point: To further complicate the Iraq picture, what if the US gave permission for Israel to pass through Iraqi airspace - the most direct route to most of the targets? Although the US manages the airspace over Iraq, it is still the sovereign territory of Iraq. The Shia-led government would be justifiably pissed and the resulting consequences would likely be severe.
5th point: You're right that Israel and the US will be lumped together if Israel attacks alone. But Israel can't really attack without some tacit approval and coordination from the US. Our intelligence and air surveillance assets would detect Israeli aircraft no matter what route they took. The Israelis would have to coordinate with the US to a certain extent to ensure that we don't shoot their aircraft down due to misunderstanding. This is particularly true as Israeli strike aircraft leave Iran after dropping their bombs. They'll probably be hotly pursued by Iranian aircraft and unless pre-planning took place, our radar operators won't know which blips are Israeli and which are Iranian. If the the aircraft start flying toward a US carrier, well then god help them, because they'll probably be shot down.
Comment Posted By Andy On 25.02.2007 @ 16:54
GOP APOSTATES: DO THEY DESERVE THE HEAVE HO?
Rick,
I'm confused. You start out by saying things like, "Loyalty to party and its leader should outweigh many concerns" and "I fully support the pledge I signed that would deny party funds to those who vote against the surge," and "enforcing party discipline."
Then, after my disappointment in you peaks, you say, "I understand the need for party discipline in this matter. But a representative of the people who either votes to reflect the position of his constituents or out of a duty to his own moral precepts and conscience shouldn’t receive a death sentence. It is not wise politically nor is it right."
So what is it? It's seems the ultimate question is where does an elected representative's loyalties lay? Perhaps we agree first and foremost representatives must represent their constituencies, but I get very perturbed when people start talking about party loyalty and penalizing representatives who don't put the party first. Party loyalty should only go so far and the founders never intended for politics to be dominated by an entrenched two-party system.
I actually support party dictatorial discipline of party members because it will create more independents.
So where to draw the line?
Comment Posted By Andy On 21.02.2007 @ 11:22
Jeff,
We have been for a few years now, although usually Iraqi troops are the ones that actually enter the mosques.
Comment Posted By Andy On 16.02.2007 @ 17:33
Jared,
Relaxed ROE and more "aggressiveness," whatever that means when translated into actual tactics on the ground, is disastrous in a counterinsurgency environment. Insurgents will exploit the relaxed ROE to generate incidents in which we kill a lot of innocents. Our "hands" are "tied" for very good reasons. And you're right, we are a police force and that's why counterinsurgency sucks and why the military isn't particularly good at it.
In short, letting loose the dogs of war and increasing kinetic action on the ground has a visceral appeal and appear to make sense on the face of it, but ultimately it's a losing proposition in this type of urban civil warfare.
Tano,
Most of the blame will attach to Bush - he's the one that pushed for the war and was ultimately responsible for running it. However, in my mind at least, Congress doesn't get away scott free. Where warfare is concerned in the US Constitution, it takes two to tango and Congress has done little but waffle since the AUMF was passed - that goes for both parties. You can already see future candidates are changing their positions based on the political wind - a typical Congressional response.
It's sad to see the legislative branch so cynically corrupt.
Comment Posted By Andy On 15.02.2007 @ 21:37
And I should point out that when I say "end the war" in the above comment, I mean "end major American involvement in the war."
Comment Posted By Andy On 15.02.2007 @ 13:40
