Outside Topic Way OT: Ukraine - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Outside Topic Way OT: Ukraine (/thread-23071.html)

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - BostonCard - 06-17-2025

I don’t think Israel is deluded into thinking that a secular democracy will arise from the ashes of the current Iranian regime.  I think they would be happy enough to see a secular dictatorship.  I think they view an Egypt-like Iran as an acceptable as far as Israel is concerned.  That would suck for the Iranian people, but Israel would be ok with it, as long as the secular dictatorship isn’t hell-bent on its destruction.

BC

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 06-17-2025

People generally don't like being bombed. Even if they hate their government, nationalism is a very potent thing. No matter who is governing Iran, it will not be friendly to any country that started or joined an unprovoked bombing campaign against them.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 06-18-2025

(06-17-2025, 09:11 PM)dabigv13 Wrote:  Establishing an airbase in western Iran sounds like something that would require a lot of troops on the ground.

That is the reason I bring it up. If Israel now intends to expand and maintain its air superiority over essentially all of Iran it is going to be very difficult to accomplish (IMO impossible) operating solely from bases in Israel. It is just too far away. The litany of problems involved in attempting it is very long. While tankers are one part of the problem, aircraft maintenance is ultimately the killer. Pilot fatigue is also a big problem. Flying those 5000 km missions into eastern Iran are not "airline pilot" miles. It is a war zone and the stress is always there. The pilots return to base drained and exhausted even if nothing "out of the ordinary" happens during their mission. The IAF isn't all that large, and many of the pilots are reservists. They are needed at their "day jobs" too.
 
The duration of this air war is also going to become an issue. Most air forces can surge their sortie generation rates for a few days, maybe a week best case. After that, the rate has to drop. The longer the war goes on the less you have "in the tank". I don't see much evidence that Israel had a plan for a long air war. While they have had great success (probably beyond their wildest dreams), Iran is still there and still shooting. Since Israel is also involved in a ground war in Gaza, their troop assets are limited. Building an air base that can support F-16s and F-35s is not a simple task. It would make the most sense to use an Iranian one, but that puts you in contact with Iran on the ground. There is lots of territory out there, but not so much Iran can't organize a massed infantry attack. The air base won't be tenable for very long but may be necessary to continue bombing the rest of the country. The "end game" is going to start pinching very soon, if it isn't already. 

Quote:I do imagine a lot of the tankers we are sending to the ME would be used by Israel as well especially if we join in the bombing.

That would help a lot, but there are all kinds of logistics problems in using US tankers to refuel Israeli aircraft. The main one is that we would have to repeatedly violate the airspace of Syria and Iraq (at a minimum) to do it. Normally the US doesn't do that. We respect other nations airspace even when we would much prefer not to do so. A "one off" to meet an "emergency situation" can probably be explained to the affected country. They may not like it, but they can probably tolerate it. Blatant and repeated long duration violations cannot. It will have consequences. There are also operational issues. While Israel is a close ally of the US, they are not NATO. Israel also has some communications systems that intentionally differ from US systems. It can be made to work, but it isn't "ideal". If we lose a tanker due to friendly fire or a midair there will be hell to pay domestically. I don't think we will offer our tankers to this mission.
 
I am guessing that the only mission that "makes sense" and is low risk enough for the administration to participate is a B-2 attack on Iranian underground nuclear facilities. While US carrier aircraft would be a solution to reaching eastern Iran from reasonable ranges I really doubt the administration would tolerate the risk. The US Navy will follow orders but they won't like it. The Persian Gulf and nearby waters are too confining. It also cannot be argued such involvement has anything to do with Iran's nuclear program. Of course, the administration may not agree.

---

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/06/18/30000-pound-bomb-iran-nuclear-program.html Another point of view:

Quote:“And then you would never be precisely sure how much of the facility you’ve damaged,” he added, meaning personnel may need to be deployed on the ground. 
“This leads me to believe that for those facilities, Israel will ultimately gain control of the air and then land forces on the ground, force their way into the facility by detonating the doors, and then go and place explosive charges, exfiltrate whatever intelligence they can get, and just detonate it from the inside,” Des Roches told CNBC.

The "force their way into" part could be a challenge. I am sure the place is defended.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - TrumpCard - 06-18-2025

(06-17-2025, 09:24 PM)dabigv13 Wrote:  People generally don't like being bombed. Even if they hate their government, nationalism is a very potent thing. No matter who is governing Iran, it will not be friendly to any country that started or joined an unprovoked bombing campaign against them.

Unprovoked.  LOL.

---

(06-17-2025, 09:20 PM)BostonCard Wrote:  I don’t think Israel is deluded into thinking that a secular democracy will arise from the ashes of the current Iranian regime.  I think they would be happy enough to see a secular dictatorship.  I think they view an Egypt-like Iran as an acceptable as far as Israel is concerned.  That would suck for the Iranian people, but Israel would be ok with it, as long as the secular dictatorship isn’t hell-bent on its destruction.

BC

How would you characterize the current government in Syria?  Is a similar outcome among the possible outcomes in Iran?

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Mudhead - 06-18-2025

(06-17-2025, 09:24 PM)dabigv13 Wrote:  People generally don't like being bombed. Even if they hate their government, nationalism is a very potent thing. No matter who is governing Iran, it will not be friendly to any country that started or joined an unprovoked bombing campaign against them.

“Unprovoked? “. What can you do beyond (1) announcing your intention to destroy them (2) killing hundreds of their soldiers (3) spawning terrorist organizations to kill civilians and (4) providing arms, technology and training to Putin so he can kill your allies.    If that’s not provocation, I hate to think what is.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 06-18-2025

Yes, unprovoked. Did Iran launch a bunch of airstrikes against Israel or the US recently that I missed?

This is a might makes right war. Israel was relatively strong, Iran relatively weak, and Netanyahu took the chance. These are clear violations of the UN charter, as there was no self defense against an ongoing or imminent attack.

The cynical, realpolitik view is that might has always made right, and Israel assuredly sees this as self defense. But if Iran was stronger than Israel and decided to launch an unprovoked regime change attack on Israel, because it knew Israel wanted to destroy their government, would that be just or moral? Obviously they would have been correct to have that concern!

Syria is relatively stable now. But if you want to use that analogy, you should start in 2011. The Syrian Civil War resulted in ~650k deaths, half of which were civilians, and ~6.6 million refugees. Syria had a population of ~23 million in 2011. Iran has about 4 times as many people, ~92 million.

I just think it's a very dangerous game to be playing. It may be a net positive for Israel, but is it good for the US to get involved in a regime change war in Iran? Does Israel or the US have a plan beyond bombing Iran and hoping it all turns out ok? The bombing campaigns that opened the second war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan went great too. We were still there for 8 years in Iraq, 20 years in Afghanistan, and focusing only on US casualties, had ~7500 deaths and 50+k wounded. I really hope this time is different, but I'm not sure why I should expect that it will be.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - M T - 06-18-2025

Be careful about politics in this thread, please. 
Take a breath…

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 06-18-2025

War is political. BC, a mod, has a post on this thread from this morning. 

I'm more than happy to stop talking about the Iran-Israel conflict and keeping this thread focused on Ukraine. Obviously lots of strong feelings about Iran and Israel.

But if we can only talk about things we all agree on (kal sucks, Dana Delany>Uma Thurman), well how useful or informative is that? Whatever the mods decide, I am fine with.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 06-18-2025

(06-18-2025, 01:34 PM)dabigv13 Wrote:  Yes, unprovoked. Did Iran launch a bunch of airstrikes against Israel or the US recently that I missed?

The missiles fired by Hamas and Hezbollah and the Houthis were built in and provided by Iran. The choice of weapons  is not significant. That said, probably everyone on this thread has their own analysis of who is right and wrong in this disaster, but that is not something we can litigate on the Cardboard. This thread is about Ukraine. While I (obviously) feel the discussion  of Israel and Iran is interesting and somewhat related to Ukraine, I don't want to see this thread shut down because of the Terry rule. We must IMO stay away from the discussion of who is "right" in this war.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - TrumpCard - 06-18-2025

(06-18-2025, 01:34 PM)dabigv13 Wrote:  Syria is relatively stable now. But if you want to use that analogy, you should start in 2011. The Syrian Civil War resulted in ~650k deaths, half of which were civilians, and ~6.6 million refugees. Syria had a population of ~23 million in 2011. Iran has about 4 times as many people, ~92 million.

Sorry for my lack of clarity and for my flippancy.  Obviously, the 14 year path to get to this end state was a catastrophe of epic proportions.  And I don't really think Iran is at high risk of the type of ethnic conflict we saw in Syria because, in Iran, the Persian people have constituted the majority and have held all the levers of power for centuries.

I was just talking about the end state in Syria, where the political conflict appears to have stabilized and the country does not appear to be an immediate threat to its neighbors.  I am not sure how I would even characterize the current type of the government in Syria right now, nor am I sure whether I would want that type of government in Iran.  I'm literally only talking about Iran hopefully replicating the lower threat of violence that we see emanating from Syria these days.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 06-18-2025

I didn't think you were being flippant or unclear FWIW, and if the eventual outcome for the government in Iran is something like the government in Syria, that would be a major advance for the people of Iran and the stability of the region IMHO.

My point was simply that the road to get there may be long and bloody. And yes there are many important differences between Syria and Iran. That being said, Iran is a pretty diverse country. There are Kurds for instance just like in Syria, and I have read that some Kurdish separatist groups have been in contact with Israel already.

Per below, 9% of the population speak Kurdish, 14% speak Azerbaijani. Per below, about half of Iranians speak a language other than Persian at home or in informal public settings.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Iran

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - BostonCard - 06-18-2025

(06-18-2025, 12:14 PM)TrumpCard Wrote:  

(06-17-2025, 09:20 PM)BostonCard Wrote:  I don’t think Israel is deluded into thinking that a secular democracy will arise from the ashes of the current Iranian regime.  I think they would be happy enough to see a secular dictatorship.  I think they view an Egypt-like Iran as an acceptable as far as Israel is concerned.  That would suck for the Iranian people, but Israel would be ok with it, as long as the secular dictatorship isn’t hell-bent on its destruction.

BC

How would you characterize the current government in Syria?  Is a similar outcome among the possible outcomes in Iran?

Not that my opinion is worth much, but too soon to tell on current government in Syria; can't be any worse than the miserably low bar set by the Assad regime.

I don't think a similar outcome is possible among the outcomes in Iran because the new government in Syria is Sunni with historical ties (severed about 10 years ago) to Al Qaida, while Iran is an overwhelmingly Shia country.  It is TBD how much the new government in Syria shed its religious ties; if it becomes technocratic, secular or multi-religious (regardless of how liberal/democratic it is), but if it can then... maybe?  I know too little about Iran to be able to prognosticate what will happen there if the current government falls or what the likelihood of the current government falling would be.  But I think Israel is optimistic that it can come to a "live and let live" accord with that whatever emerges.

BC

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - BostonCard - 06-18-2025

On the other issue that arose in this thread earlier, yes it is difficult to separate politics from a thread about war, and generally this thread has been ring-fenced from the Terry rule.  That being said, the more things stray from the Ukraine war specifically, the more things get into inherently contentious political decisions as opposed to the strategic and tactical discussion of the war, and, especially, the more the thread devolves into a back and forth on difficult issues the higher the chance that someone will decide that the benefits of the thread are outweighed by its downsides.  I especially want to encourage people to avoid sarcasm or rhetorical devices that deride other people (especially) or their arguments.  Please treat positions you disagree with the same respect as positions you support, and take on the people making the arguments in good faith.

BC

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 06-19-2025

https://thebulletin.org/2025/06/the-united-states-may-destroy-the-fordow-enrichment-plant-it-wont-make-the-iranian-nuclear-threat-go-away/

IMO worth reading. The article states that destroying Fordow is necessary but not sufficient. That statement definitely adds to the onus upon Israel to do exactly that. It becomes even less credible to declare victory if even the Union of Concerned Scientists believes doing so is necessary. The fact it is not "sufficient" revolves around the fact that as long as Iran believes it should pursue nuclear weapons, it will. One day it may succeed. That brings regime change into the mix as necessary, as the current regime clearly will not abandon that goal under any circumstances. They have already made it clear that is the case. Temporarily backing away won't be credible. What a mess.

The Iranian strike that hit a hospital in southern Israel also stirs the pot. It is entirely possible it wasn't intentional. The genealogy of Iranian missiles back to Soviet FROGs has never stressed accuracy as a requirement. That said, it does have the potential to increase the support of the Israeli public (even more) for Israel's efforts. IMO Israel is already at maximum effort. Such strikes won't produce anything "new" from Israel.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - TrumpCard - 06-19-2025

It’s for sure a mess. As the article notes, there was no certainty under any scenario. To me, the article reinforces the near universal truth that life is messy and that decisions are rarely perfect. The biggest problem in this situation is that the stakes are so high.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 06-19-2025

One truly amazing "fact" (according to Israel) is that they STILL have suffered NO aircraft losses. This is amazing on many levels. It is even more amazing that it continues. During both Gulf Wars the US lost some aircraft. The vast majority of losses in the second Gulf War were losses due to operations, not enemy action. They also took place over a much longer intervals. Even at Pearl Harbor Japan suffered non-trivial losses. Iran shouldn't have been surprised. They may not be able to detect, let alone engage inbound F-35s, but one would think they would be flying what little they have and blind luck should have led to some success.
 
That said, Israel may have successfully avoided what little Iran had available. Israel also apparently did not expose F-16s or F-15s to high threat environments from radar-guided SAMs. By now however one would think Iran could have positioned a Tor in the area Israel thinks it has sanitized. That should lead to at least one kill, unless the Iranians simply are so disorganized they can't do even that. The Iraqis did the equivalent in the first Gulf war. It should be possible. Of course, no such actions will change the course of the war, but it is still IMO amazing it hasn't happened.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - M T - 06-19-2025

I had missed this announcement, in response to the IAEA censure of Iran for not keeping with agreements, and apparently hours before Israel first struck Iran
(AP)

Quote:Speaking to Iranian state television after the U.N. agency’s vote, the spokesman for the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran said that his agency immediately informed the IAEA of actions Tehran would take.
“One is the launch of a third secure site” for enrichment, spokesman Behrouz Kamalvandi said. He did not elaborate on the location, but the organization’s chief, Mohammad Eslami, later described the site as “already built, prepared, and located in a secure and invulnerable place.”

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - TrumpCard - 06-19-2025

(06-19-2025, 10:32 AM)M T Wrote:  I had missed this announcement, in response to the IAEA censure of Iran for not keeping with agreements, and apparently hours before Israel first struck Iran
(AP)

Quote:Speaking to Iranian state television after the U.N. agency’s vote, the spokesman for the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran said that his agency immediately informed the IAEA of actions Tehran would take.
“One is the launch of a third secure site” for enrichment, spokesman Behrouz Kamalvandi said. He did not elaborate on the location, but the organization’s chief, Mohammad Eslami, later described the site as “already built, prepared, and located in a secure and invulnerable place.”

Reminds me of this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMz7JBRbmNo

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 06-19-2025

Today Trump said he will decide in two weeks whether to join militarily. It seems he may have some concerns about whether US conventional bombs could destroy Fordow. I am not an engineer or physicist, but it does seem like even the strongest conventional weapons could have trouble with it- it's not like one leaves a big tunnel for the next one- there will be a crater but the rock and earth does not vaporize, subsequent bombs still need to get through that material. Maybe with enough bombs you can get deep enough but it would seem to me to be a matter of diminishing returns, and the US has a somewhat limited number of these weapons from what I have read. Possibly the shock waves could collapse the underground tunnels, but can you be certain?

Some reporting on this-

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jun/19/trump-caution-on-iran-strike-linked-to-doubts-over-bunker-buster-bomb-officials-say

Quote:Donald Trump has suggested to defense officials it would make sense for the US to launch strikes against Iran only if the so-called “bunker buster” bomb was guaranteed to destroy the critical uranium enrichment facility at Fordow, according to people familiar with the deliberations.

Trump was told that dropping the GBU-57s, a 13.6-tonne (30,000lb) bomb would effectively eliminate Fordow but he does not appear to be fully convinced, the people said, and has held off authorizing strikes as he also awaits the possibility that the threat of US involvement would lead Iran to talks.
.......
The effectiveness of GBU-57s has been a topic of deep contention at the Pentagon since the start of Trump’s term, according to two defense officials who were briefed that perhaps only a tactical nuclear weapon could be capable of destroying Fordow because of how deeply it is buried.

Trump is not considering using a tactical nuclear weapon on Fordow and the possibility was not briefed by defense secretary Pete Hegseth and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff Gen Dan Caine in meetings in the White House situation room, two people familiar with the matter said.

But the defense officials who received the briefing were told that using conventional bombs, even as part of a wider strike package of several GBU-57s, would not penetrate deep enough underground and that it would only do enough damage to collapse tunnels and bury it under rubble.

Those in the briefing heard that completely destroying Fordow, which Israeli intelligence estimates to go down as far as 300ft (90 metres), would require the US to soften the ground with conventional bombs and then ultimately drop a tactical nuclear bomb from a B2 bomber to wipe out the entire facility, a scenario Trump is not considering.

The assessments were made by the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA), a component of the defense department that tested the GBU-57, as it reviewed the limitations of US military ordinance against a number of underground facilities.

An interesring thread on the above article, taking issue with the description of a "tactical nuclear weapon". The expected bomb to be used would likely be a B61 with a yield of 300-400 kt (compare to 15 and 21 for Hiroshima and Nagasaki). They only go 3m below ground before exploding, unlike the conventional MOP (est 60m), and thus there would be a lot fallout, similar to a ground level nuclear explosion.

Quote:I say this because people often wrongly refer to "low-yield bunker busters" that don't exist. EPWs are high-yield weapons that produce significant fallout capable of killing tens of thousands of people. References to "tactical" nuclear weapons may reinforce that misperception.

https://x.com/ArmsControlWonk/status/1935741526191100181
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/19/opinion/america-iran-war-nuclear.html

Quote:Bombing Fordo — and whatever might come after — might not set back Iran’s enrichment efforts by nearly as long. There are hundreds or more likely thousands of scientists and technicians employed in Iran’s enrichment program. Israel’s killing of leading scientists is intended to set back this effort, but Iran could almost certainly reconstitute its program within 10 or 15 years, even if the United States and Israel succeeded in destroying Fordo and Iran’s stockpiles of enriched uranium and centrifuge components.

And military action is unlikely to be so definitive. Destroying Fordo is relatively easy compared with destroying the cylinders in which highly enriched uranium is typically stored. These cylinders are roughly the same size and shape as scuba tanks. Before the attack in Iran, most of them were thought to be stored underground at Isfahan, where they were regularly inspected. They may well survive attack, if they are still there. It is possible Iran has already moved them, in which case, tracking them will be exceptionally difficult.
.....
There is a clear double standard here. In the United States and particularly on Capitol Hill, diplomatic agreements are scrutinized. The weaknesses that inevitably result from compromise are highlighted, debated and assessed — and rightly so. But as America’s decisions to go to war in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq attest, military options are routinely held to a much lower standard. That’s a very dangerous pattern, especially because serious questions about the effectiveness of a U.S. attack on Iran abound.

How long could it take Iran to reconstitute its program? If Iran rebuilds, is the United States prepared to attack again? And again? Given that Iran could hide new facilities or bury them more deeply than Fordo, would future attacks have any chance of success? Could a U.S. attack push Iran to make the political decision to build a nuclear weapon? If the Iranian regime collapses as a result of a U.S. attack — as some advocates of military action want — is there any guarantee that a new government will abandon the country’s long-held nuclear ambitions?

Diplomacy and military action deserve to be judged by the same standard. Neither can guarantee that Iran will never obtain the bomb. But even at this late stage, Iran has indicated a willingness to negotiate. Given its current weakness, Mr. Trump really might be able to secure a better deal than the previous one.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - TrumpCard - 06-19-2025

Certainly, there have been times in U.S. military history when the U.S. had an opportunity to negotiate a decent exit from a conflict, but instead choose to fight, resulting in a worse end state along with more bloodshed along the way.  That is definitely a risk of continuing the fight against Iran.  I can imagine that the U.S. and Israel might never have more leverage to get a good deal than they have now.  Of course, the opposite also could be true.  This really is a difficult crossroads without an easy answer.  I don't envy the decisionmakers.

---