The Oxford Research Group Releases The Impact and Affects of Military Action Against Iran - Polidicks

[I][B]Israeli Military Strike on Iran Will Lead to a Protracted War and Will Not Solve Nuclear Crisis[/B][/I] [release] The potential for an Israeli military strike on Iran over its nuclear programme has grown sharply, but its consequences would be devastating and would lead to a long war, warns a Paul Rogers in his report [I][B]“Military Action Against Iran: Impact and Effects”[/B][/I].[B]*[/B] The study follows Israeli reports that Syria is manufacturing Iranian M-600 missiles for Hezbollah, the Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu calling Iran “the ultimate terrorist threat” and saying it was a mistake to think Iran’s nuclear ambitions could be contained, and a call from the United Arab Emirates Ambassador in Washington for a military strike on Iran. The report builds on Rogers' report [URL="http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/publications/briefing_papers/iran_consequences_a_war"][B][I]"Iran: Consequences of a War"[/I][/B][/URL] (2006) and analyses recent developments, arguing that Israel is now fully capable of attacking Iran as it has deployed many new systems including US-built long-range strike aircraft and armed drones. [B]The report outlines the likely shape of an Israeli strike, saying it would:[/B] [LIST] [*][highlight]Be focused not only on destroying ‘military real estate’ [/highlight]– nuclear and missile targets - but also would hit factories and research centres, and even university laboratories, in order to do as much damage as possible to the Iranian expertise that underpins the programme. [*]Would not be limited to remote bases but would involve the direct bombing of targets in Tehran. It would probably include attempts to kill those technocrats who manage Iran’s nuclear and missile programmes. [*][B]Be widely viewed across the Middle East as having been undertaken with the knowledge, approval and assistance of the United States, even if carried out solely by Israel.[/B] [/LIST] Professor Rogers says that, “There would be many civilian casualties, both directly among people working on Iran’s nuclear and missile programmes, but also their families as their living quarters were hit, and secretaries, cleaners, labourers and other staff in factories, research stations and university departments.” While much damage would be done to Iran’s nuclear and missile programmes, it would increase Iranian political unity, making the Ahmadinejad regime more stable. Iran would be able to respond in many ways, argues the report, including: [LIST] [*]Withdrawal from the [I]Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)[/I] and immediate action to develop nuclear weapons to deter further attacks. Such work would use deeply-buried facilities that are reported to be under construction. [*] A series of actions aimed at Israel as well as targeting the United States and its western partners including: [/LIST] • missile attacks on Israel; • Closure of the Straits of Hormuz, however brief, would cause a sharp rise in oil prices and be a reminder of Iran’s leverage over Gulf shipping routes. [B]Any sustained price rise would have a potentially catastrophic impact on the global economy.[/B]; • paramilitary and/or missile attacks on western Gulf oil production, processing and transportation facilities; • strong support for paramilitary groups in Iraq and Afghanistan opposing western involvement. Iran might not respond with military action immediately, but its greatest priority would be to move as fast as possible to developing nuclear weapons and long-range missiles. The implications of this for international security are huge, according to Professor Rogers: “An Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities would almost certainly be the beginning of a long-term process of regular Israeli air strikes to further prevent the development of nuclear weapons and medium-range missiles. Iranian responses would also be long-term, ushering in a lengthy war with global as well as regional implications.” The report concludes that “the consequences of a military attack on Iran are so serious that they should not be encouraged in any shape or form. However difficult, other ways must be found to resolve the Iranian nuclear crisis.”[/release] [B]* Note:[/B] Months before the Iraq War in 2003, Oxford Research Group published a report, “[URL="http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/publications/briefing_papers/iraq_consequences_a_war"][B][I]Iraq: Consequences of a War[/I][/B][/URL]”, also by Professor Paul Rogers, that warned of high civilian casualties, the development of an insurgency, increased support for al-Qaida and widespread anti-Americanism, if the war went ahead. Unfortunately, it proved to be correct. Summery of the report [URL="http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/publications/briefing_papers/military_action_against_iran_impact_and_effects"]here[/URL]. Full report [URL="http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/sites/default/files/Iran%20Report_0.pdf"]here[/URL] (PDF). [editline]01:31PM[/editline] Related video: [media]http://youtube.com/watch?v=_qxzZY4JycY[/media] [URL="http://youtube.com/watch?v=_qxzZY4JycY"][/URL]

They needed an entire research group to figure this out? At least it will have backing by a reputable agency. [QUOTE] [B]Be widely viewed across the Middle East as having been undertaken with the knowledge, approval and assistance of the United States, even if carried out solely by Israel.[/B][/QUOTE] And when you think something can't be 100% true.

So invading them is a good thing

[QUOTE=DrBreen;23378359]So invading them is a good thing[/QUOTE] No.

[QUOTE=DrBreen;23378359]So invading them is a good thing[/QUOTE] Invading who, Israel or Iran?

Semi related, but I once read that 5 bigger nukes, or 30 small WW2 ones in the middle east / south Asian region ( near the subtropics ) releases so much soot in the air that it could cause a chain reaction that could completely wipe out the harvest in most of the US and Eurasia due to a cooling of about 5 degrees. Causing the worst starvation in developing countries imagenable. There better be no nuclear exchange in the middle east.

[QUOTE=cheezey;23378701]Semi related, but I once read that 5 bigger nukes, or 30 small WW2 ones in the middle east / south Asian region ( near the subtropics ) releases so much soot in the air that it could cause a chain reaction that could completely wipe out the harvest in most of the US and Eurasia due to a cooling of about 5 degrees. Causing the worst starvation in developing countries imagenable. There better be no nuclear exchange in the middle east.[/QUOTE] That's the biggest bullshit I have ever heard.

[QUOTE=starpluck;23378765]That's the biggest bullshit I have ever heard.[/QUOTE] I`m not sure about it myself but I found the article again. [url]http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/12/061211090729.htm[/url]

[QUOTE=cheezey;23378832]I`m not sure about it myself but I found the article again. [URL]http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/12/061211090729.htm[/URL][/QUOTE] Oh wait my bad. [quote]Semi related, but I once read that 5 bigger nukes, or 30 small WW2 ones in the middle east / south Asian region ( near the subtropics )...[/quote] You said it as if they were just having them around, rather then being dropped there. [editline]04:56PM[/editline] Yeah, it's possible.

[QUOTE=starpluck;23378915]Oh wait my bad. You said it as if they were just having them around, rather then being dropped there. [editline]04:56PM[/editline] Yeah, it's possible.[/QUOTE] You have to be pretty special not to pick up that he meant detonating, and not just keeping around, from that.

[QUOTE=cheezey;23378701]Semi related, but I once read that 5 bigger nukes, or 30 small WW2 ones in the middle east / south Asian region ( near the subtropics ) releases so much soot in the air that it could cause a chain reaction that could completely wipe out the harvest in most of the US and Eurasia due to a cooling of about 5 degrees. Causing the worst starvation in developing countries imagenable. There better be no nuclear exchange in the middle east.[/QUOTE] Well yeah, all that sand, all a fusion bomb will do is toss up so much fallout that we go into a small nuclear winter. Fission bombs would do even worse.

Modern day nukes tend to be pretty clean in terms of fall out, not totally but they aren't that bad, but with all the sand ejected into the atmosphere that could cause issues. And I really don't see why we aren't having words with Iran, we keep slapping em with sanctions and it's not having the desired effect.

Its because we are the one still waving our big dick nukes around and telling everyone else to stop producing theirs.

Honestly it's because america is bum chums with Israel and israel's all scared of big ugly Iran. Iran already said they were willing to swap their weapons grade stuff for reactor fuel man this shit's retarded :sigh:

[QUOTE=bravehat;23379849]Honestly it's because america is bum chums with Israel and israel's all scared of big ugly Iran. Iran already said they were willing to swap their weapons grade stuff for reactor fuel man this shit's retarded :sigh:[/QUOTE] Quite a few Middle Eastern countries are afraid of a nuclear Iran.

[QUOTE=bravehat;23379675]Modern day nukes tend to be pretty clean in terms of fall out, not totally but they aren't that bad, but with all the sand ejected into the atmosphere that could cause issues. And I really don't see why we aren't having words with Iran, we keep slapping em with sanctions and it's not having the desired effect.[/QUOTE] There is only one desired effect of the sanctions. It's not a major trade embargo, if you actually read them. The sanctions only stop businesses or governments from selling Uranium to Iranian businessmen or government officials.

Israel is a sickness that has afflicted America.