Do not answer, the following is a rhetorical question: Just out of curiosity, just how reliable do you deem news reports on matters of military intelligence?But, isn't it swell putting government down whenever you can? Cause, the news… now those are facts… one for one… has anybody ever heard of a news reporter being wrong/misleading/just dumb?Since your favorite candidate of the day probably won't be able to hold a nation wide campaign for presidency with any likelihood of success, you've probably considered the plausibility that most of his supporters will eventually be voting for a party responsible for some serious misunderstanding of military intelligence, right? You are also aware of the fact, I'm guessing, that nobody (not even the current Republican President, although some might wonder…) is that stupid… so… you're probably backing a political party (even if indirectly so) that is in the business of manipulating military intelligence reports in order to obtain some other interest… private investments in the oil industry maybe? Would that be too far fetched? Or, friends in the arms industry? Perhaps just their way of leveraging the same fanatics that would have you believe that the sale of semi-automatic arms in supermarkets would promote safety, freedom and the, so called, American way?You know what, just answer this… say international sanctions on Iran are lifted… how long are you willing assume that their development of such weapons will take? Never (cause they've stopped in 2003…)?
Rogel
· 1 year ago
Since this is rhetorical question I'll answer on something else entirely...<div>One of the thing every young officer learn is to take any Intelligence report with a grain of salt. More to the point the responsibility on trying to predict the enemy's move is the commander's and not of his intelligence officer. The reason is that these are assumptions based on SOME information and needed to be handled as such. (As a side note I remember reading how Rabin in his second term as Prime-Minister insist on reading the underline data of the intelligence assessments so he can make his own. ) Therefore I would be very careful making a serious judgment of the Iranian progress in development of nuclear weapon.</div><div>My own observation is that it is almost impossible to prevent a capable and determined country from developing nuclear weapon. Sanctions can be a good tool in some cases, depend on how strong and how motivated the country is. I can't, and I might missed it, any case when international pressure actually prevented a country from developing military nuclear program. The only case I can point to when a country stop developing nuclear weapon is Iraq - and it took a war do "convenience" its leadership. </div><div>In practical terms I think that Nuclear Iran is much more a Russian "problem" (I didn't forget Israel or other countries in the Middle - East) than American, or Western European, since it is in Russia backyard. And yet we didn't see the Russian so terrified from the developments in Iran. I do think that the Russian leadership is not irrational, and in some respect is much more capable than its American counterpart, so I wouldn't attribute its lack of hysteria to incompetence.</div><div>One last remark that We can develop later is that I'm not sure that nuclear Iran is necessarily the next step for WWIII. In the early 70's an Israeli strategist, Aaron Yariv, suggested to develop a strategy that will assume a nuclear Middle East. His suggestion, in short, were to settle the border disputed with the Palestinians and the other Arab Countries and a preparation for a region that his stability is based on nuclear deterrence. I do think that he was much far sighted than the hysteric leadership that choose to continue the conflict, assuming that the status-quo is better for the Israeli interests, and that it can prevent any other country from developing nuclear weapon.</div><div> </div>
Rogel
· 1 year ago
Since this is rhetorical question I'll answer on something else entirely...<div>One of the thing every young officer learn is to take any Intelligence report with a grain of salt. More to the point the responsibility on trying to predict the enemy's move is the commander's and not of his intelligence officer. The reason is that these are assumptions based on SOME information and needed to be handled as such. (As a side note I remember reading how Rabin in his second term as Prime-Minister insist on reading the underline data of the intelligence assessments so he can make his own. ) Therefore I would be very careful making a serious judgment of the Iranian progress in development of nuclear weapon.</div><div>My own observation is that it is almost impossible to prevent a capable and determined country from developing nuclear weapon. Sanctions can be a good tool in some cases, depend on how strong and how motivated the country is. I can't, and I might missed it, any case when international pressure actually prevented a country from developing military nuclear program. The only case I can point to when a country stop developing nuclear weapon is Iraq - and it took a war do "convenience" its leadership. </div><div>In practical terms I think that Nuclear Iran is much more a Russian "problem" (I didn't forget Israel or other countries in the Middle - East) than American, or Western European, since it is in Russia backyard. And yet we didn't see the Russian so terrified from the developments in Iran. I do think that the Russian leadership is not irrational, and in some respect is much more capable than its American counterpart, so I wouldn't attribute its lack of hysteria to incompetence.</div><div>One last remark that We can develop later is that I'm not sure that nuclear Iran is necessarily the next step for WWIII. In the early 70's an Israeli strategist, Aaron Yariv, suggested to develop a strategy that will assume a nuclear Middle East. His suggestion, in short, were to settle the border disputed with the Palestinians and the other Arab Countries and a preparation for a region that his stability is based on nuclear deterrence. I do think that he was much far sighted than the hysteric leadership that choose to continue the conflict, assuming that the status-quo is better for the Israeli interests, and that it can prevent any other country from developing nuclear weapon.</div><div> </div>
Rogel
· 1 year ago
And by the way, The NYT quotes the NIE which is governmental product just the same as the estimate that the Iranian are on the path for nuclear weapon by 2009. I don't hold governments, in general, in high esteem - but I do expect them to do the little they actually should do well.
zoolish
· 1 year ago
Expectations from people you belittle (and that, in fact, was the only real objection of mine to your original post) seem to backfire on you.... I agree with everything else written. See, I knew that rhetorical questions were the way to go with you :)
All Comments
I agree with everything else written. See, I knew that rhetorical questions were the way to go with you :)