Russia And Iran

[The Wrath]

Just wondering how some of you see the relationship of Iran and Russia. To what extent do you think that Russia would intervene if someone decided to attack Iran?

[Unconquered]

Just wondering how some of you see the relationship of Iran and Russia. To what extent do you think that Russia would intervene if someone decided to attack Iran?

They wouldn't. They're acting as paid mercenaries, like the French, and I'm sure don't give a damn about the Iranians per se except as a source of cash. They're willing to be paid to give the Iranians nuclear and missile technology, and I hope it bites them in the butt sooner rather than later - maybe some nukes deployed in Moscow, courtesy of Chechnyan muslims supplied by Iran.

[DavidOdden]

They wouldn't. They're acting as paid mercenaries, like the French, and I'm sure don't give a damn about the Iranians per se except as a source of cash.

I doubt they care about the Iranians, but I bet they care about Iran, if you know what I mean. There would be just 100 miles of Azerbaijan between them and the classic dream of direct access to the Indian Ocean.

[The Wrath]

I only mention it because I can see Russia intervening if Israel decides to go after Iran. I don't necessarily think that it's likely, but I think that if it happened, it would spark WWIII.

[Daedalus]

I only mention it because I can see Russia intervening if Israel decides to go after Iran. I don't necessarily think that it's likely, but I think that if it happened, it would spark WWIII.

It is extremely unlikely. Russia under the Soviets usually backed down from an American show of strength during the Cold War, the Cuban Missile Crisis being the best example. The current regime in Moscow is composed of ex-Reds and conforms in most ways to that pusillanimous mindset. All Bush would have to do is issue a nuclear-tipped threat, and you'd see Putin & Co. beating a fast retreat. Of course, if the Russians didn't back down, Bush would have no choice but to issue a launch order. (Failure to follow through on a threat means loss of face, i.e. losing the power to induce fear in one's enemies in the future.)

But even if things go nuclear, it's hardly what the Doomsday liberals call the End of the World. Sure, the Russians could destroy a few American cities, but we would already have wiped out most of their major population centers -- as well as neutralize their missile forces within a few hours. They would have to cry "uncle" not more than two days from the start of hostilities.

What I'm saying is: we don't have to worry about offending the Russians, the Saudis, the Chinese, the Pakis, the Indians or anyone else. We've got the muscle to enforce our will. Why act like a Helpless Giant?

[Unconquered]

But even if things go nuclear, it's hardly what the Doomsday liberals call the End of the World. Sure, the Russians could destroy a few American cities, but we would already have wiped out most of their major population centers -- as well as neutralize their missile forces within a few hours. They would have to cry "uncle" not more than two days from the start of hostilities.

What I'm saying is: we don't have to worry about offending the Russians, the Saudis, the Chinese, the Pakis, the Indians or anyone else. We've got the muscle to enforce our will. Why act like a Helpless Giant?

You might want to look up Peter Schwartz's old articles in The Intellectual Activist. He makes a well reasoned case that Russian capability in terms of both offensive strike capability, and defensive measures, greatly exceed the U.S. It would not be "just a few American cities", it would likely be all of the major and a lot of the minor ones.

Things like that remind me of an interview I read about once. A veteran captain of an oil tanker was being interviewed about the Exxon Valdez that ran aground and spilled millions of barrels of oil. The reporter asked the captain what he would have done had he been in the situation. His reply: "I wouldn't have been there in the first place." i.e. he wouldn't have been too drunk or stupid to have run it aground.

Unfortunately all too many things in the world today are threats exactly because the U.S. did not nip them in the bud at the right time. After Iran gets nuclear weapons, the situation will only get worse.

[The Wrath]

I don't think Israel will allow Iran to get nukes. Israel has more cajones than the US.

For what it's worth, I do not think that we could win a conventional war with either Russia or China. And I don't think nukes will be an issue, due to mutually assured destruction.

[AisA]

I am surprised you say that we could not win a conventional war against either Russia or China. Could you elaborate?

[The Wrath]

Okay, perhaps we could with Russia.

But not China. First of all, China has more soldiers than we have bullets. Secondly, China has the same culture that Japan had during WWII, where every citizen would take up arms if called upon. We would also not be willing to do what is necessary to win (i.e. kill civilians). China would.

[tommyedison]

Okay, perhaps we could with Russia.

But not China. First of all, China has more soldiers than we have bullets. Secondly, China has the same culture that Japan had during WWII, where every citizen would take up arms if called upon.

1) If you look at the history of China, they have been VERY weak militarily. They lost against the Mongols only the Great Wall of China prevented their complete defeat. They lost against Japanese invasion. Same with Russia.

Russia retreated from Napoleon, it lost the crimean war, it retreated in WWII, etc.

2) If they US stopped trade with China, it's economy would collapse

3) US has much more tech than China.

We would also not be willing to do what is necessary to win (i.e. kill civilians). China would.

That's IMO, the only factor which will result in our defeat if we continue to abide by it.