U.S. Studies Military Strike Options on Iran

[Lord Avalon]

Did you guys see this?

Iran declares key nuclear advance.

*cue Civ video*
Ahmadinejad: Our words are backed with nuclear weapons!

Aide: Psst! [Leans over and whispers in his ear]

Ahmadinejad: What? Oh, um (ahem)... Our words will be backed with nuclear weapons! Any day now.


My view is that airstrikes aren't going to do much in the long run. Facilities can be rebuilt. The real key is Iran's scientific and engineering know-how. You'd have to blow up all their nuclear brains and information to really set them back, and how likely is it that all that would be destroyed in one of the facilties?

And even without nukes, isn't it easy enough for Iran to shut down - or at least greatly hamper - shipping in the Persian Gulf, which they would likely do if attacked? And then what's the price of gas?

[KrazyHorse]

So what? They enriched some uranium. Doesn't mean ****, yet.

It's probably not highly enough enriched to go in a bomb, and there is certainly not even close to enough of it...

[Barnabas]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Really?

What was Kennedy willing to do over the mere possibility of missiles in Cuba?

What did Nixon do when the NVA were using Cambodia?

What did Bush I do when Saddam decided to annex Kuwait?

What did a dove like Clinton do when NATO asked him to?

Blowing the hell out of random countries is not part of the American military psyche. Blowing the hell out of anyone that shoots at Americans or their friends is.

What about Kosovo?

Albanian friends?

[GhengisFarb™]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Blowing the hell out of anyone that shoots at Americans or their friends is.

What if America is the one shooting at its friends?

Two words:

Collateral Damage.

[Zkribbler]

Lafayette, we are here. Take this (BLAM) and that (BLAM) and a little of this (BLAM) and some of that (BLAM).

[GePap]

Originally posted by SlowwHand



Do you think the other mideastern countries really relish Iran getting nukes? You think their brotherhood is so binding against Israel that Iran will share, and other countries expect this?

China certainly is against it, and their opinion weighs more than Russia's.

While the Sunni Arab states certainly do not want Iran to get nukes, they can;t support an attack against a fellow Muslim country by the US - the popular outcry at home would be too vast.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Patroklos


Odd, since the whole point of 911 was to KILL CIVILIANS, and for two of the three attacks they killed nothing but civilians and destroyed nothing but non military targets ON PURPOSE.

What is the Pentagon?

[GhengisFarb™]

Originally posted by GePap


What is the Pentagon?

Are we playing Jeopardy?

[GePap]

Just pointing out one of the MANY little flaws in any Pati post....

but anyways....

I have faith in the admin. to screw things and make them worse. They have a good track record there.

[GhengisFarb™]

Shucks.

I'll take "How OTBOT is pissing everyone off for $500, Alex."

[TCO]

Originally posted by Ramo
Not if we support the elected gov't of Iraq. In fact, Sadr's support in their Parliament was instrumental in keeping current PM Jafaari as the UIA's next candidate for PM (and thus the likely PM during said crisis).

SCIRI would probably throw their lot in with Iran in such an event. Although we're more supportive of them than Da'wa for short-sighted reasons (they are supportive of a weak central gov't, so that a Shia Islamist pseudo-state in the South would be able to deny oil revenues to the Sunni Arabs, which we're seeming to support), they have close connections with Iran, and their militia, the Badr Corps, was trained in Iran (and has engaged in abusive actions as SCIRI has come to control the Interior Ministry).

It'd be hard to predict Jaafari and Da'wa's actions in terms of whether they'd take up arms against us, but they certainly would force us to get the hell out of their country.

So you think we should follow a policy of not annoying Sadr?

[TCO]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Eh. We've already heard that Iran is strapping bombs to people's backs and sending them into Iraq (something I think is quite possibly true).

Where's the ridiculously disproportionate response to that?

What does that have to do with a conventional campaign?

[TCO]

Originally posted by MRT144


seems like saddam was doing a damn fine job of stopping the insurgency before we removed him. we removed a plug to sink full of ****.

Saddam's brutal policies were effective in supressing dissent. Case in point.

[Ramo]

So you think we should follow a policy of not annoying Sadr?

Should we or should we not be supporting the elected gov't of Iraq? Because if you don't mind being in an armed conflict with most of their ruling coalition (in addition to the Sunni Arab insurgency), you'll have to tell me exactly what our goals are, and what point there is in staying in Iraq.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by notyoueither Blowing the hell out of random countries is not part of the American military psyche. Blowing the hell out of anyone that shoots at Americans or their friends is.

Explain Lebanon, early 80s? Better yet, the "Liberty" incident.

Sometimes the US lets things go... because it makes more sense that way (ie, don't get bogged down in uneccessary areas... if the Prez is halfway competant).